tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post587410929010852218..comments2023-12-20T19:30:28.788-05:00Comments on Fixing Psychology: Beyond the Brain: Embodied MindsEric Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-89087995903990003982011-09-29T10:31:46.136-04:002011-09-29T10:31:46.136-04:00"Truth is a separate issue"
Agreed, but..."Truth is a separate issue"<br /><br />Agreed, but I didn't address it. I said that implicit in a claim to "know P" is the claim "P is true". As you suggest, whether it actually is "true" (in whatever sense one prefers) depends on unstated factors.<br /><br />I prefer the (quite unpopular) version that says "truth" is the result of discussion Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-58894533419869666892011-09-29T04:06:57.506-04:002011-09-29T04:06:57.506-04:00Truth is a separate issue; my brain has plenty of ...Truth is a separate issue; my brain has plenty of incorrect things lurking in it too. I'm just suggesting that your argument against Clark's 'reliable access' criterion for extended cognition isn't as clear as you suggested; having the iPhone is necessary, but not sufficient, you still need the ability to retrieve the information.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-50443715512904318682011-09-28T19:55:24.402-04:002011-09-28T19:55:24.402-04:00Super quick note: I was surprised to learn, not to...Super quick note: I was surprised to learn, not to long ago, that cognition used to be synonymous with knowing. That is, cognition did not 'require' knowing, it was 'knowing.' <br /><br />Nowadays, philosophers have warped questions of 'knowledge' to cover a weirdly redistricted range of topics. Thus, the overlap is unclear.Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-50060167069622993422011-09-28T14:19:41.696-04:002011-09-28T14:19:41.696-04:00Note: in my examples, both "entries" wer...Note: in my examples, both "entries" were intended to be from wiki. My point wasn't to question the general credibility of wiki but to emphasize that credibility does become an issue for controversial questions. Ie, more is required to "know" than retrievability.Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-41871679388660867222011-09-28T14:12:16.843-04:002011-09-28T14:12:16.843-04:00Eric -
I'm actually with you and Barrett on t...Eric -<br /><br />I'm actually with you and Barrett on thoughts and actions. Saying that it is an "open question" was my way of hedging. Also, don't infer Davidson's position based on what I say. He seems a bit vague on the issue in the essays I'm reading (perhaps he was hedging as well). They date to the '80s, so his later position may have been different or at Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-64456285203105377062011-09-28T03:29:15.973-04:002011-09-28T03:29:15.973-04:00And if access alone is sufficient for extended cog...<i>And if access alone is sufficient for extended cognition (ie, no "knowledge" ala Sellars required), it seems that anyone with a handheld device that provides access to the Internet has almost everything currently known to humankind in "extended memory" - a seemingly unreasonable conclusion.</i><br />Access is more than having the device. Google's key insight into the Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-19592019290643654202011-09-27T21:34:12.501-04:002011-09-27T21:34:12.501-04:00Charles,
Stay tuned for the action-oriented POV! I...Charles,<br />Stay tuned for the action-oriented POV! It might not be exactly what your looking for, but that is the direction the next post is going in. <br /><br />As for the cricket, recall that in an earlier post I suggested that psychologists should not be allowed to use the word "discrimination" without also saying the behavior that discriminated (http://Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-83636742801407111992011-09-27T18:42:48.090-04:002011-09-27T18:42:48.090-04:00Eric -
A very timely post for me given my current...Eric -<br /><br />A very timely post for me given my current pursuits, specifically some Davidson essays collected under the title "Sub-, Inter-, Ob-jectivity" (SIO). SIO has been as helpful as anything I've encountered in trying to get a grip on "mind". But I too keep wondering if the use of that term couldn't be eliminated with no loss, perhaps a gain, in net clarityCharles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-74121326563772989022011-09-27T11:50:29.113-04:002011-09-27T11:50:29.113-04:00My copy just arrived and I'm going to start it...My copy just arrived and I'm going to start it tonight. Based on this, I'm going to like what I read :)<br /><br />Barrett's use of 'embodiment' to replace 'mind' or 'computation' seems bang on; she sounds like she actually has the interesting bit about embodiment the right way round, unlike <a href="http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2010/08/Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.com