--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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/ >
