Talk:New Mysterianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Interesting article, and the first time I have heard of the phrase "new mysterianism." It seems that not only is such a view held wrt the mind-body problem (sometimes using Godel's Theorem) but also concerning the theory of knowledge. For example, it has been argued that we will never attain the one, true, complete theory of physics. -- 63.98.134.169 21:04, 26 September 2004
Contents |
[edit] rewrite first para to refer to the hard problem
I've just changed this:
-
- New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems (in particular, sentience it linked to consciousness earlier. - Aaron) will never be explained or at the least cannot be explained by the human mind at its current evolutionary stage. The terms sentience and consciousness are sometimes used interchangeably, but sentience could be described as simply the difficult-to-explain part of consciousness.
to this:
-
- New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems will never be explained or at the least cannot be explained by the human mind at its current evolutionary stage. The problem most often referred to is the hard problem of consciousness; i.e. how to explain sentience and qualia and their interaction with consciousness.
I thought the 'sentience could be described ....' was a little POV (even though it's the position I hold myself). I ended up rewriting those couple of lines altogether. I'm not certain how to write the last few words. Any ideas on how to sum up the hard problem? Perhaps I should have said: 'the existence of qualia and also their interaction with the physical world'. Aaron McDaid 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
Just noticed that this article doesn't reference things properly. At some point in the past, it looks like numbered references have been used, but the numbering system wasn't done using proper flags and is long gone now, so the present indexing doesn't make any sense. If someone au fait with the article and its references could tidy them up (perhaps to some standard scientific format, e.g. "... blah blah blah (Smith, 1995; Jones, 2000)"), that'd be great. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dr. Johnson and Mysterianism?
This article claims that Samuel Johnson held that certain ideas are beyond human understanding. That sounds true, but does anyone know a reference? It would be good for the article. If nobody can find a reference, I'll try to find one. 71.104.210.231 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cut questionable references
"Flanagan called them "the new mysterians" after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians. The term originated with the Japanese alien-invasion film The Mysterians." -- I rather doubt that the naming of this religious/philosophical position has anything whatsoever to do with the rock group or the Japanese film. If you wish to re-add either of these to the main article, please justify doing so by citing properly. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about the Japanese alien-invasion film, but the rock group reference is correct. I've added that part back, with a proper citation. --Sapphic 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I've just discovered that the Japanese film is (purportedly) the origin of the name of the band, and thus has nothing directly to do with the philosophical term. It should be left out. --Sapphic 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
