Talk:Mind and Cosmos

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Mind / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of mind
	Contemporary philosophy

Issues

Nagel's position is that principles of an entirely different kind may account for the emergence of life

Like for example?

and in particular conscious life

But according to Nagel, "mind is a basic aspect of nature", which implies all life is conscious on some level.

and that those principles may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic. He stresses that his argument is not a religious one

How could it not be religious? What else could it be? Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started reading it, but he is arguing for an Aristotelian teleology without intention: "an understanding of the universe as basically prone to generate life and mind ...". He argues that we should not assume that the mental can be explained using the same language and concepts that we use to explain the physical, and that ultimately the truth may be beyond our reach in principle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. So he's arguing for viriditas? Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be it exactly. If he had only checked Wikipedia he might have saved himself some time. :D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]