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 Munchy ET goodness 14 Sep 2007 Eagle-eyed readers will note a new tab above this post (and all others if I have done it properly) which list the very best of Evolving Thoughts – the meaty posts that will have long term value (as much as anything I write has value). If you are new here,… Read More
Administrative Another goldang meme 15 Nov 20084 Oct 2017 This one started at Nature Networks, where I am not a blogger, but as Larry and Bora have answered it, among others, I figured I’d have a go too… Read More
Administrative Drowning in the sea of faith 20 Sep 2008 Actually I’m not. The Sea of Faith In Australia crowd are very nice and easy to get on with folk, and many of them are your garden variety humanists, atheists and skeptics. Lawrence Krauss is a very nice guy with a good patter in anti-ID; nothing I haven’t heard before… 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. 🙂