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 A paperback of Species: A History 12 Jan 2011 My not-inconsiderable ego has expanded several sizes upon the news from University of California Press that my book Species: A History of the Idea (see at right or on the My Books page) is to become a paperback. I hope to make a couple of corrections, and maybe add a… Read More
Administrative What is a homology? 2 Jun 2010 No, not that kind, but the mathematical kind. I tried to read the online definitions, but they all presume other mathematical terminology and knowledge I don’t have. So can anyone explain, in words that don’t assume I have done a course in topology, what a mathematical homology is? Pretty please? Read More
Administrative The ET Fund update 21 Mar 201221 Apr 2012 I continue to be humbled and my ego stroked by contributors to the Save ET from Extinction fund. I thought that it would be a good idea to maintain a list of contributors. So this is a post that will become a page later on. Thank you all! Recent contributors:… 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. 🙂