> > > > --- "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/ > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > 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?). >
Xeno, it's not clear what Nagel exactly means by "materialist". In fact, many religionists and intelligent design advocates, think that evolution is 100% percent random. That is incorrect and not the case. After a carefull study of evolution, you will notice that evolution is partially deterministic and partially random. There seems to be a deterministic pattern, and yet within that deterministic pattern a lot of randomness plays out. The anology given is that of a football game, where there is a broad set of rules and yet every player can express his creativity in his own unique way. Researchers state that 50,000 basic organic molecules, each can combine with each other in thousands of different ways. So there are thousands of different ways to create life. Thus the chances of life forming is quite probable. A lot of Scientists now also say that "the emergence of life might be a natural consequence of the laws of physics, and the laws of chemistry."
