poem 1653 A thought experiment in moral game theory. Suppose our naturalistic causal knowledge Of the world is perfect and complete, but only This, the causal knowns and nothing more; hence, we aren’t Omniscient, we can still learn. Suppose our task is To learn the game of chess (or football, whatever). Given our exhaustive causal understanding Of the brain, the board, the chess pieces (the football, The field) and all the forces acting on them, would This causal knowledge – alone – teach the knower how To play the game? Would the knowledge of related Atomic states suffice to make our causal fact Monger a master of the match? Or the barest Of beginners, no grasp of strategy, tactics, Not even a concept of what it means to win? What if there is more than one kind of knowledge? What If they’re mutually incommensurable? What if the way we learn a game is completely Unlike the way we learn about the structure of The natural universe? What if some things can’t Be explained causally but aren’t, therefore, woo-woo Supernatural? What if the way we learn and Attribute moral responsibility is Like that? Does the game of chess disappear under Causal scrutiny into non-empirical Vapors? Is the game of chess therefore reserved for The gods? Surely there is a distinction between The mistake of a neophyte and the wrong of A cheater. What atomic substructure yields that?
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:19:08 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015