Talk:Biological naturalism

"It is easier to see how the fact that one's thought about a desk is causally related with a desk can bear on the fact that person's thought is about a desk than it is to see how the fact that one's thought is made up of hydrocarbons can bear on the fact that one's thought about a desk is about a desk."

This sentence makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.209.80 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a desk right now; what makes that thought "about" the desk instead of about the moon, or about nothing at all? It is easier to see that this aboutness comes from the fact that my thought is causally related to the desk, than it is to see that this aboutness comes from the hydrocarbons that compose the thought. Better? 65.96.114.192 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First, it's a direct quote so it's irrelevant whether it makes sense. Second, you're mistaking your inability to parse it for it not making sense; it actually makes fine sense: ""It is easier to see how [the fact that one's thought about a desk is causally related with a desk] can bear on [the fact that person's thought is about a desk] than it is to see how [the fact that one's thought is made up of hydrocarbons] can bear on [the fact that one's thought about a desk is about a desk]." -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonereductionist

I eliminated the first sentence of the second paragraph stating that mental states reduce to brain processes. Searle's view is explicitly nonreductionist.

Stoned philosophaster (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searle's view (or his claims about it) is inconsistent. Being non-dualist, Searle necessarily thinks that mental states are produced by (can be reduced to) biological activity.

Emergent property

Also eliminated the part that says Searle treats consciousness as an "emergent property" of the brain. He never speaks of it in these terms.

Stoned philosophaster (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he explicitly denies that consciousness is an emergent property, claiming that he doesn't know what that means.

RealityApologist (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Searle says the following: "consciousness is a causally emergent feature of systems. It is an emergent feature of certain systems of neurons in the same way that solidity and liquidity are emergent features of systems of molecules" [Rediscovery of the Mind, 112]. What are you guys talking about? 65.96.114.192 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article reads:

Searle believes that consciousness "is a real part of the real world and it cannot be eliminated in favor of, or reduced to, something else" whether that something else is a neurological state of the brain or a software program. [...]

On the other hand, Searle doesn't treat consciousness as a ghost in the machine. He treats it, rather, as a state of the brain.

Am I slightly confused about the meaning here, or is the author? Because if consciousness is identical to the state of the brain, surely it can be reduced to the firing of neurons and the balance of chemicals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.108.57 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, Searle says that consciousness is "caused by and realized in" a state in the brain. He certainly wouldn't want to use the term 'identical,' because consciousness has certain first-person experiential properties that brain states don't have. He talks in terms of "causal reduction," though, saying that while consciousness can be "causally reduced" to neuronal firings, it maintains ontological independence.

RealityApologist (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is important to understand the "multiple realization" of a intentional state. You can not find in a brain of person that who die 100 years ago (if you could time travel) the physical part or the state that it associates monetary value to plastic (credit card), money can be made of any kind of material physical, including electromagnetic signals. There is no physical limits and can not be predict what will be money in the future. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 03:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Why is the page itself listed as a reference? Quite circular.LéVeillé 06:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biological naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040102071840/http://csli-publications.stanford.edu:80/papers/CSLI-95-194.html to http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/papers/CSLI-95-194.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)