Focus: philosophy of mind (and concepts, etc.)

[ebola?]

In a similar vein to and with partial overlap with my metaphysics and society threads, I'd like to inquire as to your overall theory of mind (and perhaps in turn concepts).

Why this question is problematic to me: upon first glance, mental phenomena appear animals entirely distinct from others amenable to observation. In a universe functioning as some systemic whole (or even a chaotic, blurry whole), why would there be isolated pockets of qualia strung-together to form (or least set in coherent relation to) individual minds? Relatedly, then, how are these minds produced, and how do they interrelate with both one another and the non-mental?

A potential starting point, I think, is that though non-quale are in some sense openly accessible to many different minds, only qualia can ultimately describe them those which are not themselves quale

...

And then there is the question of concepts. How is it that generalized categories relate to specific exemplars? Is this just an unproblematic relation of correspondence between category and exemplar, the latter presenting itself simply 'as it is' (see the logical positivists, Ayn 'Mine' Rand), or is something more curious at play? And how does the apparent division and then creative fusion between the logical and empirical occur?

...

I have my own incomplete ideas on these matters, but I'm sure yours will be more interesting.

ebola

 

[Renz Envy]

Are you asking the question of "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

The universe seems to have given birth to self-conscious beings, but can we be so sure as to assume the universe is not an extremely advanced self-conscious being itself?

 

[Foreigner]

Whether you want to look at it esoterically or just practically, individual consciousnesses are different aspects of the universe experiencing itself. That's if you believe that we exist in some kind of unified whole, whether chaotic or not.

To some extent mind is just a built in tool to navigate physical living, used to strategize, problem solve, and manipulate our environment to the best of our ability. I know ego can't accept that, because most people reading that sentence will have an innate self-defense shouting, "But I feel like I'm me! I'm aware of myself, I'm an individual, etc." That's true I guess, relatively speaking... but there is evidence that mind and all of its concepts like individuality go away in certain situations: non-REM sleep, anesthesia, brain damage, advanced dementia, and near death.

The only thing I can't reconcile with that is out of body experience, and the things I saw during near death when my mind should have technically been way less active.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hmm, this requires some deep thinking. I shall logout and think about this then come back with an answer.

 

[Jabberwocky]

To answer this question I read some philosophy from Popper and Kuhn. I'll stick mostly to philosophy of science, although I do have some opinion of mind, it's just I would end up writing a post that takes me several hours

Related readings:
Popper
Kuhn


Popper makes a good point when he writes, “at any rate, it is good to remember from time to time that our Western science-and there seems to be no other-did not start with collecting observations of oranges, but with bold theories about the world”. Justification is thereby provided for presenting the following views, dissenting from the belief of Bacon with regard to knowledge and how it should be considered; he goes on to refer to the "Baconian myth" that explains truth in scientific statements; in particular he notes that it is pointless to argue 'for' conjectures of science that have proved to be false, as well as those which are still accepted, and which all start from observation. This is primarily proposed by using an analogy of Thales’ theory of the Earth, and a "counter-observational" analogy of Anaximander (that led to Copernicus’ theories that came later) which "is likely to have argued against Thales’ theory of the Earth floating on water".

Popper writes, “Thus I will at least look into the experts' arguments, and examine their consistency. This seems a harm-less occupation to indulge in; and if an expert or anybody else should take the trouble to refute my criticism, I shall be pleased and honoured”, which shows the very essence of critical thinking; that is to not be afraid to put one’s opinions, perspectives, and points of view to the test of others; to allow scrutiny and be willing to learn from that; to have a want of improving the knowledge one has attained and to knowingly submit it to the same rigorous testing that one applies to what one is studying. The discussion of ‘cosmological’ theories of philosophy that were common in the ‘pre-Socratic era’ is not a new area of thought. The French Renaissance Essayist, also known as the father of humanism, Montaigne too wrote of the cosmography he encountered in his studies at his chateau in Bordeaux in the 16th century; comparing the topographical and cosmographical views presented by writers from previous eras.



Kuhn is known as a philosopher of science, and as such he discusses the evident facets of science and the scientific method, throughout history, as we know it. Kuhn referred to a two-fold problem, that is:

- a need to explain why scientific theories are accepted, and
- the need to explain why scientific theories are replaced

The above two mentioned aspects were referred to as related, and a concept of “paradigm” (a reigning and/or dominant approach for solving problems in any given area of science) is thereby presented. Some discussion was made into the stages of scientific revolutions, with three dominant stages: “normal science”, “an anomaly”, both leading to a "crisis"; during the crisis stage new approaches are said to be permitted. Once one of these approaches is successful, it was said to become a new paradigm through what was referred to as a “paradigm shift”. The new paradigm is then popularised in books for the next generation of scientists. This appears to be another 'problem', so to speak, as once the new paradigm is presented as “revolutionary”, it is accepted as the way things are done until the next anomaly-crisis-paradigm shift.

Above all, Kuhn expresses a belief that science progresses over time, although this does not in any way contribute to “truth” in the strictest sense, as it is merely a medium for solving problems. There is some discussion of old problems or “pseudo-problems” for the new paradigm; overall, however, more problems are said to get solved than with the previous paradigm.


I don't know about the rest of you, but this idea of "Paradigm Shifts" in science sits well with me, especially in relation to the mind.