/lit/ - Literature

He has no idea how the mind works. He doesn't understand neuroscience, and tries to patch up his ignorance with philosophy.

looks like eugene levy fucked richard dawkins

>>3947082
>One of the leading philosophers of the mind
>Has no idea of how the mind words
Fuck off.

>>3947092
>Philosopher attempting to neuroscience
>>>/x/

>>3947056
My guess would be that the majority of intellectuals today support a heavily materialistic metaphysical view to the point where it's dogmatic and they shout at people who even question it.

But I have not read any Nagel nor am I that interested in mind/neuroscience debates so don't listen to what I say.

>>3947095
>Science is the only answer to anything ever
Again, fuch off.

>>3947102
Actually, Descartes, it's surprisingly the opposite. With the prevalence of new-agey teenagers determined to charge their chakras and achieve spiritual oneness with the universe, there has been a big regression towards your school of dualism, souls, and a rejection of the more analytic materialism. They tend to reject reason and evidence in favour of what ever theory most appeals to them and suits their worldview.

>>3947104
"Philosophy of the mind is about as useful to neuroscientists as ornithology is to birds."
Pls go back to x

>Nagel

Is this that guy who was obsessed with bats?

>>3947114
Yeah and, most of all, chocolate.

>>3947109
>Implying you know anything about neuroscience or philosophy.
Pls go back to Richard Dawkins' teat.

>>3947114
Yes. He wrote a pamphlet called 'What Is It Like to Be A Bat?,' which demonstrated a profound ignorance of neuroscience. He's been laughed at by almost every scientist and philosopher, and supports some really bizarre paranormal views. He supports natural teleology, and comes out with gibberish like this: "the universe has an internal conscious logic that inevitably drives matter from nonliving to living."

He's a hack, a fraud. He almost had something in his youth, but ended up writing gibberish.

>>3947107
>to reject reason and evidence in favour of what ever theory most appeals to them and suits their worldview

Well it's clear you're one of the "new-agey teenagers"

"Nagel's academic golden years are less peaceful than he might have wished. His latest book, Mind and Cosmos (Oxford University Press, 2012), has been greeted by a storm of rebuttals, ripostes, and pure snark. "The shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker," Steven Pinker tweeted. The Weekly Standard quoted the philosopher Daniel Dennett calling Nagel a member of a "retrograde gang" whose work "isn't worth anything—it's cute and it's clever and it's not worth a damn."

Nagel is diffident about his ideas. Take this sentence, which packs four negatives into 25 words: "I am not confident that this Aristotelian idea of teleology without intention makes sense, but I do not at the moment see why it doesn't." Mind and Cosmos is full of such negatively phrased assertions. If you're going to make a controversial claim, it helps to do so positively. It also helps to enlist distinguished allies. Nagel has done nothing of the sort, and writes in a convoluted style that made him sound unconvinced of his own ideas.

The numerous critics have focused much of their ire on Nagel's numerous unsubstantiated claims. That has left him open to a number of obvious rebuttals. The biologist H. Allen Orr, at the University of Rochester, pointed, in regard to his cosmic-consciousness evolution theory, that many species become less complex—parasites, for example, after learning how to steal resources from their hosts. And many species, such as sharks, have been happy to stay just the way they are for millions of years. If nature has goals, it certainly seems to have many and consciousness would appear to be fairly far down on the list."

Nagel apparently felt it was acceptable to ignore all science. "Philosophy cannot generate such explanations," wrote Nagel; "it can only point out the gaping lack of them." But there is no gaping lack of attempts to supply them. "He's done so little serious homework," says Michael Ruse. "He just dismisses origin-of-life studies without any indication that he's done any work on it whatsoever." In short, Mind and Cosmos is not only negative but underpowered, as if Nagel had brought a knife to a shootout."

>>3947148
Hahaha. Hit a nerve, did I?

What's you irrational thing then? crystal therapy? Chakra baths?

>>3947165
No, you didn't. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

I just tire from the hordes of r/atheists who use the words "reason and evidence" as crusading swords against literally anyone who disagrees with them.

>>3947175
In that case, stop putting two and two together and coming up with seven, you dozy cunt. That's the problem with you new-agey kids - you just don't think. You scream fedora and r/atheist at anyone who calls your bullshit out, even when you're completely ignorant of everything that's going on.

I HAVE NOT READ THIS BOOK,

BUT EYEBROW SIZE IS AN ACCEPTED METRIC OF INTELLIGENCE

THEREFORE,

I MUST CONCLUDE THAT IT IS

OKAY

>>3947373
This actually reminded me of Rosenhouse's review.

>>3947109
One of the few moments where quine and heidegger agreed in saying that scientists don't think.

>>3947107
Come on that's what analytic philosophy has done for the last 30 years Since they give up on the concept analysis and decided to go on being the scientists' best friends.

>>3947163
Nagel Status:

[ ]#rekt
[ ]#not rekt
[x]#rekt so hard his anus is bleeding

>>3947136
>He supports natural teleology, and comes out with gibberish like this: "the universe has an internal conscious logic that inevitably drives matter from nonliving to living."

Sounds like Hegel