66. Alex Rosenberg | Intentionality, Evolution

Alex Rosenberg is the R. Taylor Cole Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. His research focuses on the philosophy of biology and science more generally, mind, and economics.

00:00 - Introduction
01:47 - Scientism
05:16 - Naturalism
08:08 - Methodological or substantive?
09:40 - Eliminativism about intentionality
11:50 - Moorean shift
13:28 - Arguments against eliminativism
21:19 - Papineau on intentionality
25:43 - Consciousness
29:29 - Companions in guilt
31:30 - Fodor and natural selection
37:26 - No selection for?
38:16 - Properties
39:21 - Selection for/against
40:34 - Selection for long necks in giraffes
42:26 - Speaking with the vulgar?
44:26 - Selection against as intensional
47:12 - Function and selection for
49:11 - Skepticism
50:59 - Example
52:06 - Mereological nihilism
53:23 - Value of philosophy
55:22 - Nihilism?
1:00:03 - Conclusion

Music: PaulFromPayroll - High Rise

[jakez]

This is a fantastic high level discussion. I've been interested in Rosenberg's work for years, and you asked the questions I always wanted to hear him address.

[richards]

Yes, it certainly is a great interview. Wonderful to be able to listen to some more of Alex Rosenberg's views. Thanks very much to the host for this. There's much more they could have talked about. Hope Rosenberg is on again.

[dmitrymcgiddeon]

Great interview! Is there anywhere I can find his "How to be an Eliminativist" paper?

[joshuabrecka]

Thanks! I am just getting interested in teleosemantics, so this is helpful. Duke has a great department for this area (although rip Neander).

[woohoo]

I take a drink every time Alex says “uhm”

[lesterroberts]

R, Alex what arguments did the referees give you? which argument gives u the most doubt against 'selection against'?

[davethebrahman]

Would ‘Scientismer’ be a suitable noun?

[dharmadefender]

Alex Rosenberg might be the worst philosopher on Planet Earth. But then again, we have William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. And Daniel Dennett.

I should make a list of pseudophilosophers.

[vonsydov]

If natural selection only works when there's selection against, then you've really cut down the space of things you're going to explain with darwin in biology. Natural selection, for what it purports, must explain the origin of differences in biology, not just that there is broad fitness of organisms and that organisms can adapt to changes. Explanation of origin during evolutionary time is what's needed. Unfortunately, insisting on darwinist mechanisms, only demonstrates a lack of imagination. Come up with alternative mechanistic explanations that are not darwinian and show counterfactual support for darwin. Then and only then will darwin win.
Hell, even religions have denominations these days. Darwin's church is certainly much more backward than modern religions in this sense, maybe it's because it's a recently created one :)