Brief Discussion of Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2024
- In this video I discuss the book Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel. I also mention and briefly discuss the book Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition by T. Colin Campbell, PhD.
Support local bookstores by buying books through Bookshop bookshop.org/shop/earnestlyeston Disclosure: this link is my affiliate page at Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. To order from bookshop directly please visit bookshop.org
Excellent review, man. I read Mind & Cosmos a year or two ago. Nagel is a heavy hitter. And yes, he’s not easy to understand, but brilliantly articulate and precise. Thanks for your video. I subscribed.
Thank you!
I can't wait to read it. We need iconoclasts like him badly today.
We do ...especially as I think he is an Atheist....am I correct in saying that there is general agreement that Evolution theory is the best we have as an explanation of how development can be understood ??
Another brilliant, young professor of philosophy to look out for is *Markus Gabriel.* Gabriel as well as other *New Realists,* are now fleshing out the gaps still open in Nagels argument. Contrary to _old, i.e. naive_ realism, _new_ realism doesn't just consider the objects of our perception, knowledge and thoughts as real, but our perceptions, thoughts etc. just as well. But, contrary to postmodernism, constructionism or idealism on the other hand it does not say that physical things are an illusion.
In fact, Gabriel argues that no sytem of information, no "Weltbild", no all-inclusive concept of "world" exists. No set of rules can describe "everything". That's why even the most perfected laws of physics, can not in principle, and will never in principle make even the most trivial _perdictions_ about what you are going to cook for dinner next week, who will top the charts next month, when the next big financial crash will be. Each topic, i.e. each system of information/complexity has it's own field of sense, it's own context in which the shortest description/discussion is possible.
Thanks for the post.
I listened to a lecture by John Lennox and he mentioned this book so I did litle search on YT and your video cam up. Thanks for share.
Reading now and this book is wild!! Came to UA-cam for some clarity haha
Thanks
I read it carefully, but knowing that I would re-read it more thoroughly. It still took me forever and I don't feel qualified to give even a basic synopsis, lol.
However, I will say that I think he did propose a third option to materialism and creationism, a sort of teleological perspective in which the matter in the universe is slowly becoming conscious. He did, however, explicitly claim that there was little evidence to prove this.
Reading it for the second time. Rupert Sheldrake mentioned it in a recently posted talk. Such a brilliant book, impossible to deny the argument that the reductionism worldview is completely limited and cannot explain not only the design and variation in evolution but also doesn't even dare to address consciousness. The backlash is totally over the top but does go to show how insecure scientists are
I need to give this a re-read as well. Reductionism has served us well but I agree it's not the only way of knowing and in some cases actually does harm. Whole: Rethinking the science of Nutrition by T. Colin Campbell is a case in point. Campbell was a professor of nutritional biochemistry and Cornell and argues that nutritionally speaking an apple (and all food) is greater than the sum of it's parts. The backlash shows that scientists can be as dogmatic as religious people (which I think that point is also made in Mind and Cosmos). Thanks for the comment!
I wouldn't throw physics completely out of the boat, but we need to address the simple reality of our own minds. Our perceptions are just as real as what they percieve, in the sense that they are fallible. As Decartes pointed out "What I think might be flawed, but that I am thinking is undeniable."
I recommend looking into *New Realism,* by the youngest ever german professor *Markus Gabriel,* and *Integrated Information Theory,* by *Giulio Tononi.*
@bluegreenplanet89 It was pretty harsh criticism. I think Nagel's mistake was mentioning Meyer and Berlinski. Nagel made very valid general philosophical arguments why reductionist materialism can't explain cognition, consciousness and value. His arguments were very different from those used by Meyer and Berlinski. He needn't have mentioned them.
Hi friend!
Greetings my friend!
It took him way too long to get to the point. Actually I don't know if he ever got there.
Who? The author or the video narrator?
Perhaps Nagel just wants to challenge human certainty that we can understand everything.