Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019146794 = product of:
  0.13402756 = sum of:
    0.06701378 = weight(_text_:world in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06701378 = score(doc=4402,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
    0.06701378 = weight(_text_:world in 4402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06701378 = score(doc=4402,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 4402, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4402)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

David J. Chalmers constructs a highly ambitious and original picture of the world, from a few basic elements. He develops and extends Rudolf Carnap's attempt to do the same in Der Logische Aufbau Der Welt (1928). Carnap gave a blueprint for describing the entire world using a limited vocabulary, so that all truths about the world could be derived from that description--but his Aufbau is often seen as a noble failure. In Constructing the World, Chalmers argues that something like the Aufbau project can succeed. With the right vocabulary and the right derivation relation, we can indeed construct the world. The focal point of Chalmers's project is scrutability: roughly, the thesis that ideal reasoning from a limited class of basic truths yields all truths about the world. Chalmers first argues for the scrutability thesis and then considers how small the base can be. All this can be seen as a project in metaphysical epistemology: epistemology in service of a global picture of the world and of our conception thereof. The scrutability framework has ramifications throughout philosophy. Using it, Chalmers defends a broadly Fregean approach to meaning, argues for an internalist approach to the contents of thought, and rebuts W. V. Quine's arguments against the analytic and the a priori. He also uses scrutability to analyze the unity of science, to defend a conceptual approach to metaphysics, and to mount a structuralist response to skepticism. Based on Chalmers's 2010 John Locke lectures, Constructing the World opens up debate on central areas of philosophy including philosophy of language, consciousness, knowledge, and reality. This major work by a leading philosopher will appeal to philosophers in all areas.

0.007135589 = product of:
  0.04994912 = sum of:
    0.02497456 = weight(_text_:world in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02497456 = score(doc=4561,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.18991804 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
    0.02497456 = weight(_text_:world in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02497456 = score(doc=4561,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.18991804 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Content

In which I introduce the ancient mind-body problem, explain why I am on a quest to use reason and empirical inquiry to solve it, acquaint you with Francis Crick, explain how he relates to this quest, make a confession, and end on a sad note -- In which I write about the wellsprings of my inner conflict between religion and reason, why I grew up wanting to be a scientist, why I wear a lapel pin of Professor Calculus, and how I acquired a second mentor late in life -- In which I explain why consciousness challenges the scientific view of the world, how consciousness can be investigated empirically with both feet firmly planted on the ground, why animals share consciousness with humans, and why self-consciousness is not as important as many people think it is -- In which you hear tales of scientist-magicians that make you look but not see, how they track the footprints of consciousness by peering into your skull, why you don't see with your eyes, and why attention and consciousness are not the same -- In which you learn from neurologists and neurosurgeons that some neurons care a great deal about celebrities, that cutting the cerebral cortex in two does not reduce consciousness by half, that color is leached from the world by the loss of a small cortical region, and that the destruction of a sugar cube-sized chunk of brain stem or thalamic tissue leaves you undead -- In which I defend two propositions that my younger self found nonsense--you are unaware of most of the things that go on in your head, and zombie agents control much of your life, even though you confidently believe that you are in charge -- In which I throw caution to the wind, bring up free will, Der ring des Nibelungen, and what physics says about determinism, explain the impoverished ability of your mind to choose, show that your will lags behind your brain's decision, and that freedom is just another word for feeling -- In which I argue that consciousness is a fundamental property of complex things, rhapsodize about integrated information theory, how it explains many puzzling facts about consciousness and provides a blueprint for building sentient machines -- In which I outline an electromagnetic gadget to measure consciousness, describe efforts to harness the power of genetic engineering to track consciousness in mice, and find myself building cortical observatories -- In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations.

Footnote

Now it might seem that is a fairly well-defined scientific task: just figure out how the brain does it. In the end I think that is the right attitude to have. But our peculiar history makes it difficult to have exactly that attitude-to take consciousness as a biological phenomenon like digestion or photosynthesis, and figure out how exactly it works as a biological phenomenon. Two philosophical obstacles cast a shadow over the whole subject. The first is the tradition of God, the soul, and immortality. Consciousness is not a part of the ordinary biological world of digestion and photosynthesis: it is part of a spiritual world. It is sometimes thought to be a property of the soul and the soul is definitely not a part of the physical world. The other tradition, almost as misleading, is a certain conception of Science with a capital "S." Science is said to be "reductionist" and "materialist," and so construed there is no room for consciousness in Science. If it really exists, consciousness must really be something else. It must be reducible to something else, such as neuron firings, computer programs running in the brain, or dispositions to behavior. There are also a number of purely technical difficulties to neurobiological research. The brain is an extremely complicated mechanism with about a hundred billion neurons in ... (Rest nicht frei). " [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/01/10/can-information-theory-explain-consciousness/].

0.0063822647 = product of:
  0.04467585 = sum of:
    0.022337925 = weight(_text_:world in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022337925 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
    0.022337925 = weight(_text_:world in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022337925 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13150178 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The great dream of philosophers and scientists for millennia has been to give us a complete account of the order of things. A powerful articulation of such a dream in this century has been found in the idea of a unity of science. With this manifesto, John Dupre systematically attacks the ideal of scientific unity by showing how its underlying assumptions are at odds with the central conclusions of science itself. In its stead, the author gives us a metaphysics much more in keeping with what science tells us about the world. Elegantly written and compellingly argued, this provocative book will be important reading for all philosophers and scholars of science. Dupre's book is original, lucid and confident, without being eccentric, polemical or arrogant. It deserves close attention...Dupre insists that there is no general scientific method, process, or attitude...He pins down the notion of the unity of science as a form of scientism appropriate only to a Utopia or to totalitarianism. He notes that 'paradoxically, with the disunity of science comes a kind of unity of knowledge.' That is why, to my mind, this is just the kind of philosophical teaching that is needed to close the gap between the two cultures. -- John Ziman Nature The thesis of 'disorder' has revolutionary implications for the practice of science...[This book] should be read by every student of the subject as an antidote to current philosophical correctness, and it should indeed suggest to professionals that many of the fashionable empires of analytic philosophy as well as philosophy of science are not well-clothed. -- Mary Hesse International Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science

0.0044971164 = product of:
  0.06295963 = sum of:
    0.06295963 = weight(_text_:analyse in 4275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06295963 = score(doc=4275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18025847 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03421255 = queryNorm
        0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 4275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4275)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Die beliebte Diagnose der "Wissensgesellschaft" verdeckt, dass keineswegs geklärt scheint, von welchem Wissen hier die Rede ist. Vor der zeitdiagnostischen Analyse muss daher in epistemologischer Hinsicht eine kritische, transdisziplinär angelegte Begriffsarbeit stehen. Bleibt dies aus, prägen weiter zahllebige Mythen unser Wissen vom Wissen; der graue Schwan steht dann bildhaft für jenen eigenartigen Zwang, diesbezüglich Zentrales leichthin zu ignorieren: Weder besteht Wissen aus einem geheimnisvollen physikalischen Stoff Information, der beliebig zwischen unterschiedlich strukturierten Systemen hin- und her übertragen oder von diesen umstandslos gespeichert werden könnte, noch ist es sinnvoll als Gut, Rohstoff oder gar Ware zu begreifen. Wissen generiert den Erscheinungen der Welt kognitiv und kommunikativ ihre (stabile) Bedeutung.