COSMOS – a cool magazine 1 Jan 2008 Today I received my copy of COSMOS (not Cosmo, you perves!) in which my article appeared. I have to say (and not just because they showed the good taste to print me) that this is one of the better science magazines I have seen. It reminds me of OMNI at its height. OK, it’s Australian, but you forners ought to check it out too if you can. Administrative
Administrative ET Etiquette 26 May 2008 One of the things about having one’s own blog is that one gets to say what sorts of behaviours are acceptable by commenters. My commenters are generally a pretty nice bunch of people, often clever (hey, they read me) and polite even as the issues get hot. Occasionally, one is… Read More
Administrative Do you enjoy ET? 28 Aug 2010 I have spent a few hundred dollars (AUD, each worth around USD0.001) over the past few months getting access to my CSS and paying for ad-free display. If you like what I do and think it worthwhile, I’d very much appreciate any small donation you might be able to make…. Read More
Administrative I aten’t dead 21 Aug 200718 Sep 2017 … I’m teaching. First years. Cognitive science. It turns out that a lot of what I thought was common knowledge isn’t common at all. And what I count as a simple introduction leaves a lot of folk behind. Now I know I’m not that ordinary in many senses – the… Read More
Hi John. While looking at the Cosmos site I found this article about the mind-brain problem. The article seems to say that science has shown that the mind is the functioning of the brain. Not some non-substance, or ghost. This is what I studied recently in a biological psychology unit. What’s your take on the subject. As a philosopher of science. I’m guessing it’s a little different from an Alvin Plantinga or Darth Ratzinger.
I could always pose for a nude centrespread… Or just use some images from one of your previous nude photoshoots. (This one’s sexy, but safe for work.)
As you guessed, I’m fully physicalist on this matter. My only idiosyncrasy here is that I’m not entirely reductionist about it. I think consciousness is not merely the activity of the brain, but also involves social interactions. That is to say, meaning, rules, and much cognition involves the transactions between other actors, and what seems like the “hard problem” is mostly (IMO) just the inability to express experience. Phenomenal experience is in my view just a matter of having a point of view or perspective. It’s not irreducible in terms of the activity of the brain so long as we realise that each individual experiences their life and not someone else’s or an “objective” experience. It resolves down to a tautology, in my opinion. We are trying to explain experience in physical terms, which involves classes of neural behaviours, and so we can explain classes of neural activity, but each individual experiences tokens of neural activity – their own. I’m sure that is quite opaque.
As you guessed, I’m fully physicalist on this matter. My only idiosyncrasy here is that I’m not entirely reductionist about it. I think consciousness is not merely the activity of the brain, but also involves social interactions. That is to say, meaning, rules, and much cognition involves the transactions between other actors, and what seems like the “hard problem” is mostly (IMO) just the inability to express experience. Phenomenal experience is in my view just a matter of having a point of view or perspective. It’s not irreducible in terms of the activity of the brain so long as we realise that each individual experiences their life and not someone else’s or an “objective” experience. It resolves down to a tautology, in my opinion. We are trying to explain experience in physical terms, which involves classes of neural behaviours, and so we can explain classes of neural activity, but each individual experiences tokens of neural activity – their own. I’m sure that is quite opaque.
Thanks John. I think I’m not too far away from you on that topic. I’m not entirely reductionist either. If I was, it’d probably be pointless studying psychology as it assumes that personality and emotion are something, and something that occurs uniquely, or at least in unique combinations to each person. Though the behaviors must have commonality, or we’d have to study each person and couldn’t apply what we’d learnt from one individual to any other person. Sort of puts the death knell into religions that sell their immortality policies to the average punter, if it’s shown that there’s no soul or mind that can go on. Though I’m sure there’s a “sophisticated” theological answer to how not surviving death is surviving death…… Thanks, I love the internet. It allows non-intellectuals like myself to pick the brains of clever types. 🙂
Thanks John. I think I’m not too far away from you on that topic. I’m not entirely reductionist either. If I was, it’d probably be pointless studying psychology as it assumes that personality and emotion are something, and something that occurs uniquely, or at least in unique combinations to each person. Though the behaviors must have commonality, or we’d have to study each person and couldn’t apply what we’d learnt from one individual to any other person. Sort of puts the death knell into religions that sell their immortality policies to the average punter, if it’s shown that there’s no soul or mind that can go on. Though I’m sure there’s a “sophisticated” theological answer to how not surviving death is surviving death…… Thanks, I love the internet. It allows non-intellectuals like myself to pick the brains of clever types. 🙂