Thursday, May 31. 2012Web Science / Web PhilosophyTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I don't really get why cognitive science would want to reserve "cognitive" to things that involve something as unscientific (at least for this era) as the "felt". It's not like it was after the hard problem. It feels to me that the idea that cognition and this sense of consciousness is an heritage of earlier philosophy of mind, but it's not like we can still think of intentionality or representation as something impossible without a consciousness to which intentional content should be presented.
Feeling is no more "unscientific" than an apple falling or a planet revolving. What's lacking with feeling and not with falling, or revolving, is a causal explanation of how and why we feel. That's what makes it "hard." "Intentionality or representation... without a consciousness" would be easy. Unfortunately, the two come together, as a package deal, from the Blind Watchmaker. Hard luck.
|
QuicksearchMaterials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
Videos:
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society. The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
ArchivesCalendar
CategoriesBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2018-09-14 13:27
1129 entries written
238 comments have been made
Top Referrers |