Re: Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth
On 16 Mar 2015, at 19:40, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 16.03.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 15 Mar 2015, at 20:37, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in philosophy, in the mid-1990s, after long neglect. I am not sure that it was a myth. I have wittnessed it, as the subject of consciousness was an ultra-taboo subject, even for most psychologist. Scientist were, more or less consciously, influence by positivisme. There are just been an understanding that positivism and instrumentalistm where incoherent. If to speak about psychology or neuroscience, then you are write. But this is a myth when we speak about philosophy. A quote is below. In the case of psychology the story of resurgence has some truth. There are doubts about its timing. The distinguished psychologist of memory Endel Tulving places it in the 1980s. “Consciousness has recently again been declared to be the central problem of psychology”, he wrote in 1985, citing a number of other authors. The great dam of behaviouristic psychology was cracking and spouting. It was bursting. Even so, there was a further wave of liberation in psychology in the 1990s. Discussion of consciousness regained full respectability after seventy years of marginalization, although there were of course (and still are) a few holdouts. In the case of philosophy, however, the story of resurgence is simply a myth. It depends of the university. In mine, philosophy of mind *is* still forbidden, or very badly seen, to the philosophers (in the french part, unlike the flemish part, actually). It has always been like that. They try to change this, and there are some tiny progress, but it concerns more the psychologists than the philosophers. There was a small but fashionable group of philosophers of mind who in the 1970s and 80s focused particularly on questions about belief and “intentionality”, and had relatively little to say about consciousness. Their intensely parochial outlook may be one of the origins of the myth. But the problem of consciousness, the “hard problem”, remained central throughout those years. It never shifted from the heart of the discipline taken as a whole. Among philosophers of mind, where it can be done. Bruno Evgeny -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth
On 15 Mar 2015, at 20:37, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in philosophy, in the mid-1990s, after long neglect. I am not sure that it was a myth. I have wittnessed it, as the subject of consciousness was an ultra-taboo subject, even for most psychologist. Scientist were, more or less consciously, influence by positivisme. There are just been an understanding that positivism and instrumentalistm where incoherent. It happens that philosophical zombies have been invented already in 18th century No doubt. After Descartes attempts to solve the mind-body problem, there has been a lot of work on the subject. Leibniz was well aware of the problem. It the problems which are usually answered by the so- called religion, and in fact, it is more or less recent that the subject has been made taboo, due to that influence of the Vienne circle. Wittgenstein, fortunately changed his mind, but not all scientists realize the reason he was forced to do so. 'In 1755 Charles Bonnet observed that God “could create an automaton that would imitate perfectly all the external and internal actions of man”. In 1769, following Locke, he made a nice point against those who resisted materialism on religious grounds: “if someone ever proved that the mind is material, then far from being alarmed, we should have to admire the power that was able to give matter the capacity to think”.' That is the aristotelian assumption. The belief in some primitive matter. The taking of granted that physics is the fundamental science, and that everything real is material. But no one has ever prove or given an evidence for such a primitive matter. And we do have samples of non material entity, like the game of chess, the french nationality, the numbers and the mathematical structures, the waves and the singularities. So Charles Bonnet is right, mind would be material if we are non- machine, and then you need a God to duplicate it, and to make the consistent selection. Wat would iot mean to make matter thinking, except in the sense that aspect of matter are turing universal, and can implement, thus, other machines, universal or not. Bonnet is just expressing itself badlly, perhaps, but the resistance is not on religious ground, it is the use of matter which is criticized for being religious without saying. If matter exists, the question is how matter selects your first person mind state among an infinity of computations (with oracles). A religion is a solution to the mind-body problem. For historical reasons, perhaps Löbian reasons too, we tolerate the lack of rigor in the field, and we tolerate the argument-per-authority, the fairy tales, etc. I guess machines exploits the consistency of inconsistency right at the start. But it is a problem which interest all creatures which ask about themselves if they will stop, or not, who they are, and what happens, etc. Universal machine are dumbfounded by such questions. Consciousness is the first mystical state, where you hallucinate, make the experience, that there is a reality/god/truth. Bruno Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth
Am 16.03.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 15 Mar 2015, at 20:37, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in philosophy, in the mid-1990s, after long neglect. I am not sure that it was a myth. I have wittnessed it, as the subject of consciousness was an ultra-taboo subject, even for most psychologist. Scientist were, more or less consciously, influence by positivisme. There are just been an understanding that positivism and instrumentalistm where incoherent. If to speak about psychology or neuroscience, then you are write. But this is a myth when we speak about philosophy. A quote is below. In the case of psychology the story of resurgence has some truth. There are doubts about its timing. The distinguished psychologist of memory Endel Tulving places it in the 1980s. “Consciousness has recently again been declared to be the central problem of psychology”, he wrote in 1985, citing a number of other authors. The great dam of behaviouristic psychology was cracking and spouting. It was bursting. Even so, there was a further wave of liberation in psychology in the 1990s. Discussion of consciousness regained full respectability after seventy years of marginalization, although there were of course (and still are) a few holdouts. In the case of philosophy, however, the story of resurgence is simply a myth. There was a small but fashionable group of philosophers of mind who in the 1970s and 80s focused particularly on questions about belief and “intentionality”, and had relatively little to say about consciousness. Their intensely parochial outlook may be one of the origins of the myth. But the problem of consciousness, the “hard problem”, remained central throughout those years. It never shifted from the heart of the discipline taken as a whole. Evgeny -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in philosophy, in the mid-1990s, after long neglect. It happens that philosophical zombies have been invented already in 18th century 'In 1755 Charles Bonnet observed that God “could create an automaton that would imitate perfectly all the external and internal actions of man”. In 1769, following Locke, he made a nice point against those who resisted materialism on religious grounds: “if someone ever proved that the mind is material, then far from being alarmed, we should have to admire the power that was able to give matter the capacity to think”.' Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
