Talk:The Ghost in the Machine

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 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

Untitled

I do not have a copy of the book currently, but have been of the impression that an important argument against the behaviorist school here was the presence of humor (or laughter?) in the "machine". I would appreciate to know if I am right on this. Can anyone inform me? (I promise to get an English copy whenever I can). Hoverfish 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he does mention this. I have a copy at home, but haven't read it in entireity for about 20 years. --MacRusgail 14:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the book, I have some ideas on how to improve this article. The article doesn't mention holons even ONCE, which is ridiculous given how prevalent the concept is in the book. I also think that saying that the book views the primitive brain as 'responsible for hate and anger' is a gross simplification. The point the author was pressing was that the primitive brain level is responsible for the intuitive, illogical, irrational aspects of humanity, such as belief in religion, spirits and demons, and not accepting death, and that this primitive brain can overpower the rational, newer 'human' part of the brain to humanity's detriment. He claims this to be due to bad communication between the two brain parts. (Caused by the explosive development of the newer part). It just doesn't get the gist of much of the book. --86.151.176.129 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's worth adding some stuff, if you can write it well, and provide quotes etc. --MacRusgail 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"never ceased to be of actuality"

Following this principle down to its consequences, the book gets to a theme which has somehow never ceased to be of actuality, man's tendency towards self-destruction Does this mean something special in philosophyspeak, or could it be rewritten more clearly as "The book uses this principle to consider man's tendency to self-destruction"? I haven't read it, so am reluctant to edit the page directly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.20.86 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The head portion of the "ghost in the machine"

This line: 'The head portion of the "ghost in the machine"' is unexplained, so I can't tell what the ghost in the machine is. What is a "head portion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.229.113 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusification for Removal

The introduction currently contains ". One of the book's central concepts is that as the human brain evolved from, retained and built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures." This book contains a scathing indictment of behaviourism as it's first major section (which is not mentioned above) - and the quote above is exactly the description of a central concept of behavioursim . IMO , it is completely disingenous to include that quote because it makes it seem like Koestler (and this publication) were aligned with "behaviourism" when the book makes it clear that that was explicitly not the case . It may be that Koestler does present of himself those words and that belief , but to include that here without context and without details about Koestler's opinion about behaviourism is a betrayal of his intention . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.64.131 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

content question for a very slight copyedit

does koestler argue that

the mind DOES temporarily inhabit and govern the body? (call it option YES)

or

the mind DOES NOT temporarily inhabit and govern the body? (option NO)

the way the second sentence of the article is currently written, it's unclear to me whether it's saying option YES or NO. thanks. skak E L 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The article could benefit from the addition of sections covering critical reception, popular media, and who was influenced by this book. OrangeCounty (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]