This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New mysterianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interesting article, and the first time I have heard of the phrase "new mysterianism." It seems that not only is such a view held wrt the mind-body problem (sometimes using Godel's Theorem) but also concerning the theory of knowledge. For example, it has been argued that we will never attain the one, true, complete theory of physics. -- 63.98.134.169 21:04, 26 September 2004
I've just changed this:
to this:
I thought the 'sentience could be described ....' was a little POV (even though it's the position I hold myself). I ended up rewriting those couple of lines altogether. I'm not certain how to write the last few words. Any ideas on how to sum up the hard problem? Perhaps I should have said: 'the existence of qualia and also their interaction with the physical world'. Aaron McDaid 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed that this article doesn't reference things properly. At some point in the past, it looks like numbered references have been used, but the numbering system wasn't done using proper flags and is long gone now, so the present indexing doesn't make any sense. If someone au fait with the article and its references could tidy them up (perhaps to some standard scientific format, e.g. "... blah blah blah (Smith, 1995; Jones, 2000)"), that'd be great. Cheers, -- Plumbago 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This article claims that Samuel Johnson held that certain ideas are beyond human understanding. That sounds true, but does anyone know a reference? It would be good for the article. If nobody can find a reference, I'll try to find one. 71.104.210.231 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Flanagan called them "the new mysterians" after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians. The term originated with the Japanese alien-invasion film The Mysterians." -- I rather doubt that the naming of this religious/philosophical position has anything whatsoever to do with the rock group or the Japanese film. If you wish to re-add either of these to the main article, please justify doing so by citing properly. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've encountered the term, outside of WP, entirely as a pejorative used by Dennett other who agree with him against non-reductionists or advocates of cognitive closure in the philosophy of mind. If it is used only (or for the most part) in this way, the article should indicate so, and perhaps be moved to a more neutral title. -- Atemperman ( talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we add Steven Pinker to the list of proponents? http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/24/steven-pinker-is-a-new-mysteri/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.195.42 ( talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No; Pinker is very clear in the citation given both here and in the wikipedia article that he is not only uncertain whether consciousness is mysterious to us, but that it is not intrinsically or essentially so; if it is mysterious, this is a contingent fact about our limited cognitive capacities, so that a greater (but still wholly naturalistic) mind might be able to understand ours. This is not much like the irreducible mysterianism of most of the other authors listed here. Hence, I urge consideration of removing Pinker from the list (or perhaps, giving a few short sentences explaining why he is (was?) at best a marginal and weak version of mysterian; indeed the latter might be better as it would better define the boundaries of mysterianism). ScottForschler ( talk) 12:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.22.44 ( talk) 17:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The section called 'Philosophy', which I assume is meant to give a proper account of the position, is hopeless. It needs to be scrapped and done properly (preferably without quoting Chomsky - he is not a philosopher of mind!) Ben Finn ( talk) 23:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is accurate. I've read that Colin McGinn willingly describes himself as 'mysterian' but I've never encountered the use of the term in respect of any of the others on this list. Treat With Caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New mysterianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interesting article, and the first time I have heard of the phrase "new mysterianism." It seems that not only is such a view held wrt the mind-body problem (sometimes using Godel's Theorem) but also concerning the theory of knowledge. For example, it has been argued that we will never attain the one, true, complete theory of physics. -- 63.98.134.169 21:04, 26 September 2004
I've just changed this:
to this:
I thought the 'sentience could be described ....' was a little POV (even though it's the position I hold myself). I ended up rewriting those couple of lines altogether. I'm not certain how to write the last few words. Any ideas on how to sum up the hard problem? Perhaps I should have said: 'the existence of qualia and also their interaction with the physical world'. Aaron McDaid 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed that this article doesn't reference things properly. At some point in the past, it looks like numbered references have been used, but the numbering system wasn't done using proper flags and is long gone now, so the present indexing doesn't make any sense. If someone au fait with the article and its references could tidy them up (perhaps to some standard scientific format, e.g. "... blah blah blah (Smith, 1995; Jones, 2000)"), that'd be great. Cheers, -- Plumbago 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This article claims that Samuel Johnson held that certain ideas are beyond human understanding. That sounds true, but does anyone know a reference? It would be good for the article. If nobody can find a reference, I'll try to find one. 71.104.210.231 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Flanagan called them "the new mysterians" after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians. The term originated with the Japanese alien-invasion film The Mysterians." -- I rather doubt that the naming of this religious/philosophical position has anything whatsoever to do with the rock group or the Japanese film. If you wish to re-add either of these to the main article, please justify doing so by citing properly. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've encountered the term, outside of WP, entirely as a pejorative used by Dennett other who agree with him against non-reductionists or advocates of cognitive closure in the philosophy of mind. If it is used only (or for the most part) in this way, the article should indicate so, and perhaps be moved to a more neutral title. -- Atemperman ( talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we add Steven Pinker to the list of proponents? http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/24/steven-pinker-is-a-new-mysteri/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.195.42 ( talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No; Pinker is very clear in the citation given both here and in the wikipedia article that he is not only uncertain whether consciousness is mysterious to us, but that it is not intrinsically or essentially so; if it is mysterious, this is a contingent fact about our limited cognitive capacities, so that a greater (but still wholly naturalistic) mind might be able to understand ours. This is not much like the irreducible mysterianism of most of the other authors listed here. Hence, I urge consideration of removing Pinker from the list (or perhaps, giving a few short sentences explaining why he is (was?) at best a marginal and weak version of mysterian; indeed the latter might be better as it would better define the boundaries of mysterianism). ScottForschler ( talk) 12:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.22.44 ( talk) 17:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The section called 'Philosophy', which I assume is meant to give a proper account of the position, is hopeless. It needs to be scrapped and done properly (preferably without quoting Chomsky - he is not a philosopher of mind!) Ben Finn ( talk) 23:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is accurate. I've read that Colin McGinn willingly describes himself as 'mysterian' but I've never encountered the use of the term in respect of any of the others on this list. Treat With Caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)