# Philosophy of Mind



## cih1355 (Feb 2, 2008)

Does anyone know of any good books about the philosophy of mind? I became interested in this subject when I was in college working towards a computer science degree. Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science and there are philosophical issues related to artificial intelligence.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 2, 2008)

A good introduction book is 'The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction' by Edward Fesar. I also enjoyed Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics' by Moreland and Rae. 

Here are some good online links: 

Guide to the Philosophy of Mind

Online papers on consciousness

John Depoe has two papers worth checking out on the subject:

http://www.johndepoe.com/papers.html

Some books that I haven't read yet, but I heard are good, are: 

The emergent self by William Hasker
The Immaterial Self by John Foster
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
The Evolution of the Soul by Richard Swinburne


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 3, 2008)

Isn't A.I. part of Cognitive Science?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 3, 2008)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Isn't A.I. part of Cognitive Science?



I think that it can be argued that there is some overlap.

CT


----------



## Philbeck (Feb 4, 2008)

I have Philosophy in the Flesh on my shelf but I have not read it yet. It was recommended by Douglas Jones of NSA.


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 4, 2008)

Cheshire Cat said:


> A good introduction book is 'The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction' by Edward Fesar. I also enjoyed Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics' by Moreland and Rae.
> 
> Here are some good online links:
> 
> ...




Thank you for the resources. I bought the book by Fesar and the book by Moreland and Rae. I will check out the links.


----------



## Don (Feb 4, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Does anyone know of any good books about the philosophy of mind? I became interested in this subject when I was in college working towards a computer science degree. Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science and there are philosophical issues related to artificial intelligence.




I liked Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind and John R. Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction.

Searle has some good stuff online as well.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 4, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Thank you for the resources. I bought the book by Fesar and the book by Moreland and Rae. I will check out the links.


Your welcome. I think you will enjoy them.


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 27, 2008)

I found the following argument in Fesar's book, _Philosophy of Mind_. I would like to know how you would respond to it.

Here is the argument: "A Cartesian immaterial substance, being outside space, is outside this universe. For it to affect the physical world, and in particular the brain, it would have to introduce energy into the physical universe; and for the brain in turn to affect an immaterial substance, it would seemingly transfer energy out of the physical universe. Either way, the amount of energy in the physical universe would fail to be constant. So the very idea of causal interaction between Cartesian material and immaterial substances seem to violate the law of physics."


----------



## Don (Feb 27, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> I found the following argument in Fesar's book, _Philosophy of Mind_. I would like to know how you would respond to it.
> 
> Here is the argument: "A Cartesian immaterial substance, being outside space, is outside this universe. For it to affect the physical world, and in particular the brain, it would have to introduce energy into the physical universe; and for the brain in turn to affect an immaterial substance, it would seemingly transfer energy out of the physical universe. Either way, the amount of energy in the physical universe would fail to be constant. So the very idea of causal interaction between Cartesian material and immaterial substances seem to violate the law of physics."



I've seen some atheists bring up this objection as well. It makes many assumptions and I don't think it's a very good criticism. 

I like C.J. Ducasse's response:



> . . . The objection to interactionism that causation, in either direction, as between psychical [mental] and physical events is precluded by the principle of the conservation of energy (or of energy-matter) is invalid for several reasons.
> 
> A. One reason is that the conservation which that principle asserts is not something known to be true without exception but is . . . only a defining-postulate of the notion of a wholly closed physical world, so that the question whether psycho-physical or physico-psychical causation ever occurs is (but in different words) the question whether the physical world is wholly closed. And that question is not answered by dignifying as a "principle" the assumption that the physical world is wholly closed.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------

