Brief blog break and a couple requests

I’m about to run off for one last weekend with friends in another city before flying off to Korea. Therefore I’ll be taking a brief blog break from now until whenever I get sufficiently un-jet lagged/settled enough to actually have spare time. Probably sometime next week. Until then, a couple things.

First, consider this a thread to ask me questions about whatever, especially things you’d like to see covered in future posts. No promises to actually answer them–there are questions from the last thread like this at my old blog that I’ve been meaning to get around to answering but haven’t yet–but it could inspire some interesting posts.

Also, I am very thankful to Zachary Kroger for designing the current blog banner, but now that I’ve got a somewhat larger readership here, I’d like to put out another call for a banner design and see what people come up with. It needs to be 728×120 (just like the current one.) No specific requests, but there are lots of great banners around FTB, and you can look at them for ideas. E-mail submissions to challquist (at) gmail (dot) com.

P.S. does doing what I just did to avoid spam actually work? I’d assume the e-mail collecting bots have gotten wise to it, but I don’t really know. Thank Google for their spam filter.

  • http://aigbusted.blogspot.com Ryan

    I’d like to see you write something about your views of consciousness and the human mind. I understand you side with David Chalmers on that issue, so I’d like to hear what you have to say about it and why you think his view is right.

    • http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com Blue Devil Knight

      Ugh, really: Hallq is a dualist?

      • Gemini

        I think Chalmers’ arguments are sometimes unfairly dismissed due to their superficial resemblance to arguments for supernatural dualism. Keep in mind, though, that Chalmers is not arguing that intelligence can exist independent of the brain.

        • http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com Blue Devil Knight

          If hallq thinks there exist good arguments to be a dualist (substance or property) I’d enjoy that discussion.

          • Gemini

            That’s a good request. I’d like to see him address the current arguments among theists for substance dualism. It’s one of the key features of their belief system, but it seems that they often try to gloss over it, without acknowledging how dubious it is.

          • http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com Blue Devil Knight

            Substance dualism is pretty easy to kill, property dualism would be a more interesting discussion to me. Like attacking Gish versus Behe: both wrong, but one is almost too easy to refute.

          • http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/ One Brow

            Genuine question, based on ignorance.

            Is a property dualist commited to any sort of supernatural component to the non-material propeties? Of, is proerty dualism a parallel to supervenience, where the properties are dependent on the underlyhing physical structures?

            For example, if I see a couple of sticks lying on the ground, touching at right angles with one stick bisected, I have no objection to identifying that configuration as a “cross”, even if there is no apparent intent to place them that way, and I’m not sure why “shaped like a cross” could not be a rpoperty of the relationship between the two sticks. Does property dualism entail more than that?

  • Annatar

    I’ve been listening to the Bradley/Craig debate, and, not having any formal philosophical education, I’m a bit lost on some things they are saying. Perhaps a kind of mini-review of that? Luke has one, but it’s really just an overview, and doesn’t delve into the nitty-gritty.

  • http://stateofmyignorance.blogspot.com/ Zachary Kroger

    Sweet, thanks for the shout out!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X