Philosophy Now Forum

This section of the forum is for the discussion of anything to do with philosophy of mind.

For clarity, this includes anything to do with consciousness, cognitive science and artificial intelligence as well as traditional philosophy of mind.

Should this section also include threads on phenomenology? How about psychology? I'm not sure. I'll assume that this is the best place for such discussions, but if you radically disagree this thread would be a good place to say why.

Rick,

What is this all about?

BB

Rick,

What a feeling of oppression hovering over the philosophy of mind, with a post that is unmovable. I do not see this in other forums. Why is this?

BB

Introductory paragraph from an article by Ray Tallis, entitled 'You won't find consciousness in the brain.'
(Don't know how to do the linky thing to the whole article, sorry.)

"MOST neuroscientists, philosophers of the mind and science journalists feel the time is near when we will be able to explain the mystery of human consciousness in terms of the activity of the brain. There is, however, a vocal minority of neurosceptics who contest this orthodoxy. Among them are those who focus on claims neuroscience makes about the preciseness of correlations between indirectly observed neural activity and different mental functions, states or experiences."

I've been struggling with this article for a week or two. Would this be a good place to discuss it? For example, is the first sentence actually true? Are there examples to support the assertion?

Barbara Brooks wrote:Rick,

What is this all about?

Barbara, that's what we're all trying to work out, surely?

Barbara Brooks wrote: What a feeling of oppression hovering over the philosophy of mind, with a post that is unmovable. I do not see this in other forums. Why is this?

No need to feel oppressed! It's called a sticky thread. Only admins and moderators can create them, so they tend to be used exclusively for announcements and for discussions which, for one reason or another, we want to keep at the very top of a forum area rather than them being swept south out of sight by subsequent threads. We've had sticky threads in several other forum areas for ages. I'm thinking of putting one at the top of the Gender Philosophy section too (and maybe elsewhere) as it has occurred to me that they are useful for clarifying what the subject matter of a forum area should be.

Thundril wrote: I've been struggling with this article for a week or two. Would this be a good place to discuss it? For example, is the first sentence actually true? Are there examples to support the assertion?

Yes, of course the Philosophy of Mind section is the best place for that, but would you mind starting a new thread? It's just that I'd like to reserve this sticky thread just for the purpose I outlined above. Cheers!

Action have consequences a victim attacked and driven into alien and distant ends.

Barbara wrote

Action have consequences

Barbara actions only have consequences if INTENT can be shown or premeditation..in other words can you elaborate? your statement means nothing to me unless you can.

Rick asked

Should this section also include threads on phenomenology?

in a word YES

RickLewis wrote:This section of the forum is for the discussion of anything to do with philosophy of mind.

For clarity, this includes anything to do with consciousness, cognitive science and artificial intelligence as well as traditional philosophy of mind.

Should this section also include threads on phenomenology? How about psychology? I'm not sure. I'll assume that this is the best place for such discussions, but if you radically disagree this thread would be a good place to say why.

Seeing as you asked, I'm not entirely sure about psychology either as I suppose a claim may be made for it being dealt with in the science forum of the boards. I can't think of any reason why phenomenology wouldn't be a suitable topic for discussion in a Philosophy of Mind forum though.

Rick Lewis, are you begging the question, and why? Is it an epiphenomenon of evolution? Do you want John Locke's use of the term, or Thomas Hobbes use of the term "conscious?" Knowing, and consciousness are two different claims, but what about reflective consciousness? Mental achievements are not necessary for self-consciousness, so would the latter be contingent, or necessary? I am more questions than answers, and have just begun to study consciousness. Will this section appear in the magazine with answers? My reason for studying is not one of Philosophy of the Mind, but one of Existentialism, yes I'm still studying the former if you care.

does barbara answer questions? or just post?

This is going to be one good thread, thanks. So how are we to define "consciousness " I may still be working on a definition, of the physical to the mental, but now I understand Existentialism that much more

Explanatory gap, of Hume, and Kierkegaard. I prefer the former of foundationalism.

Puto AWARENESS is consciousness..if i am unaware i am unconscious seems simple enough to me..until our unconscious becomes aware..then its complex..occams razor works so far..but not in all cases.

Direct awareness is not required for memory, or learning, in consciousness.

"Direct awareness is not required for memory, or learning, in consciousness"

Puto plz expand on what you declare..a statement isn`t an explanation..for example i would argue memory is a recall from direct awareness..i would say direct means present in the now..any learning can be in the now or later over time..it can be direct or indirect. How does one time consciousness? when consicousness can be ahead or behind time? not just in it