, , , , , , , , , , ,

View to the Seminary: from the inside.  Collegeville USA, May 2013.

“… one of the most striking characteristics of thought is intentionality, ABSOLUTENESS. We can think about things of all sorts, some far removed from us: ancient Sparta, the big bang, the angel Gabriel, logical theorems, moral principles, possible worlds, impossible states of affairs, God himself, and much else. Is it really possible that this ability has come about (starting from bacteria, say) just be way of this unguided process [Derrett’s dangerous idea of Darwin]? …

“… But assume (contrary to fact, as I see it) that this is in fact possible in the broadly logical sense. If so, is it also BIOLOGICALLY possible? Biologically possible is a vexed notion. Shall we say that a state of affairs is biologically possible if it is compatible with the biological laws? Or with the conjunction of biological law together with some earlier total state of affairs? But ARE there specifically biological laws–that is, biological laws in additions to the laws of physics and chemistry? Or should we instead think (with Dawkins) of biological possibility as simply a matter of less than astronomical improbability? So that is is biologically possible that mind arise from pure incogitative matter if those possible worlds in which it DOES so arrise occupy a not-too-negligible volume of logical space? Or if a large enough space is occupied by those worlds in which mind arises from purely incogitative matter and and which are like the actual world up to some time T at which there are no minds?”

– Alvin Plantigna, WHERE CONFLICT REALLY LIES, 2011