I need to read the book, but my take on it is that Nagel is claiming that science simply has no language for connecting subjective, qualitative experience with objective, observable events: the language of physics cannot tell us, e.g., what it's like to be, say, a bat - or a person. I think in that he's correct. We have since the early 90's been very successful at finding ever more NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness) without having made significant moves to understand how those NCs relate to the other C: we simply don't have a way to connect them conceptually, and until we can do that, we're not going to be able to do it in a lab.
Where I think he overreaches is suggesting that we will never have such an ability. I believe every mental event is of course simultaneously a physical event, and that one day we'll be able to describe how the one gives rise to the other. (I'm not, however, sanguine about the prospects of my being around when we do.) The reason I'm tentative here is that I'm unsure about whether he's making an ontological (viz. Cartesian) or epistemological claim (it seems the former, but I do need to read the book, and I did read the Times piece before I'd had much coffee this morning). But based on other things I've read of his, I think he's more Searle than Dennett. But Nagel's always fun, even if you disagree with him... m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor of Psychology Chair, Department of Behavioral and Health Sciences College of Arts & Sciences Baker University -- From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:37 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Nagel on Limits of Science I don't believe that most contemporary philosophers agree with him either. On Aug 20, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Jim Clark wrote: Hi Following article describes purported limits on science's capacity to explain psychological phenomena. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/?_r=1&; The comments clearly indicate that popular readers do not buy the argument ... although of course a certain segment of society undoubtedly will. Take care Jim Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c90e1&n=T&l=tips&o=27188 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-27188-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-27188-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=27191 or send a blank email to leave-27191-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
