By KM
Published Jun 19
9 cards
Grid View
/
This is a published deck. Feel free look around, review cards, or make changes, but you'll need to save it to save your progress.
5.9.0 How this world-view plays in our understanding of morality and aesthetics?
1 hidden side
New
5.8.0 What is an example of we use abstractions to interact with physical phenomena and the other way around?
1 hidden side
New
Hofstadter presents his argumentation for reductionism in the mind-body problem:
His book is primarily about one particular emergent phenomenon, the mind – or, as he puts it, the ‘I’. He asks whether the mind can consistently be thought of as affecting the body – causing it to do one thing rather than another, given the all-embracing nature of the laws of physics. This is known as the mind–body problem. For instance, we often explain our actions in terms of choosing one action rather than another, but our bodies, including our brains, are completely controlled by the laws of physics, leaving no physical variable free for an ‘I’ to affect in order to make such a choice. Following the philosopher Daniel Dennett, Hofstadter eventually concludes that the ‘I’ is an illusion. Minds, he concludes, can’t ‘push material stuff around’, because ‘physical law alone would suffice to determine [its] behaviour’. Hence his reductionism. — page 117
5.7.0 What is David’s counterargument to why emergent abstract phenomena are as important as low-level, physical one (i.e. counter arguments for the reductive view on the mind-body problem)?
1 hidden side
New
5.6.0 How abstractions impact explaining things?
3 hidden sides
New
5.5.0 What is the difference between biological and explanatory knowledge?
1 hidden side
New
5.4.0 What is instrumentalism, holism and its criticism?
1 hidden side
New
5.3.0 How is emergence related to computational complexity?
3 hidden sides
New
5.2.0 How high-level explanations are related to low-level ones?
1 hidden side
New
5.1.0 What is emergence?
1 hidden side
New