Reddit mentions of Philosophy of Mind (A Beginner's Guide)

It sounds to me like somebody's been attemptin' some philosophy on the side. 😜

But seriously, I'd recommend reading some good philosophy to help wrap your mind around these questions - what it is to be has been around since Descartes, if not earlier. I'm reading Feser's Philosophy of Mind and it deals directly with that question.

As to other advice, pray even louder when all you can pray is, "WHY?" And perhaps think about how no matter what, you must exist, or you couldn't be doubting that you exist, because who'd be doing the doubting?

Philosophically Catholics (should) hold that AI is not possible; that intelligence is an aspect of a rational soul, and so the only way to have a true "thinking machine" is either to somehow have a human or angel soul therein (think cyborg or demon-possessed object).

Feser's Philosophy of Mind goes much deeper into it.

Now, of course, none of this prevents sci-fi stories about AI (some of RA Lafferty's are great), but it does mean that true AI is not possible without an immortal soul (because of the universals, basically).

These two books cover essentially the same material (The Last Superstition is a little broader in scope, but this ground is also covered by Feser in Philosophy of Mind); large passages are word-for-word the same. The main difference is that The Last Superstition links together these long, dry passages with gratuitous insults for marketing purposes. There is really not that much polemic relative to the substantial passages, but what there is will be insufferable to some readers. While I share Anthony Kenny's judgement that The Last Superstition "would have been a better book if it had never mentioned Dawkins and co at all", they are both very good books.

Depends on who you ask (obviously). I think there is a trend in materialist philosophy of mind, supported by neuroscience that sees the sense of self as an illusion created by the brain. Some go so far as to call consciousness itself an illusion. I have also heard the complaint that dualist theories of mind are misrepresented or underrepresented in philosophy.

For a counter perspective, you can read Philosophy of mind : A beginner's guide by Ed Feser. I have not read it personally, but Feser is a sharp and clear thinker, and his prose is readable to boot.

Since you're studying non-duality, Self, No Self?: Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian Traditions is an important read. It contains papers on comparisons of various Buddhist, as well as Advaita Vedantic, Nyaya and other theories of the Self. I have read and highly recommend it.

Of course.

Aquinas

The Last Superstition

His blog (check out his latest blog post, actually, and read (or listen to) his speech)

Philosophy of Mind - not directly related to religious belief, but gives background to understand some of the inconsistencies in an atheistic worldview

Might as well weigh in on what you should focus on specifically, as one of those philosophically-inclined theists. As for why you should-- given that atheism and theism are both within the field of philosophy, it'd be good to at least have a clear view of the evidence for both sides. I'll be giving books that support theism, since I don't know many that do so for atheism-- something by JL Mackie might help?

Before even engaging in the philosophy backing theism, it'd be good to get some background knowledge.

Intro to Logic

Metaphysics

Given that, you can familiarize yourself with some books on classical theism, attacks on naturalism/physicalism/materialism, and specifically attacks on materialism of the mind.

The Last Superstition

Aquinas

Philosophy of the Mind

All three of those are by the Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser. I usually argue for theism, or against materialism, based on his books.

I had a comment in here giving a reason for he post, though that's not an explanation.

> Note: may not be the best place to post, but I needed to post somewhere in order to link it in Dr. Feser's open thread today, which he only does a couple of times each year. I've been working through his books since early this year, and developing this concept map as I progress.

By way of explanation, this is a work in progress to visualize the relationships between the concepts brought to bear in the philosophical advances of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Beginning for the fundamental argument for the necessary reality of the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the concept map walks through the conceptual divisions of act and potency. Notably, the divisions of act arrive at a core conception of God as Pure Actuality, Being Itself, utterly devoid of any potentiality or passivity. This is not a proof of God, but rather simply serves to define God's role as the First and Unmoved Mover and Sustainer of all things.

The divisions of act and potency expand to the right of the map, where you see how actuality and potentiality come together as Form and Matter to produce concrete, material things.

Branching off of from the soul (here defined as the substantial form of a living substance), there is a section which details the powers or capacities of the different levels of living substances, which are hierarchically related, with respect to the corporeal order.

For now, the section on the Four Causes is placed on its own, as I still haven't decided where best to tie it in, since many topics make use of this principle. Particularly, Final Causation (defined as the end, goal, purpose, directedness or teleology of a thing) is essential to understanding the concept of objective goodness, which carries into the section on ethics (which, in this view, amounts to an understanding of the directedness of the will).

Also included, but not yet connected as well as it could be, is a section on the divine attributes, along with a brief explanation of how we can know them.

There is much more that can be included. As mentioned elsewhere, this was posted here so that I could link to the WIP. I had hoped that I could catch Edward Feser's attention in the comments of his open thread, which he posted on his blog site yesterday, and which he does only a couple times per year. This concept map is the result of my learning from his books:

• Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science
  
  
• Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)
  
  
• Philosophy of Mind (A Beginner's Guide)
  
  
• Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (Scholastic Editions – Editiones Scholasticae)
  
  I am still working my way through this last one, and when done I intend also to read:
  
  
• Five Proofs of the Existence of God

>The general idea seems to be that reason is incompatible with a purely physical explanation of the mind, but there is absolutely no support given for this, just a bunch of bizarre analogies and handwaving.

Any materialist philosopher would agree with him that this is one of the thorniest, if not insurmountable, problems with materialism. It might be better to read a book on philosophy of mind. I'm reading this now.

Consciousness is related to intentionality because intentionality means "aboutness."

You could also watch this short video from David Chalmers, and otherwise naturalistic atheist philosopher who has gone dualist because of the problems with materialism.