[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 200x296, Consciousness_Explained_(first_edition) (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18566843 No.18566843 [Reply] [Original]

What's a good book on conciousness and philosophy of mind? Preferably with some focus on neuroscience, not pure philosophy.

This gets recommend a lot but it seems dated. Bi-cameral Mind seems to schizo.

>> No.18566848

I've listened to the Teaching Company's Mind Body Philosophy, which I saw recced here and already read a bunch of Jung.

>> No.18566915

>>18566843
Why you read books written by some sexual perverts?

Read Guénon's magnum opus Reign of Quantity and the chapters on "Errors of pscyhoanalysis" and "Confusion of Psychic and Spiritual"

These sexually deranged theories regarding consciousness by Freud, Jung, they were latently homosexual men with very fucked up, rotten psyche

They are not fit to explain 'consciousness' to you, stay the hell away from them

>> No.18566932

>>18566843
If you want some neuroscience I recommend Being No One by Thomas Metzinger; it draws heavily on empirical brain science and incorporantes it with a philosophy aimed at eliminating the concept of the self. He uses a somewhat Hericleatian placeholder of 'becoming' to account for the present moment's sense of belonging to itself. It's all very demonically charged and eliminative but this is what you get for dabbling in prodding brains

>> No.18567509

>>18566932
Cool, thanks for the rec.

>>18566915
Yeah, Guanon posters general low lack of understanding on most topics has convinced me to steer clear of him. Sounds like "explain it all" theory for midwits on the close end of the Dunning-Krueger curve.

Like, a deep quote cited was that money might "one day" become just "numbers on a sheet of accounts." Lol, money has existed largely on bank balance sheets since at least Ancient Greece. That's how finance works.

>> No.18567583

>>18566843
Dennett is the biggest bugman there is. Instead read Chalmers.

>> No.18567607

>>18567509
>
Like, a deep quote cited was that money might "one day" become just "numbers on a sheet of accounts." Lol, money has existed largely on bank balance sheets since at least Ancient Greece. That's how finance works.

No, that's stupid. Guénon talks about pure quantity and money physically disappearing.

That is already happening with cryptocurrencies and central bank digital currencies. Money will become pure quantity.

>> No.18567656

Desu I would like to know this too. I like to think of consciousness as something immaterial, and I personally have an affinity for the spiritual, but the more I get into philosophy and see the extent of science, the more difficult a time I have maintaining a coherent and consistent worldview.

>> No.18567662

I liked "Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist" by Koch. Although it's more like a memoir of a neuroscientist.

>> No.18567689

>>18566843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_and_the_Brain

>> No.18567879

>>18566843
Most posters on /lit/ don't even understand Dennett's views and they hate him with autistic rage, bear that in mind as this thread inevitably descends into shit, like all Dennett threads.

The book is good, but it takes thinking and effort to digest (don't let the NYT bestseller fool you) and it really helps to come in with some general understanding of the field. If you never read anything on the topic, you should probably start elsewhere. Sadly, good introductory books on consciousness studies don't exist (avoid Susan Blackmore and Sam Harris' wife like the plague, they will poison your mind with their midwit understanding of the issues).

You might want to get started by reading the classic articles (zombies, mary, what is it like to be a bat, quining qualia etc.), Matt McCormick's youtube channel discusses many of them and is helpful.

Then read Sweet Dreams instead of OP, it's shorter, newer and more to the point. >>18566932 is very long, hard and idiosyncratic, worth reading, but further down the road. Bicameral Mind is something of a puzzle to me. When summarized, the premise sounds utterly batshit, but many serious philosophers claim they got a lot from reading it, including Dennett.

If you want much more (neuro)science/philosophy ratio, check out Dehaene or Baars. That youtube channel outlines the global workspace theory too.

>> No.18567929

>>18566843
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/

>> No.18567973

>>18566843
The bicameral mind is great albeit a bit too eurocentric. He does develop his arguments wuite convincingly though.
It pissed me off when he mentioned the Incas, being basically automatons. That was so needlessly racist.

>> No.18568632

Can someone give me a qrd on what the bicameral mind theory has to do with the Trojan War? I saw that mentioned here once.

>> No.18569014

You're looking for How the Mind Works by Pinker or Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahnman.

>> No.18569036

>>18566843
Try Surfing Uncertainty.

>> No.18569104

>>18566915
Are you retarded?

>> No.18569125

>>18567879
Dennett is hated because not only is consciousness denial the dumbest claim ever made, it's extremely dangerous as we enter the era of neuroscience.

>> No.18569302

>>18566843
Try "Philosophy of mind classical and contemporary readings" by David Chalmers, is a selection of important papers about philosophy of mind
There's also "An Introduction to the Philosophy of mind" by Keith Maslin that introduces you to the basics concepts and positions on philosophy of mind

>> No.18569309

>>18569125
>Everything real has properties, and since I don't deny the reality of conscious experience, I grant that conscious experience has properties. I grant moreover that each person's states of consciousness have properties in virtue of which those states have the experiential content that they do. That is to say, whenever someone experiences something as being one way rather than another, this is true in virtue of some property of something happening in them at the time, but these properties are so unlike the properties traditionally imputed to consciousness that it would be grossly misleading to call any of them the long-sought qualia. Qualia are supposed to be special properties, in some hard-to-define way. My claim--which can only come into focus as we proceed--is that conscious experience has no properties that are special in any of the ways qualia have been supposed to be special.
It's the "dumbest claim ever made" only when anons give up on reading things like this and just settle on retarded strawmans that are easier to understand and refute.

>> No.18569325

>>18569309
How does he reduce the properties of qualia, im curious

>> No.18569418

>>18569325
>qualia
"Be more specific". That's literally it. You're falling for strawmen from atheism vs christianity debates that have nothing to do with Dennett's thoughts on the mind.
>but dennet said that you aren't consciou-
No, Dennet said that "consciousness", the term, is so amorphous that every philosopher has their own niche definition and as such any philosophy of the mind MUST begin with a thorough definition of terms so as to prevent precisely the garbage that these threads devolve into (hurf durf dennet is an npc because my brain is a computer XDDDDD) from happening.

Yes, he is autistic (as in actually on the spectrum), he's an Analytic Philosopher.

>> No.18569432

>>18569309
He later said illusionism should be the default position.

>> No.18569452

>>18569418
I don't see why you're accusing me of falling for straw men when I just asked a question, what more specific properties of experience is he talking about?

>> No.18569505

>>18569325
>im curious
The article: https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm
An explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKTWSVS_YBo
I don't really mean to be dismissive, there's just no substitute for mulling it over yourself, especially because Dennett is fighting intuitions with other intuitions, so to speak. Make sure you understand what his goal is as you evaluate his line of thinking.
>>18569418
not me
>>18569432
>illusionism
That's another can of worms, but illusionism is explaining the same problematic phenomena with a different theoretical framework, it doesn't deny (that it seems as though we have) experience

My general point is this: first understand, then criticize. If a renowned philosopher's position seems utterly retarded, you need to understand it better. That applies to anyone from Plato to Dennett.

>> No.18569563

>>18569505
>it doesn't deny (that it seems as though we have) experience
Nice weasel words. It says the only thing that needs to be explained is cognitions about consciousness as though consciousness were real, but ultimately that it isn't. It's strong consciousness denial, which Dennett now endorses. So, there's no strawman at all, and you are defending a total absurdity.

>> No.18569612

>>18569563
There are phenomena that need explaining and theories to explain them. Your confusion stems from the idea that you can somehow give a pre-theoretic account of conscious experience. Illusionists experience consciousness the same way you do. You want to claim that they stubbornly deny what they experience, they don't.

>> No.18569652

>>18569612
>Your confusion stems from the idea that you can somehow give a pre-theoretic account of conscious experience.
Read Husserl. Your need to shoehorn everything into a neat scientistic worldview is nothing short of autism I'm afraid.
>Illusionists experience consciousness the same way you do
Dubious. Their wiring is all screwed up, it has to be.

>> No.18569793

>>18569309
>Qualia are supposed to be special properties, in some hard-to-define way. My claim--which can only come into focus as we proceed--is that conscious experience has no properties that are special in any of the ways qualia have been supposed to be special.
So, what are qualia then? If they aren't hard to define, he should be able to define and explain them.
Also
> Everything real
Essences are unreal but concrete. The tree burn, the essence of the tree doesn't.

>> No.18569797

What about Stephen Pinker's How the Mind Works?

>> No.18569830

>>18569797
Very introductory, and Pinker being Pinker, it's hard to accept on face value anything he says that isn't about linguistics.
However if you are serious about the subject, reading it, along with Clark's Surfing Uncertainty and Thompson's Mind in Life is kind of a prerequisite.

>> No.18569865

>>18569797
A bit dated, lengthy and focused on cognitive science, not philosophy at all. Bait and switch title, much like OP. Well written and informative though, unlike later Pinkers.
>>18569793
>If they aren't hard to define, he should be able to define and explain them.
His explicit goal in this article is to show that qualia are a more confused notion than everyone seems to assume. Don't be so quick to argue with the author, understand what he's trying to do first.
>>18569652
I again call your attention to the distinction between experience and beliefs about experience. Illusionism sacrifices the veridity of some of our strongest intuitions in order to arrive at a coherent theory and that makes it very difficult to grasp and, admittedly, very unpalatable. But again, understand before you criticize.

>> No.18569869

>>18567879
I'm familiar with all of those. I did an undergrad degree in neuroscience.

>> No.18569878

>>18569865
I do understand the distinction, it's what I was talking about myself. The fact illusionism takes Olympian mental gymnastics to justify doesn't equate to genuine sophistication.

>> No.18569909

>>18569563
>>18569505
Both of you are dumb. Qualia exists for some, not for others. Obviously Aryan men obviously have qualia, at least some of them. Women and darks, along with obvious NPC beta cucks clearly don't.

>> No.18569922

>>18569505
Only applies to coherent philosophers. For example, I can dismiss Hegel because I made the mistake of buying his book and saw it was hundreds of pages of word diarrhea and farce.

>> No.18569994

>>18566843
> Brentano's Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint
> Husserl's Logical Investigations, Ideas, On the Passive Synthesis and Cartesian Meditations.
> Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, Structure of Behaviour and probably everything else he ever wrote, he's just that good.
Start with this, come back in 3~4 years to discuss. We'll still be here :s

>> No.18570014
File: 514 KB, 1593x2472, 913BQ8HsS5L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18570014

>>18566843
this