Philosophy of Mind


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 122 
2016-04-24
I told this philosophy joke to some friends, and they think I should tell it to philosophers, but I wonder whether it is already known. Just in case not:

How many homunculi does it take to change a lightbulb?
An infinite number, getting smaller and smaller.
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/15030 Reply

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14842 Reply

2016-04-06
I recently had a paper on a novel approach to the hard problem rejected after getting to the minor revision stage at a Leiter-ranked journal (disagreement with the referee on a single issue).

I accomplished this with no formal training in philosophy (although I am highly educated in other fields). I understand that making it to the minor revision stage (much less getting published) at a respected journal with no formal training in the field is so rare as to effectively be unheard of. 

Since I am not in academia, the only feedback I have received on the paper are the referee reports. I have resubmitted to another journal but I would greatly value feedback from a prof/postdoc. In that respect, if anyone is interested, please let me know and I will send you a link to the paper. Given the unique circumstances, I would prefer not to post a link to/discuss the paper here so as not to prejudice the ongoing/any future reviews. I would offer to credit any feedback/suggestions that are incorporated ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14594 Reply

2016-03-22
Concerning his recent paper I agree almost 100% but I am more receptive to IIT than Curello. I am arguing in a new paper that it addresses some aspects of consciousness, but not all.
The main problem that Tononi and Koch seem entirely unaware of is that a theory of consciousness that does not address intelligence cannot be a theory of consciousness at all.

Regards,

Eray Ozkural, PhD
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14266 Reply

2016-01-22


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: http://philpapers.org/post/12690 Reply

2016-01-22

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: http://philpapers.org/post/12662 Reply

2016-01-04
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: http://philpapers.org/post/11770 Reply

2015-12-21
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: http://philpapers.org/post/11454 Reply

2015-10-05
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: http://philpapers.org/post/10568 Reply

2015-09-04
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: http://philpapers.org/post/10477 Reply

2015-05-18
             Alcubierre Space-Time Bubbles

 

 

How about the Alcubierre Space-Time bubble? Here we find ourselves riding a ‘shock wave’ of space-time. My research into absolute rest suggests that the interior of Alcubierre’s bubble is not immune to the effects of quantum-entropy if the quantum field geometrics theory I’ve proposed is correct. The universe, being a history of interactions, can be theoretically mapped as a series of relativistic Feynman exchanges, so if his bubble moves through space, it interacts via field geometrics. Conversely, if his bubble is stationary, it has to be asked, “Can you speed up entropy by finding absolute rest?” It poses a possible solution to the Moses on Mount Sinai/accelerated aging that was alleged to occur. *    NOTE:  “The radiant face of Moses”…  Admittedly, I’ve found no reference to this ‘advanced aging’ in the bible so it seems to be more of a Hollywood addition in the Charlton Heston classic, ‘The Ten Commandments’. Closest biblica ... (read more)

Latest replies:
  • Daniel Park, 2015-05-18 : QGD stand for Quantum GravitoDynamics and is a quantum gravity theory I have constructed. I will post a paper on this on... (read more)
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9956 Reply

2015-05-11

          

                        Encoding the Nonphysical in a Physical System

 

 

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

 Stephen Hawking

 

     The subtle link between non-physically encoded information in a physical system may be foundational. One may consider the example of neo Lamarckism, in which a generational millennia of memeplexes spurs viral informationism amongst a species. Once thought to be rubbish, this theory is making a comeback as we learn that states of consciousness can affect DNA. (Cite: Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian temptation, by David Haig) Take the example of a jaguar, it is bound to the same laws of physics as the quark to the extent that neither is capable of violations of such laws but when confronted with the hard question of consciousness you eventually run out options as far as irreducible complexity is con ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9953 Reply

2015-04-18
If you come across this paper while researching philosophy of love, you should watch this: https://youtu.be/ykxNI137sPk
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9876 Reply

2015-03-29

Tarski’s convention T: condition beta. South American Journal of Logic. 1, 3–32.

John Corcoran and Leonardo Weber

TCTCB PUBLISHED VERSION

HISTORICAL NOTE: This paper is the culmination of a years-long joint effort by the two authors. A preliminary report appeared in 2013: Corcoran-Weber, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 19 (2013) 510–11. Their co-operative work was conducted by email dialogue in which each author’s work was developed and corrected by the other. Each section went through several iterations. The final version was the result of dozens of reciprocal exchanges; it is impossible to allocate credit. Each author learned from and taught the other. During this time they consulted several other scholars including the Tarski experts David Hitchcock, James Smith, and Albert Visser.

The senior author expresses his deep gratitude to the junior author. Moreover the senior author acknowledges publicly what he has already said privately, viz. that without the junior author’s help and mastery of ... (read more)


2015-02-19
If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread!


2015-02-07
Dear All

Hi

Please forgive me for any grammatical errors. I am not native English speaker.

Actually I am not professionally related to philosophy or anything near it. But I have always been attracted to the philosophy of mind and concept of "self". I have been thinking about it some times but since there is no one around that I can talk to about it, I felt I can share my thoughts in a forum to be evaluated.

What I have been thinking about is how "self" could emerge from brain activities (say material). I have reached a hypothesis but I want to know if it makes any sense to anyone else.

The scheme is roughly like this:

Let's assume that we have a network which can "categorize" inputs and also is able to operate in form of "p => q" logic. This network is not self aware. Actually it has no "self".

Let's assume that premise has been defined in this network which implies: "for every object which is categorized as A (= thought) then it must have been initiated by an object which is categor ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9555 Reply

2015-01-21
This seems a simple mistake, and it should consequently be simple to rectify it. 

In particular, since the bulk of the translation was done by G.E.M. Anscombe in 1958, and the front page of the fourth edition states "The German text, with an English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte", Anscombe should be appropriately credited. 

2014-12-01
The ideas of Zero and One are abstract concepts. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of the abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist outside the mind - the physical world - the world outside of ourselves - the inherent world that exists long time independently before the mind. 

However, although 0&1 are created by definition, association, representation and assumption, can we say that these numbers are solid objects or physical materials? If I write 0 and 1 on a paper, are they materially or physically real? Can we consider the written numbers proof of their existence? Can the numbers be proven as solid evidence prescribed by the scientific method to be real? How can we validate the paper evidence to be true, false, valid, or real ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9401 Reply

2014-10-20
I wonder if anyone could help me out?
I vaguely recall that Kim somewhere expresses reservations about metaphysical supervenience in the context of the mind-body relation - that supervenience in question might be only nomologically and not metaphysically necessary. Or something like that.

But I can't now find a good reference...  I wonder if my memory is failing me here...

(I found a brief remark in p. 49 of Physicalism, or Something Near Enough; but I thought there were better, more explicit passages.) 

I would be very grateful for good references.

All the Best

Panu
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9220 Reply

 1 - 20 / 122