» Site Navigation | | | |  | 
02-02-2008, 11:06 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
| | | Philosophy of Mind Does anyone know of any good books about the philosophy of mind? I became interested in this subject when I was in college working towards a computer science degree. Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science and there are philosophical issues related to artificial intelligence.
__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA
| 
02-02-2008, 11:50 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 507
Thanks: 21
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
| | A good introduction book is 'The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction' by Edward Fesar. I also enjoyed Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics' by Moreland and Rae.
Here are some good online links: Guide to the Philosophy of Mind Online papers on consciousness
John Depoe has two papers worth checking out on the subject: http://www.johndepoe.com/papers.html
Some books that I haven't read yet, but I heard are good, are:
The emergent self by William Hasker
The Immaterial Self by John Foster
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
The Evolution of the Soul by Richard Swinburne
__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA
| 
02-03-2008, 06:24 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Casa Grande, AZ
Posts: 440
Thanks: 12
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
| | | Isn't A.I. part of Cognitive Science?
__________________
Andrew Cunningham
Casa Grande, AZ
Attending:Grace Covenant Church, ARBCA Cross Centered Life | 
02-03-2008, 07:15 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,419
Thanks: 32
Thanked 82 Times in 43 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P.C. Isn't A.I. part of Cognitive Science? | I think that it can be argued that there is some overlap.
CT
__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC
| 
02-04-2008, 12:58 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shelby, NC
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | I have Philosophy in the Flesh on my shelf but I have not read it yet. It was recommended by Douglas Jones of NSA. | 
02-04-2008, 12:07 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheshire Cat A good introduction book is 'The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction' by Edward Fesar. I also enjoyed Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics' by Moreland and Rae.
Here are some good online links: Guide to the Philosophy of Mind Online papers on consciousness
John Depoe has two papers worth checking out on the subject: http://www.johndepoe.com/papers.html
Some books that I haven't read yet, but I heard are good, are:
The emergent self by William Hasker
The Immaterial Self by John Foster
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
The Evolution of the Soul by Richard Swinburne |
Thank you for the resources. I bought the book by Fesar and the book by Moreland and Rae. I will check out the links. | 
02-04-2008, 02:17 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 261
Thanks: 15
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by cih1355 Does anyone know of any good books about the philosophy of mind? I became interested in this subject when I was in college working towards a computer science degree. Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science and there are philosophical issues related to artificial intelligence. |
I liked Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind and John R. Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction .
Searle has some good stuff online as well.
__________________
Don Jones
Member, First Presbyterian,
Jackson, MS
| 
02-04-2008, 07:56 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 507
Thanks: 21
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by cih1355 Thank you for the resources. I bought the book by Fesar and the book by Moreland and Rae. I will check out the links. | Your welcome. I think you will enjoy them. | 
02-27-2008, 02:25 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
| | | I found the following argument in Fesar's book, Philosophy of Mind. I would like to know how you would respond to it.
Here is the argument: "A Cartesian immaterial substance, being outside space, is outside this universe. For it to affect the physical world, and in particular the brain, it would have to introduce energy into the physical universe; and for the brain in turn to affect an immaterial substance, it would seemingly transfer energy out of the physical universe. Either way, the amount of energy in the physical universe would fail to be constant. So the very idea of causal interaction between Cartesian material and immaterial substances seem to violate the law of physics." | 
02-27-2008, 03:42 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 261
Thanks: 15
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by cih1355 I found the following argument in Fesar's book, Philosophy of Mind. I would like to know how you would respond to it.
Here is the argument: "A Cartesian immaterial substance, being outside space, is outside this universe. For it to affect the physical world, and in particular the brain, it would have to introduce energy into the physical universe; and for the brain in turn to affect an immaterial substance, it would seemingly transfer energy out of the physical universe. Either way, the amount of energy in the physical universe would fail to be constant. So the very idea of causal interaction between Cartesian material and immaterial substances seem to violate the law of physics." | I've seen some atheists bring up this objection as well. It makes many assumptions and I don't think it's a very good criticism.
I like C.J. Ducasse's response: Quote:
. . . The objection to interactionism that causation, in either direction, as between psychical [mental] and physical events is precluded by the principle of the conservation of energy (or of energy-matter) is invalid for several reasons.
A. One reason is that the conservation which that principle asserts is not something known to be true without exception but is . . . only a defining-postulate of the notion of a wholly closed physical world, so that the question whether psycho-physical or physico-psychical causation ever occurs is (but in different words) the question whether the physical world is wholly closed. And that question is not answered by dignifying as a "principle" the assumption that the physical world is wholly closed.
B. Anyway, as C. D. Broad has pointed out, it might be the case that whenever a given amount of energy vanishes from, or emerges in, the physical world at one place, then an equal amount of energy respectively emerges in, or vanishes from that world at another place.
C. And thirdly, if "energy" is meant to designate something experimentally measurable, then "energy" is defined in terms of causality, not causality in terms of transfer of energy. That is, it is not known that all causation, or, in particular, causation as between psychical and physical events, involves transfer of energy. (Curt Ducasse, "In Defense of Dualism" in Sidney Hook, ed., Dimensions of Mind, Collier 1961, pp. 88-89)
| |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |