Questions About What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy, please sign up.

Answered Questions (2)

Judith Order and pay for an ebook/Kindle version. Writers need and deserve to eat and be sheltered, too, plus it's the against the law in the USA to pass aro…moreOrder and pay for an ebook/Kindle version. Writers need and deserve to eat and be sheltered, too, plus it's the against the law in the USA to pass around "knock-offs" and copies of any kind that violate their copyrights.

If you can't afford the book, request it from your nearest library. If they offer access to Hoopla, it's available there free, but you need a (fee) public library card for access to Hoopla (Hoopladigital.com).(less)

flag

"But the reasons against a purely physical theory of consciousness are strong enough to make it seem likely that a physical theory of the whole of reality is impossible." -- Mind-Body problem What is the reasons that he is talking about? Can't find it in this book.

Bulent2k2 Good question. It is in the book, but is also subtle enough to miss. Let us define a "robot" to be a computer (software + hardware) with an ability to…moreGood question. It is in the book, but is also subtle enough to miss. Let us define a "robot" to be a computer (software + hardware) with an ability to move. Imagine that both the software and the hardware are the best possible. Say that the robot is so convincing, nobody could tell it apart from a 25 year old human being. Would you expect it to have consciousness? Would it have free will? Would it want things? Would it, or could it be curious and ask questions and would deeply desire to procreate? Maybe. But, maybe not. The hardware is just hardware. The software is just software written by some very smart people. Where is the true "intelligence?" Could it be in the program? How could it?

This author (of philosophical arguments as well as computer code) as well as many philosophers cannot imagine it. It might be our failing to imagine. But, then it might not. Don't simply believe those who talk of the "singularity." Look into their argument. Question their premises. They may all sound reasonable when you look at them one at a time. But, watch for "equivocation" -- meaning that the presuppositions behind one premise might contradict other presuppositions behind an other premise their conclusion depends on. It happens all the time even in academic, peer reviewed scholarly articles.

The mind is a mystery. We don't even know "our own minds" well enough. Remember Socrates who pointed out the simple fact that many in the city paid more attention to improve how they looked to (and are applauded and appreciated by) others. After a life long mis-direction of their precious faculty of attention, they never got to know themselves and stayed trapped to the wants and desires of others as well as of the superficial self (the id as Freud might have called it). Are they truly conscious? Maybe not so much. Here we are talking of a "spiritual" unconsciousness. Clearly not physical or objective because it involves our mind: desires, wants, cravings, fears, emotions.. Yes, there obviously seem to be neural correlates of our subjective experiences (in other words, when you feel pain or pleasure, your brain lights up in different ways; when you see blue versus red, the visual cortex fires distinct potentials), but how could electrical and chemical changes cause the subjective experience in your mind or mine, nobody can tell.

In his famous Defense, Socrates, at the age of 70, urges (as Plato writes) his friends to value the best state of their soul at least as much as they value their possessions, financial, mental, social or physical. Why does he do that? Why not ask them to save him? No, he is asking for their good. We can call that "inner peace." What good would anything do, if in the process of possessing it we lose touch with peace? Does the destination really matter if throughout the journey we hurt and hurt others in turn? Does the end justify the means? Or do we imagine an end in order to enjoy the means? A destination, as Don Knuth spoke and then wrote in his non-computer-science seminar/book, might simply be there for us to enjoy the journey. Don't they say, life is after all a journey regardless of what you take "death" to be?

Finally, would a robot care if they died? Why would they? They could be recreated from the blueprints without any loss whatsoever. That gives us one more reason to suspect that mind and/or consciousness is not purely of the physical universe. (less)

flag

Unanswered Questions (1)

Having read half way, I am enjoying this well written book by Nagel. I find his approach to the mystery of the mind (also known as the hard problem of consciousness) engaging and to the point. In a nutshell, he is one of those who do not assume that {mind is the brain is the body}. He is not a physicalist or an animalist who seem to be saying simply that free will and the mind are simply illusions. Is he?

Answer

Flag

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more