Votre titre Audible gratuit

Mind and Cosmos

Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
Lu par : Brian Troxell
Durée : 3 h et 45 min
5 out of 5 stars (1 notation)

9,95 € / mois après 30 jours. Résiliable à tout moment.

ou
Dans le panier

Description

The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative.

In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic. In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.

©2012 Oxford University Press (P)2014 Audible Inc.

Autres livres audio du même :

Ce que les auditeurs disent de Mind and Cosmos

Notations
Global
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    0
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0
Interprétation
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    0
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0
Histoire
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 étoiles
    1
  • 4 étoiles
    0
  • 3 étoiles
    0
  • 2 étoiles
    0
  • 1 étoile
    0

Trier par :
Trier par:
  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars

Stimulating and inspiring

I found this captivating. We need good, intelligent, rigorous challenges to present accepted orthodoxies. Indeed it can be argued Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, claimed this is exactly the purpose of philosophy - to refuse to accept the "given" explanations and beliefs and challenge them to see if they stand up, even if you have little or no idea what a better explanation would be. It's from these very challenges that our understanding deepens and our creative imagination is called into play to come up with better models, ideas and explanations.
This is one of the strongest challenges to reductionist materialism I have encountered so far.

Trier par :
Trier par:
  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Alice Walker
  • Alice Walker
  • 15/02/2018

Intellectual honesty at its finest

As an evolutionary biochemist with a PhD from Harvard, I have worked over the past 17 years to dispel the myth among my colleagues and collaborators that the materialist Neo-Darwinian paradigm has the power to explain life, reason, value, etc, debating them until I'm blue in the face. I don't seem to get very far, even though they seem to be able to recognize that the sheer vastness of protein sequence space does present an insurmountable problem for the unguided self-organization of functional biosynthetic systems, not to mention the genetic code. But more often than not, they fall back to naturalism because in their minds, that's the only thing that is "science", and everything outside of this is "religion", specifically Christianity with all its right wing hypocrisy etc. Being open about my faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of my sin, my colleagues often grant themselves an automatic trap door to escape the reality of my critiques of materialism and Darwinism: "you are motivated, at least in part, by your faith to think this way." I cannot deny that my worldview colors everything I see. I just don't think it's fair for them to think their position isn't influenced by an atheistic or other worldview that has the very same function. Nevertheless, reason and intellectual honesty are available to us all, no matter what your starting points in the discussion. Which is why I love this book. I will be recommending it to everyone I know who makes the brute assumption that only Theists should take the position that reductive materialist Neo-Darwinism has failed. I may not agree with Nagel's conclusions, but as a scientist, I would think it a victory for the community of evolutionary biologists simply to free themselves to openly discuss (not just over beers after work) and to search for a theory that actually explains the most self-evident and necessary parts of life: the mind and all that it produces.

13 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

  • Global
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Robbie
  • Robbie
  • 21/01/2018

Worth the "read." At times, difficult to follow.

I am glad I bought and listened to it, however, the arguments, at times, were too technical philosophically, and I felt a bit lost. Fortunately, I did, overall, feel edified by the book.

3 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

  • Global
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    3 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour CHET YARBROUGH
  • CHET YARBROUGH
  • 29/01/2015

IS DARWIN'S THEORY WRONG?

Thomas Nagel believes Darwin’s theory of natural selection is wrong. Nagel suggests natural selection fails to encompass the concept of mind. Even though Nagel acknowledges biology and physics have made great strides in understanding the nature of life, he suggests the mind should be a starting point for a theory of everything. Nagel infers that science research is bogged down by a mechanistic and materialistic view of nature. Nagel suggests science must discover the origin of consciousness to find the Holy Grail; i.e. an all-encompassing theory of nature.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with Nagel’s idea, it seems propitious for the United States to fund and begin their decade-long effort to examine the human brain. Though nearer term objectives are to understand Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, the longer term result may be to discover the origin of consciousness. Contrary to Nagel’s contention that natural selection cannot explain consciousness, brain research may reveal consciousness rises from the same source of mysterious elemental and repetitive combinations of an immortal gene that Darwin dimly understood. Brain research offers an avenue for extension or refutation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

"Mind and Cosmos" is a tribute to Nagel’s “outside the box” philosophical’ thought. Like some who say string theory is a blind alley for a theory of everything, natural selection may be a mistaken road to the origin of life.

9 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

  • Global
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour K
  • K
  • 30/06/2020

surprisingly honest

it is unusual to see a secular academic to write against mainline, pollitically correct materialistic paradigm.
it is a welcomed contribution to a realization that the teleology is real. also, resonate with much of intellifent design on IRREDUCIBILITY of a given phenomenon. be that interdependent molecular machines, or consciousness, or values.
should be a food for thought regardless of your convictions.

  • Global
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Amazon Customer
  • Amazon Customer
  • 30/12/2019

Great effort

Great effort considering his very limited view of the world. There's so much more evidence to support his conclusion that the discussion could continue for volumes.

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    4 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Amazon Customer
  • Amazon Customer
  • 07/03/2019

Good book, bad reading.

The performer repeatedly mispronounces key terms, including, shockingly, Aristotelian. I would have expected higher quality.

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour TrueHulk
  • TrueHulk
  • 31/01/2019

finally

a honest, consistent atheist/agnostic writing a good book not full of garbage. it's a chimera to be sure, but a welcome one

  • Global
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    2 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour N. Soldofsky
  • N. Soldofsky
  • 13/07/2015

Interesting ideas, poor reasoning

How Nagel replaces reductive materialism is interesting, but his reasons for replacing it are misinformed and illogical. Maybe worth listening, but definitely supplement with something that deals with the multiverse theory and the weak anthropic principle, as so much of Nagel's arguments boil down to questions of likelihood. I suggest Tegemark's Mathematical Universe, as an antidote to Nagel's weakest points.

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Log Jammin
  • Log Jammin
  • 01/03/2017

take that dawkins!

be careful to give your undivided attention to nagel's thoughts and words, for if you do, your mind will be blown.

2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile

  • Global
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Interprétation
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Histoire
    5 out of 5 stars
Image de profile pour Dr. Amen-Ra
  • Dr. Amen-Ra
  • 07/09/2014

NAGEL’S NESCIENCE OF NUN’S GNOSIS

It is satisfying to see a serious Philosopher of Mind acknowledge the notion that science has hitherto failed to solve the central problem conceptually confronting cogitant Mankind: namely, how inert matter gives rise to consciousness. Nagel correctly contends that consciousness is the most complex, most astounding accompaniment of life extant in our corner of the Cosmos. He understandably argues that the nature of scientific investigation necessarily impairs its ability to offer an adequate explanation of the emergence of awareness from insensate matter and, further, that the invocation of Evolution does not diminish this deficiency. Impressively, irrespective of his acknowledged atheism, he encourages intellectuals to take certain arguments advanced by advocates of Intelligent Design seriously (however sentimental and self-serving such simple-minded statements seem). In essence, what Darwinian theorists unduly dismiss is the difficulty, indeed apparent impossibility, of naive Natural Selection sufficiently accounting for the creation of consciousness prior to the origination of organized life. While Natural Selection can clearly explain the efflorescence of intelligence (owing to its inherent adaptability) after the emergence of self-replicating structures, it cannot conceivably account for the factors that would have made this property productive prior to the appearance of Life.

If the Author is inclined to agree with Dr. Nagel’s aforementioned analysis, wherein does the distinguished Philosopher err? To elucidate the intellectual indictment of his heuristic enterprise we must mention the main metaphysical muddle—the Mind/Matter Mystery. Simply stated, matter is marked by properties such as ponderosity (weightiness), extensibility (space occupation), and ostensible insentience (absence of awareness). Obversely, the mind is immaterial—it occupies no space and possesses no mass. Further, it feels. To employ Nagel’s apt ideational imagery, there is “something it is like to be” aware, sentient, conscious. Despite their undeniable dissimilarity, the immaterial mind is dependent upon the physical brain. Though the best thinkers in the Western tradition have systematically studied this thorny issue since Descartes, it is arguable that the Ancients of the East and elsewhere also appreciated the problem and sought to effect a synthesis of soul and soma, spirit and substance. And yet, even in our advanced age of scientific sophistication, we seem no closer to an edifying understanding of this most fundamental philosophical problem. Persons privy to the pronouncements of “Mind, Matter, Mathematics, & Mortality (M4)” may not be so pessimistic in their assessment of our understanding however.

M4 maintains that modern science has established the infinitesimal (hence immaterial) essence of matter on its minutest level (i.e. that of leptons and quarks). This eradicates the alleged incommensurability of matter and mind in the materialistic sense—for fundamentally, there is no such thing as “matter”. M4 maintains that modern science has established that elementary particles exhibit irreducible awareness (as indicated, for instance, in the modified Double Slit Experiment). This eradicates the alleged incommensurability of matter and mind in the subjectivist sense. Admittedly, I am biased, possessed of pride and prejudice alike. What else could I be? M4 is my “Baby”, my Magnum Opus, and is arguably the most elegant exposition of Metaphysics since Plotinus’ “Enneads”, perhaps Plato’s “Timaeus”, mayhaps even the monumental “Memphite Theology” of the ancient Egyptians secured Shabaka, that Sudanic Sovereign of Nubian nativity. [Aristotle’s Metaphysics is anything but elegant, but this is purely the opinion of a professed Platonist.] It would be easy for an objector to eschew my self-appraisal as excessive intellectual egotism. However, a real refutation of my work would require a repudiation (or reinterpretation) of the sound science and substantive empirical evidence upon which it is based, not an unreasoned, reflexive rejection of my grandiloquent claims. Regrettably, my relative academic obscurity makes the task of kindred colleagues somewhat difficult, especially given my disciplinary dalliance in diverse areas of investigation. However, my manifest (and ambivalently desired) obscurity has not prevented prominent scientists and intellectuals from appropriating my ideas without proper attribution or acknowledgement. It is incumbent upon intellectuals (especially if they endeavor to ensconce their musings in a manuscript) to know what is known and already articulated, if indeed intellectual novelty is among their ideals—as it ought to be. In short, Dr. Nagel should know the nature of my work and adjust his arguments accordingly, even if he ultimately opposes them. Like Dr. Colin McGinn, with whom he shares a modicum of Mysterianism, he would be disinclined to dismiss the principle of Proto-Mentalism (or what I call ‘Immaterial Monism’) if he understood the implications of the inherent awareness (or ‘Proto-Percipience’) of elementary matter. But his inattention is altogether innocent, not malicious, and I take no umbrage thereat. But what, we may rightly wonder, would he say about this excerpt from M4 concerning the crucial Quantum Mechanical experiment cited previously:

“If the particles that certain suitably contrived machines detect are somehow, in some sense, ‘aware’, being cognizant of the conditions under which they exist, it should come as no surprise that a collection of quanta, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, and organ systems should, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, under the influence of a selective, guiding principle aimed at ensuring survival, result in the accretion of awareness and the emergence of what we call consciousness. Consciousness is the epiphenomenal result of the assemblage of molecules whose very elementary constituents are demonstrably possessed of the capacity for awareness. We do not know what it is like for a quark or an electron or an atom to be aware, but there seems to be little reason to doubt that they are in some sense aware. We know, moreover, that we are composed of these very entities. The key to consciousness may lie in the rudimentary awareness of the constituents of which we are composed. Animism is alive (pun intended).” (M4, p.46)

There is something superficially novel about one of Nagel’s arguments. This concerns Naturalistic Teleology. In Dr. Nagel’s estimation, Darwinian developmental doctrines that describe the emergence of awareness from insentient matter are unconvincing; there is, instead, an overarching Order, Intelligence, or Entelechy inherent in existence. This Entity appreciates and is oriented toward “value”—that is, it is able and inclined to discern “good” and “bad”; we sentient souls are manifestations of this Entity; any adequate Theory of Everything (TOE) must explain the irreducible value of value. M4 explicitly embraces Teleology—the idea of an overarching, Proto-Mental Entity inherent in the Universe. I call this abysmal, nebulous entity “Nun”. [See “Nun, Nous, & Numerous: Symbols, Science, & Supreme Mathematics”, in Ch IV of M4 (Amen-Ra, 2007).] Of course this idea is not entirely new, hence my employment of ancient Egyptian iconography to express it in M4. I could just as easily have employed the appellations Amen, Ishvara, Brahman, Purusha, Ptah or other ancient cosmogonic concepts conveying the primacy of consciousness in the Cosmos. What does make the M4 dispensation of Divine Teleology nearly novel is that it dispenses with a Divinity and offers naturalistic arguments and evidence for its principal postulates and conclusions. Thus, Nagel’s admonition to intellectuals to take Teleological Analysis seriously is appreciated though anachronistic. M4 has already introduced and explored the explanatory implications of Teleology for the mystery of Mind. Our case is cogent and compelling. It need only be considered.


Dr. Nun Sava-Siva Amen-Ra, Ascetic Idealist Philosopher
Damascus, Maryland USA
7 September MMIV

4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile