[lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas]
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 20:43:29 +0000 (UTC)
I read the book in 1977 & found it irrelevant>
Glad to hear you read a book in 1977.
as for what i followi shall suggest where you should sent yourvremarks
andvwhere to store them meanwhile>
Really there's no need. When I post remarks to others I don't expect them
returned to me for storage. But perhaps I misunderstand - perhaps you are going
to explain how remarks addressed to you should instead be sent to the person
who takes care of you?
DL
From: adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2017, 8:13
Subject: [lit-ideas]
I read the book in 1977 & found it irrelevantto what i take the problems of
mind that areimteresting ( eg the junk on free will etc.)as for what i followi
shall suggest where you should sent yourvremarks andvwhere to store them
meanwhile
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 at 10:55 Donal McEvoy <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"tsaib" is short for _The Self And Its Brain_, a book co-authored by Eccles, a
Nobel Prize winning neurologist, and Popper. It consists of three parts. The
first part is written by Popper. The second part by Eccles. The third consists
of dialogues between them.
It was published to mixed reviews in 1977. My initial reaction was that it was
both difficult and disappointing. Now my view is that Popper's first part is
the best single introduction to philosophy of mind that I have read, though
compared to some of Popper's other works it falls short. A main reason it falls
short is because the 'mind-body problem', and its offshoots, is more complex
and intractable than many other problems. Nevertheless it is among the most
interesting of Popper's works. I find something fresh in it time and again.
Even the short section quoted yesterday, regarding Hume on the existence of
self, is a masterly disillation of important lines of thought - presenting a
dilemma that remains at the heart of discussion of 'self' (1) we may be
sceptical of the 'self' because it is not based on experience in the way we
have experience of external objects, and because the metaphysics of 'self' are
troublesome (2) we may feel the 'self' in inherent in 'our' experience of
anything, and that our consciousness of 'self' constitutes a form of experience
of self.
TSAIB has been referenced in many previous discussions and your question
indicates that you have not followed these very closely. The best way not to
forget what TSAIB refers to might be to read the book. (But I hesitate to
suggest anyone here needs to read another book, particularly one part-authored
by Popper. Stick to the internet - that's the future.)
DL
From: adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2017, 9:51
Subject: [lit-ideas]
who is we who draw the most incisive? who is tsaib?
qed
palma, apgs
--
palma, apgs
Other related posts:
