tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post1832362786428962190..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Computers and questionsAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81254091064291486762009-03-23T13:33:00.000-05:002009-03-23T13:33:00.000-05:00Quine thinks the same applies to any interlocutor....Quine thinks the same applies to any interlocutor. But I think someone with a non-naturalistic theory of mind can block the same move by supposing that it is at least moderately probable that the same kinds of assertions as made by you and as made by me typically have the same kinds of causes, and then arguing that the typical causes of assertions are beliefs, which on a non-naturalistic view maybe do not need any further interpreting... Still, working this story out isn't going to be easy for anyone. However, settling the computer case is easier because we actually have a handle on what all the ingredients in a computer story are--pieces of electronic machinery and bits of software. In a non-naturalistic story about the mind, we don't have such a handle on the ingredients.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86563178480454888792009-03-23T13:12:00.000-05:002009-03-23T13:12:00.000-05:00I quickly read this post (my way of giving myself ...I quickly read this post (my way of giving myself wiggle worm in case what follows is absolutely ridiculous): very interesting. Is there a way to block someone from making the same moves you do and applying them to any interlocutor? That is, how do we avoid saying the same thing about anything we pose questions to?davidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00148184547700976788noreply@blogger.com