Patrick Grim

This paper surveys our inescapable limits as cognitive agents with regard to a full world of fact: the well-known metamathematical limits of axiomatic systems, limitations of explanation that doom a principle of sufficient reason, limitations of expression across all possible languages, and a simple but powerful argument regarding the limits of conceivability. In ways demonstrable even from within our limits, the full world of fact is inescapably beyond us. Here we propose that there must nonetheless be a totality of fact, and that despite our limits we can know something of its general character. The world as the totality of fact must form a plenum, with a radically unfamiliar formal structure that contains distinct elements corresponding to each element of its own power set.

Let us sum up. The paradox of the Knower poses a direct and formal challenge to the coherence of common notions of knowledge and truth. We've considered a number of ways one might try to meet that challenge: propositional views of truth and knowledge, redundancy or operator views, and appeal to hierarchy of various sorts. Mere appeal to propositions or operators, however, seems to be inadequate to the task of the Knower, at least if unsupplemented by an auxiliary recourse to hierarchy. But the cost of hierarchy appears to be an abandonment of any notion of all truth or of omniscience. What the contradictions of the Knower seem to demand, then, is at least an abandonment of these. As noted in the introduction, the argument is complicated enough that one must be wary of dogmatic and precipitate conclusions. One may legitimately wonder whether some new response, or some variation on an old one, will yet offer a way out.Far too often, however, it is asked what has gone wrong with paradox rather than what paradox may have to teach us. What the Knower may have to teach us, I think, is that there really can be no coherent notion of all truth and really can be no coherent notion of omniscience. In its own way that conclusion is perhaps as humbling as is any traditional notion of God.

Debates concerning the nature of mind and consciousness are active and ongoing, with implications for philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence and the neurosciences. This book collects interviews with some of the foremost philosophers of mind, focusing on open questions, promising projects, and their own intellectual histories. The result is a rich glimpse of the contemporary debate through some of the people who make it what it is. Interviews with Lynne Rudder Baker, David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Fred Dretske, Owen Flanagan, Samuel Guttenplan, Valerie Gray Hardcastle, John Heil, Terence Horgan, Douglas Hofstadter, Frank Jackson, Jaegwon Kim, William Lycan, Alva No , Hilary Putnam, David Rosenthal, John Searle, Steven Stich, Galen Strawson, Michael Tye.

Since the sixties, computational modeling has become increasingly important in both the physical and the social sciences, particularly in physics, theoretical biology, sociology, and economics. Sine the eighties, philosophers too have begun to apply computational modeling to questions in logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of biology, ethics, and social and political philosophy. This chapter analyzes a selection of interesting examples in some of those areas.

A version of this paper was presented at the IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence, combined meeting of ICNN, FUZZ-IEEE, and ICEC, Orlando, June-July, 1994, and an earlier form of the result is to appear as "The Undecidability of the Spatialized Prisoner's Dilemma" in Theory and Decision . An interactive form of the paper, in which figures are called up as evolving arrays of cellular automata, is available on DOS disk as Research Report #94-04i . An expanded version appears as chapter 6 of The Philosophical Computer.

Eliseo Vivas's intellectual life started at the political left and within the tradition of American naturalism, and has ended up somewhere to the political right and with some form of anti-naturalism. Vivas also started "with a great deal of cocksure confidence about his knowledge of the ills of society and the nature of the universe" and ended up recognizing that "he knew very little besides the fact that he did not know, because genuine knowledge about these matters does not exist". This book, written in the form of a biography of one Alonzo Quijano, is an intimate intellectual memoir of the changes in political attitude and philosophical conviction that went between. A flirtation with communism in the thirties and various political squabbles within academia are presented as stages on life's way, and serve as background for freely rambling discussions of naturalism, liberalism, the origin of man, ethical and aesthetic values, ultimate mysteries, and the nature and limits of philosophy.

R l purtill has claimed that the ontological argument that plantinga presents in "the nature of necessity" is basically the same as that offered in hartshorne's "the logic of perfection" and that it falls victim to the same criticisms. i argue that plantinga's ontological argument is different enough "not" to fall victim to purtill's criticisms. what makes plantinga's argument different, however, also makes it vulnerable to a different criticism: the god of plantinga's conclusion is not a being greater than which none can be conceived