{"product":{"product_id":"0199919755","title":"Mind \u0026 Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False","price":"35.95","image_url":"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31rPcfpLq9L._SL500_.jpg","url":"https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199919755"},"comments":[{"body":"\u0026gt;So MM encompasses both hard atheist skepticism and MN, but not soft atheism…\r\n\r\nYes. Materialism is the strongest (most extreme) claim (in that direction), because it leaves no theoretical space for anything supernatural (of any sort). \r\n\r\n\u0026gt;And neither skepticism nor MN includes MM\r\r\n\r\nThey don't have to, no. You can be skeptical or a naturalist without being a materialist, and the distinction is quite important. Thomas Nagel, for example, [has spent decades trying to explain to people why materialism is wrong](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755), but he's a naturalist and he's a skeptic regarding God - he \"just can't bring himself to believe in such a thing\".\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;but MN is a purely science perspective but doesn’t encompass atheists of either type\r\r\n\r\nIf  you are a MN then you believe science can, in theory, explain everything that is going on in the universe. That is very hard to square with belief in the existence of anything worthy of the name \"God\".\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;And the only difference between PS and NPS is that PS believes science and metaphysics are compatible, and NPS believes that supernatural is always the answer.\r\n\r\nNot quite. Science is science and metaphysics is metaphysics. Whether or not they are compatible doesn't make sense as a question. The question is whether science is compatible with mysticism (which are both epistemic claims ie they are about what we can know and how we can know it). PS views the laws of physics as limits to what is possible - not even God can break the laws of physics. NPS claims that physically impossible things can happen if God or some other supernatural agent wills them to happen.","subreddit_name":"collapse","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"\u0026gt;However, recent studies and tonnes of research are cohesively beginning   \r\nto align in the direction that most of the knowledge at hand indicates   \r\nthat the greater current probability is that our consciousness is   \r\n(merely) a product of our brain and pretty much all of our life,\r\n\r\nThis is simply not true. Recent philosophical developments suggest the exact opposite. Materialist/functionalist theories of mind hit a high watermark between the 1950s and the 1980s, and are now under serious and sustained attack. Indeed, I'd say we are looking at the early stages of  major paradigm shift which consigns metaphysical materialism to intellectual history.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755","subreddit_name":"IntellectualDarkWeb","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"\u0026gt;Consciousness cannot be fundamental. It developed through evolution and it’s main use is to survive reality. It simply cannot be fundamental to the universe, because the universe will still be with or without it. It belongs to things that need to survive reality, things without consciousness need not survive reality.\r\n\r\nThere's no necessary link between consciousness and the need to survive. Plants need to survive, but that doesn't mean they need to be conscious.\r\n\r\nAs for whether consciousness developed through evolution - that is very much an open question. I believe there is a logical problem with materialism, and if you accept that materialism is false then materialistic accounts of evolution also have to be rejected.\r\n\r\nSee: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755\r\n\r\nI think the real question we need to ask is how to square what we do know about evolution with what we don't know about consciousness, and we will not end up at a position where we can safely conclude that consciousness isn't fundamental (or something along those lines).","subreddit_name":"consciousness","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"\u0026gt;Evolutionary biology is increasingly uncovering examples symbioses and cooperation as drivers of natural history -- it is becoming increasingly evident that cooperation is just as essential as competition in evolution.\r\n\r\nThat has been very obvious for a very long time. There is nothing new about it. Nothing I have said denies it.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;The idea that life's ultimate mechanism boils down to competition or exploitation is worth considering, but it's not self evident.\r\n\r\nI never said anything about any \"ultimate mechanism\". However, symbiosis doesn't change what I sam saying. You won't get a better example of symbiosis than that between humans and dogs. But the idea that the symbiotic relationship between humans and dogs is beneficial to the rest of the ecosystem is clearly absurd. Humans and dogs work together because it is the interests of both to do so, and this very obviously comes at the expense of other organisms - specifically the ones they jointly hunt. \r\n\r\nThat is how the natural world works. The key word here is \"natural\". If you want to talk about \"life's ultimate mechanism\" then we cannot restrict the discussion to \"natural\" in this sense. Whether there could be an ultimate mechanism that transcends natural causality is very much an open question.\r\n\r\nsee: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755","subreddit_name":"ecology","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"\u0026gt; Why is it the case that specific damage to parts of the brain correlated to certain behaviors; result in changes to that exact behavior.\r\n\r\nBecause brains are necessary for consciousness - or at least they are necessary for anything resembling human consciousness. Neccesary, but not sufficient.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;I don't understand why you think it's a principled position to propose anything outside of scientific understanding. \r\n\r\nAll sorts of things are outside of scientific understanding. Science is extremely powerful, but its power is directly linked to its limitations. Specifically relevant in this case is the fact that neither epistemology nor metaphysics fall within the remit of science. Both of those things are scientifically meaningless - you cannot even define what epistemology and metaphysics are with scientific language. \r\n\r\n\u0026gt;The likes of which have actually come a LONG way in the last 10 years.\r\n\r\nScience is no closer to being able to do epistemology and metaphysics when Immanuel Kant explained to the world exactly why science can't ever do them in 1781.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;To quite frank, I believe those who are still proposing solutions outside of materialism have not yet immersed themselves in the current scientific understanding of consciousness in relation to the physical brain.\r\n\r\nTo be quite frank, you have no idea what you are talking about. The problem isn't my lack of understanding of science. I have a degree in philosophy and cognitive science. The problem is your woeful lack of understanding of philosophy.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; It has come a tremendous distance in both epistemology and consensus.\r\n\r\nThis statement is complete, unadulterated nonsense. Materialism is under sustained and intense attack, because it is widely understood to have been falsified. If you came from a philosophical background rather than a scientific one, you'd realise this.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755","subreddit_name":"philosophy","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"\u0026gt;  Here, we strive for something of a continuation of the 'academic' environment, meaning, thinking within the framework of the standard models and just generally speaking the shared language of the physicists, that is, physics.  That's what the rules 'mean'.  It may not be everyone's thing.\r\n\r\nI presume you believe Henry Stapp is an academic?\r\n\r\nThere is plenty of \"quantum nonsense\" that needs to be rejected. The problem is that far too many people consider people like Henry Stapp and [Thomas Nagel](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755) to be on the wrong side of the line, when actually they are both very highly respected thinkers who are trying to provoke a Kuhnian paradigm shift in physics. If what's happening here is resistance to a legitimate paradigm shift, rather than the rejection of anti-intellectual nonsense, then that's a big problem, because you're on the wrong side of history.","subreddit_name":"QuantumPhysics","author":"anthropoz"},{"body":"Unless you like dense but vague prose with no obvious application, I can't recommend this one, at least from the beginning in the free kindle sample: https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=la_B000AQ6R56_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1520986930\u0026amp;sr=1-1\r\n\r\nBut the first taste is free and YMMV. There are lots of blurbs from prestigious publications so go figure.","subreddit_name":"VeryBadWizards","author":"beelzebubs_avocado"},{"body":"I'm a scientist and former atheist and thought the theory of evolution was simple unassailable overwhelming science. When I became a Christian I continued to have that belief, but curious about the young earth creationism (YEC) I took a couple short courses on YEC. Both were compete and utter garbage.  Then I went on to study down into the science-based and philosophical-basis for intelligent design or rejection of neo Darwinism, in come cases written by atheists such as  [this one by Nagal](https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755).  Without an aim to persuade you to accept my religious beliefs, it would be interesting to talk to you about the major problems there are with Neo Darwinism, many of which are now becoming recognized by evolutionary biologists.  I don't conclude that Neo Darwinism is utterly false, but I'm convinced it is at least incomplete. \r\n\r\nCheers!","subreddit_name":"The_Donald","author":"k-sci"},{"body":"I would like to add in the alternate viewpoint from eminent agnostic/atheist philosopher of science, Thomas Nagel. His book [Mind and Cosmos](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755) does a very good job of drawing out the limitations of these alternate theories. ","subreddit_name":"videos","author":"karmaceutical"},{"body":"Keep in mind that the vast majority of the comments here are from staunch materialists who rely on the evidence of their 5 senses and seek to explain phenomena in terms of natural physical laws Atheism has nothing to say about consciousness but contrary to popular opinion there are many atheists who see consciousness as a property existing independent of what the 5 senses can describe and which must be accounted for in any theory of reality. A great and erudite book on this subject is Thomas Nagel's [Mind and Cosmos](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=sr_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1453087056\u0026amp;sr=1-1\u0026amp;keywords=mind+and+cosmos). \r\n\r\n\u0026gt;The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.  Even though the theistic outlook, in some versions, is consistent with the available scientific evidence, I don’t believe it, and am drawn instead to a naturalistic, though non-materialist, alternative. Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy.","subreddit_name":"DebateReligion","author":"khufumen"},{"body":"Indeed. Materialism/physicalism is still the dominant view in the west but it seems to be undermined more and more as time goes on. I think its about time we move on from such an ancient paradigm and go with the evidence. Nagel has some awesome work on this in his book [Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755) as published by Oxford University Press in 2012.","subreddit_name":"philosophy","author":"Proverbs313"},{"body":"\u0026gt; Not all, but I didn't say that all were. I said that some were.\r\n\r\nRight and the ones that aren't we can just use experience for some of them.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; And in the case of the instruments of the sciences they're theory-laden extensions. I'm not really sure where you're going with this.\r\n\r\nJust that we do arrive at some of these conclusions via these instruments which are extensions of our senses. \r\n\r\n\u0026gt; I like Pryor's 2000 paper and Huemer's 2001 book.\r\n\r\nThanks for the links. I checked out the paper and he doesn't seem to be proving realism (and you kind of made note of this), I don't have time to read a whole book right now so if you're willing to just share a particular argument from it that would be great.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt; Also, again as I say above, the point here is not one particular argument, but rather that professional philosophers converge on the view that idealism is false and realism correct to such a degree that no other philosophical theory can lay claim to.\r\n\r\nI understand that a lot of philosophers are realists, just like how a lot of humans are theists, but this grants no support for realism or theism (as I'm sure you already know). As you've pointed out before materialism seems to be a kind of dominant viewpoint right now, surely this contributes to the notions of realism, however materialism is starting to unravel: [Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755)","subreddit_name":"philosophy","author":"Proverbs313"},{"body":"\u0026gt; Do they effect the brain differently?  \r\n\r\nI have no idea if any studies have been done on this but (outside of the answer being interesting to people who want to know how the brain works) I'm not sure why we really need an answer to this question as phrased this way. Generally the reasons people give for the value of the arts/humanities include their ability to enhance critical thinking, enrich our perspectives, help us understand other people's points of view and other cultures, etc etc and the argument can be made without reference to brain science. In fact (and sorry, this is a bit of me on my soap box), I think people's increased need to see brain scans now before they accept arguments/insights about human behavior and society is one symptom of an overly STEM culture, where people for some reason think the only real knowledge is knowledge which can be apprehended through thoroughly objective, empirical, and if possible, quantitative methods. The humanities (and the social sciences) are important because, as vital as STEM is, there are significant parts of human experience (namely, the *experience* part, involving our subjectivity) that the social science, humanities, and arts are better suited to reach.\r\n\r\nFor more arguments regarding humanities' value for critical thought see Martha Nussbaum's [Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities.](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691173320/not-for-profit) For arguments about why STEM is not well suited for explaining many important aspects of our lives see Thomas Nagel's [Mind and Cosmos](https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755) which he summarizes [here](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/).","subreddit_name":"askphilosophy","author":"brighterthanthesun28"},{"body":"No problem!  Here are some recommendations (they are highly biased to what I've enjoyed and what's influenced me as someone who has been in similar shoes as you!) \r\n\r\n*Meditations* is of course a classic in both epistemology and philosophy of mind. I'm not well versed in epistemology. But I do know some philosophy of mind, and I think that if you enjoyed Descartes' anti-materialist thoughts about the nature of the mind/soul then you would also really enjoy Thomas Nagel. I doubly recommend him to you because he is an atheist who nonetheless doubts that the world can be approached in fully materialist or scientific terms. His most famous article [\"What is it Like to be a Bat?\"](https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf) is a great intro to his views. He's also written [books](https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/145-5867798-9101000?_encoding=UTF8\u0026amp;pd_rd_i=0199919755\u0026amp;pd_rd_r=532626b4-0856-4775-b5af-8d9e78b668bc\u0026amp;pd_rd_w=KkSpY\u0026amp;pd_rd_wg=vOUfD\u0026amp;pf_rd_p=7b36d496-f366-4631-94d3-61b87b52511b\u0026amp;pf_rd_r=Y1TXAJXC31SKE6PF2SG8\u0026amp;psc=1\u0026amp;refRID=Y1TXAJXC31SKE6PF2SG8) on these issues which are on my own reading list. There are also some pretty cool ancient texts which deal with these issues...you said you've read Plato, I don't know if you're familiar with the [*Phaedo*](http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2010-09-15.2713280635/file), but it's a beautiful dialogue that deals with the nature of the mind as well as questions about death and value. \r\n\r\nEthics is much more my area so I can make more recommendations here. The ancients are a must...read [*The Republic*](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm) (Plato) and [*Nicomachean Ethics*](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html) (Aristotle) if you haven't already (both ended up influencing some medieval catholic philosophers so you may recognize some ideas if you've already read Aquinas or Augustine). There are also some contemporary philosophers whose commentary on these ancient thinkers is pretty interesting, so if you want to understand the ancients more deeply, I highly recommend Martha Nussbaum's [*The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy*](https://www.amazon.com/Fragility-Goodness-Ethics-Tragedy-Philosophy/dp/0521794722)*.* You might also like her book [*Upheavals of Thought*](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/upheavals-of-thought/3FF62D25B63C90964FF9BC72D6C38459) which is partly a work in moral psychology (asking about the nature of emotions) but also a work in ethics as it asks what lessons ancient, Christian, and contemporary thought on the soul can offer us for modern day moral life. \r\n\r\nIf you're interested in Kant's ethics you should obviously read his [*Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals*](http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/GroundworkI.pdf)*.* You are correct that Kant is a pretty difficult philosopher to read (though the *Groundwork* is one of his more accessible works). It might help you to also  read some modern day Kantians, though bear in mind they are offering their own (often controversial) interpretation of Kant's ideas! I believe Christine Korsgaard is one of the biggest names in modern day Kantianism, so reading an article like [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265252?seq=1) one could help you think more clearly about Kant and his legacy. Since you are coming from a background where you thought a lot about religion, I also recommend [this](https://philpapers.org/rec/EBETRT) article by Kantian Kyla Ebels-Duggan for a fascinating exploration of the disagreement between Kantians and utilitarians and an argument as to why that disagreement might lead some to hope there is a god.","subreddit_name":"askphilosophy","author":"brighterthanthesun28"},{"body":"\u0026gt;Yeah, that's the most interesting one for me too, and we have nothing better than \"an emergent property of certain complex networks\"\r\n\r\nIt that's the best we've got, then we've got a major problem. It's not just a poor explanation -- it looks very much like it is certifiably wrong. It doesn't make sense, because it commits a category mistake. How can subjectivity \"emerge\" from complex networks? What does \"emerge\" mean? At this point the only available way of answering the question is to propose analogies which don't work (\"it's like digestion!\" No it isn't.)\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;But to replace that we need testable predictions, and evidence.\r\n\r\nActually, first we need a *definition* of consciousness which is meaningful in a scientific context. How can science provide meaningful answers to questions about consciousness when the word itself doesn't refer to to anything within materialistic reality? This isn't even a scientific problem. It's a conceptual problem resulting from clashing metaphysical and epistemic assumptions.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Or maybe something else entirely? But until then we have nothing but  speculation, as far as I've seen (and I've looked!). As a scientist and  engineer I would like nothing more than a verifiable discovery that  turns everything we know about reality on its head - but we know a lot,  and it works really well so far. We need really good evidence if we're  going to introduce some new, complicated explanation for consciousness  beyond known science.\r\n\r\nWe have good evidence - logical evidence - that materialism is false. I believe the scientific community will eventually be forced to admit that this is the case. It has already begun: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755).\r\n\r\nThe question is where can scientifically-minded people go next, once they accept the reality of the mind-body problem. 90% of people then make the mistake of declaring that dualism and idealism are just as bad as materialism, and therefore we might as well stick with materialism.  As Nagel's book explains, once we abandon materialism the next questions ought to be about *causality*, not ontology.\r\n\r\nWhat does a non-materialistic naturalism look like?","subreddit_name":"PhilosophyofScience","author":"anthropoz"}]}