--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> Thanks for seeking it out.

I didn't "seek it out," actually. It was in the NYTimes
yesterday, which I read daily.

> > The Core of `Mind and Cosmos'By THOMAS NAGEL
> > <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/thomas-nagel/>
> > This is a brief statement of positions defended more fully in my book
> > "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
> > Nature Is Almost Certainly False," which was published by Oxford
> > University Press last year. Since then the book has attracted a good
> > deal of critical attention, which is not surprising, given the
> > entrenchment of the world view that it attacks. It seemed useful to
> > offer a short summary of the central argument.
> > Read
> > more:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-an\
> > d-cosmos/
> > <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-co\
> > smos/>
> So it's *that* old chestnut. I can't imagine what the controversy
> is about then, this idea has been around for donkey's years.
> Probably just some bloggers reacting to the term "neo-Darwinism"
> being false. Bless 'em.

No, actually (as I already told you) a bunch of Big Guns
in the field of philosophy; their reviews have been
published in scholarly journals and important publications
like Commonweal, the New Republic, The Nation, and the New
York Review of Books, among others. (Some bloggers too, of

You make some interesting comments, but I'll have to get
back to you later on those. Just wanted to make those two
quick points for now.

> I always thought that if mind was some sort of intrinsic quality
> of the universe there ought to be a lot more of it about, and maybe
> of better quality than ours. Fact is, it took millions of years
> to arise on Earth and it needn't have so I can't imagine what sort
> of waiting game it was playing.
> I stick with probability A, there will be a complete neurological
> explanation but how we translate that into something that satisfies
> *personally* is up to us. I suspect some sort of feedback mechanism
> like the brain uses for everything else, the immediacy of consciousness 
> ceases during sleep or general anaesthetic because it
> is electrical activity and our subjective part, that causes all the 
> hassle, ceases too because it is inextricably bound up with the sensations 
> that is the majority part of experience.
> There is a part of the brain where our sense of self resides and
> this is another part of the feedback monitoring system that goes
> during sleep. Consciousness is us being caught between different
> brain functions but the bit that we think is us can never be
> pinned down as it depends on us looking at the rest of what is
> happening inside to maintain an illusion that there is an "us" to
> start with. It's like a hall of mirrors, turn round as fast as
> you like but you'll never see the original you. Turn the lights 
> off though and you see nothing.
> It's a machine. But it fools itself into thinking it's something
> it's not, if it stayed on all the time I'd be a bit more convinced.
> But it evolved like everything else in the brain and is therefore 
> a bodge-up, maybe one day we'll be able to see our brains working 
> and realise how it's all done. 
> Actually, when I'm meditating I think I get a better glimpse of 
> how it works because a lot of extraneous chatter can get shut down
> but the sense of the presence of "me" remains, until I fall asleep.
> A ghost in a sleepy machine...

Reply via email to