All Philosophy


Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 393 

Some people are dualists and some are materialists, but for some reason they can't convince each other, they always seem to be talking past each other, so what is going on?

Here is what is going on: The only information that our brains (we) receive from outside are electrical pulses from our sensory nerves, these pulses are not random, they carry very complicated mathematical patterns, you would expect that we would be completely overwhelmed if we tried to find and track these patterns, but fortunately we have customized - less conscious - brain features that help us and this results in new sensations that we can understand, like pictures and sounds and our sense of space and time in general, but this sub conscious help comes at a price, because we forget that they are just mathematical patterns and we start making stupid assumptions e.g. a force field is more mysterious then a rock i.e. a rock is a "thing" and a magnetic field is not, or that rel ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


Hi everybody, Hi philosophy of mind lovers!

In the beginning, I am very grateful for reading this new thread. The question is as follows,but I suppose before that, I give a brief explanation of my background. I entered to the realm of western philosophy especially with concentration on mind issues around 2 years before.
In fact, my main background in philosophy comes from an eastern philosophy (especially Sufism). That`s why most of articles I submit to the conferences and journal about mind based on eastern philosophy are rejected in the west !!! (No problem! This is life!) 
In any case, I passed a cumbersome path to reach in a level of analytical philosophy that I understand somehow what is going on here. So, for me, it is the time to choose a topic for my thesis in philosophy of mind. My professors have proposed me some topics, but I ask you here based on your strong background in philosophy of mind: which topic do you recommend to me to start? Which topic is the most challenging iss ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

In epistemology, very little has been said of what can be perceived through the objective world to its objects. This short paper argues that light is a barrier to that world and that direct knowledge of it is not possible.
This is based on general readings only. I don't know if this aspect of epistemology has been discussed already. However, and irrespective of that, it is interesting and does add another dimension to the study of perception.

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Via the internet, I’ve recently been watching an excellent series of televised lectures by a leading researcher in palaeoanthropology at the Collège de France. I am by no means a specialist in this field and a lot of what he has to say is too technical for me and goes over my head. But I understand enough to feel reassured in a conclusion I had already reached, namely that philosophical attempts to explain human consciousness in evolutionary terms are, and probably always will be, doomed to failure, as are attempts in the philosophy of art to explain art in evolutionary terms. (I should add that the lectures in question don’t address either question specifically; they’re about human evolution generally.)

I’ve read very little of the relevant philosophical literature (and most of what I have read relates to art) because I tend to avoid topics that strike me as a waste of time. But I’m aware that there are some who would disagree with me and who believe that philosophy has important thing ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What are good journals to publish stuff in meta-philosophy, besides _Metaphilosophy_?

Reference and Self-Reference
The philosophical theme of reference is no doubt a wide and deep ocean. My attempts at presenting a new perspective on the subject can certainly not be considered as the final word on the subject. [see my thread Truth and Necessity]. Reading Quine "The Ways of Paradox" (1966), I realized that my (Strawsonian) conception that language does not refer poses special problems when the objects of reference are themselves linguistic elements. As Juergen Habermas would say, (natural) language is its own metalanguage, and just like our mind, seems to be able to look upon itself.
Self-reference is not only the source of many antinomies, it could mean the negation of my analysis as a whole: if language does not refer, how could it ever self-refer? My aim is quite simple. I will try to show that self-reference is not possible. The line of argumentation is easy to follow: no self-reference without reference. And since reference is not a linguistic property but an action un ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What is your opinion about the IF-logic? Jaakko Hintikka has claimed, that it should replace FOL, and I can see reasons for that. The main reason for that is, in my opinion, that IFL allows us to use such combinations of quantifiers, that FOL doesn't allow. The greater expressive power of IFL is brought by the use of signaling prefixes and Henkin's prefixes. The main idea is, that IFL allows independence of quantifiers, which is completly natural idea. Actually it seems to be less natural to not allow different sorts of combinations of dependences between quantifiers. 
What is your opinion about this?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Logic covers vast areas of philosophy. It would be unfair to say mind is only a fraction of logic, empirically, the mind is causal. Immanuel Kant says in his 'Critique of Practical Reason' it is a priori and causal. Unfortunately he could not back this argument. Dummet's equation can be cracked by logic, if it is given, in rational terms. Logic given a priori, in empirical application is therefore causal.

Hello there,
Do you have any recommendations to submit a philosophy of mind paper that argues strongly against dualism? I am looking for a respectable journal about philosophy of mind that is open to philosophical, lengthy, inquiring articles that are written from a strictly scientific and logical point of view. Basically, I regard dualism as an anti-scientific attitude, and I would like to be able to liberally criticize a philosophical position that I view as intellectually lazy and harmful.

Kind Regards,

Eray Ozkural, PhD.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


To those interested in the philosophy of logic:


If everything goes right 2017 should see the release of a first of its kind book, Philosophical Perceptions on Logic and Order by IGI Global publishers (, a set of readings to accompany material presented in mainly introduction to logic courses, but also to those interested in the subject generally.


This work is being prepared based on my observation that students in logic courses, as well as many instructors teaching them, are clueless about the central philosophies driving the discipline. The generally prevailing view is “this is the way it is”, referring to the systems and methods of thinking in the course. These are mechanistically presented as the way of describing the world. After being told about what logically supposedly is, they are told that observations about their environment are put into relationships called “arguments”, where an emerging statement can be evaluated as to it having a ... (read more)

In Mark Cherry’s article “Non-consensual Treatment is (nearly always) Morally Adherent” he takes a Socratic approach to the issue of involuntary hospitalization and forced treatment of psychiatric patients. Cherry believes that non-consensual treatment does not reserve the patient’s best interest, fails to respect autonomy, and uses the idea of the mentally ill being a threat to others to violate their human rights. I will challenge these ideas by exploring the “thank you theory” as it is related to a wide range of mental illnesses and respect to patient best interest, pondering how the informed consent process can ever be seen as valid with a patient having no true sense of reality, and how never considering someone a threat until they already show violent behavior can result in tragedies occurring that could have been easily prevented.

Though it is true that non-consensual treatment of the mentally ill usually does not result in a “thank you” from the patients, addicts seem to be the ... (read more)

I would like to ask: how many of you think that the task of philosophy is to make our concepts clearer? I would also like to add, that do you think that philosophy is a completly different doctring from science?
My answer to the first one is yes, but I am still a little bit uncertain about the second question. However, it might be the case, that from giving to the first question an answer "Yes" it follows that one must also answer "Yes" to the second question.

What is your opinion about this?

Also: if you have a view about philosophy, which you think is not so common view, I would also like to read and discuss about it.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

A proposition is said to be necessarily true if it is true in all possible worlds.
I would not know how to refute such an affirmation but I do wonder whether that proves the existence of any necessarily true proposition. After all, is it not possible that there are no such propositions for the simple reason that we could always imagine a world where a proposition, true in all others, would then be false?
Let us take a very likely candidate to modal necessity, the proposition "a=a". Can we imagine a world where that would not be true?
Even Alice's world, with all its indifference to logic rules would seem to sustain this inexorable truth: a thing is equal to itself, for however long it exists in one and the same state. Changing the subject from 'thing' to 'state' does not alter this necessity.

Still, imagine a world where, just like within the core of a living star, or even better, the condensed matter right before the Big Bang, or in a Black Hole, all things are in perpetual change from on ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I'm a student learning about both Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence. A lot of theories about the cognitive processing of the mind are used as inspiration for models in AI. This got me thinking: is the scenario of AI taking over the world possible? Our intelligence is very complex, and I believe it has co-evolved with ethics and self-consciousness, leading me to believe these too would be characteristics if AI were ever created. This is a rudimentary blog I've written, but I'd definitely like feedback on what you guys think. This will help me evolve my argument and learn as well!
Link to blog:
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I have written a short paper on an issue that I have not come across before. In it I attempt to argue that light waves are an opaque barrier between the eye of the observer and the objective world. And, that light waves prevent direct knowledge of objects in the world. I would be grateful for criticism and responses. Bert

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I have a following trouble.

If I want to defining some word, and I want that my definition will be correct in the meaning of Semantical Conception of Truth or Classical, I have to know something about object, attribute or relation that I want to define. In other words: If I wand define "wisdom" I have to know what the wisdom is. If I don't know what the wisdom is, my definition will be arbitrary and could be incorrect (not in logical meaning but in ontological meaning), it would be fake definition.

The question is: How would I know about the subject, object, relation, attribute to give its proper definition ?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


Normative antirealism supposes that the only normative reasons are empirical, viz. those constituted by the actual attitudes of individuals and what follows from them.  However, the empirical normative attitudes of some individuals (e.g. normative realists) posit attitude-independent standards of normative judgement:  for example, rational measures of correctness (e.g. right and wrong) that are independent of the attitudes individuals actually have.  Since it follows from the actual attitudes of realists that there are independent normative standards, at least for them antirealism entails realism.  The antirealists respond that they have proven such independent standards to be fatally compromised:  when properly scrutinized they fail to follow even from the attitudes of realists.  But that's not an empirical claim!  The antirealist is replacing the question "What attitudes do persons actually have?" with the question "What personal attitudes stand up to scrutiny?", so withstanding scrutiny be ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

[First, some considerations concerning a general neural process.]
The Myth of Synaptic Efficacy
This is a widely spread belief that has probably its origin in Shannon's information theory indiscriminately applied to neural processes. Once this view is rejected, the idea that  "[t]he extent to which synaptic activity can signal a sensory stimulus limits the information available to a neuron" (Arenz et al "The Contribution of Single Synapses to Sensory Representation in Vivo", 2008) loses any plausibility. (my emphasis)
What can be rejected for the brain as a whole (see the entry "Do we get too much information?" in my thread Retina: Miscellanious) can certainly be put in doubt when dealing with (individual) neurons.
Many concepts related to synaptic efficiency are likewise taken as dogmas, one of them being the probability of secretion of neurotransmitters that is supposed to be enhanced or reduced according to the circumstances. Such a concept, which is obviously a statistical instrument in ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 20 / 393