--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > --snip-- > > > > While I do not have time to enter the fray here at the moment, > > I did notice this thread about 'Mind and Cosmos' which I have > > *not* read but which seemingly brings up once again the 'hard > > problem of consciousness'. > > Well, sorta. The focus isn't so much on what consciousness > is in an experiential sense, but rather on how it got there. > (Nagel covered the experiential > > > I do not think hard problem will go away philosophically or > > experimentally. > > Not if science continues to be stuck in a reductionist > mode of understanding it. Once scientists start listening > to the philosophers, however, there may be some progress. > > I suspect some here (not necessarily you, Xeno, given > that you're named for a philosopher) don't have a very > good idea of what philosophy is or how it can contribute > to science and to everyday life generally. I think they > may have an image of elderly men sitting around > daydreaming and occasionally uttering abstract thoughts > that have no relevance except to their daydreams. > > Actually, philosophy is a *discipline*, a very stringent > one, that involves, among other things, learning how to > think constructively. Epistemology is an important concern > of philosophy; so are logic, aesthetics, ethics, and > metaphysics (a lot of the stuff we talk about here all the > time, not always that constructively). > > Wikipedia's short definition: > > "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, > such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, > values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is > distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by > its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance > on rational argument." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy > > Philosophy is very important in the study of consciousness > because consciousness can be studied empirically only > around the edges, as it were. You can't study (what Robin > would call) first-person ontology *in situ*--at least not > anybody *else's* first-person ontology. > > (snip) > > I came across some web pages discussing Nagel's book: > > I actually gave Seraphita the URL for an annotated list > by Feser of this whole series of posts: > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html > > (Actually there's a total of ten posts, so four are missing > from your list.) Feser is generally supportive of Nagel's > thesis, although he has a few minor nits to pick. > > A similarly minded philosopher, Bill Vallicella, also has > a series of posts on "Mind and Cosmos": > > http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/nagel-thomas/ > > > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-i.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/nagel-and-his-critics-part-ii.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iii.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/nagel-and-his-critics-part-iv.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-v.html > > http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/12/nagel-and-his-critics-part-vi.html > > > > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html > > This one (just above) is by an intelligent design advocate, > on a blog sponsored by the Discovery Institute. No surprise > that this writer would approve of Nagel. > > > http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/
Thanks for mentioning Feser made 10 posts and the link. I only found 6 on a cursory search as I only had a few spare minutes this morning and had to dash off doing whatever it is I do (taking a morning nap on a park bench?).
