Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 2, Aristotelian Society (Great Britain), 1894,,. List of members in each volume..

Transcription

1

2 The Analysis of Mind, Bertrand Russell, G. Allen & Unwin, 1921,,.. DOWNLOAD A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume, Jan 1, 2004, Philosophy,. This is a pre-1923 historical reproduction that was curated for quality. Quality assurance was conducted on each of these books in an attempt to remove books with imperfections... Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 2, Aristotelian Society (Great Britain), 1894,,. List of members in each volume.. Perception a cognitive-stage approach, Ronald H. Forgus, Lawrence E. Melamed, Jan 1, 1976, Psychology, 413 pages.. Principia Mathematica, Volume 1, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, 1927, Logic, Symbolic and mathematical, 1907 pages.. Trauma and Recovery, Judith Lewis Herman, 1997, Psychology, 290 pages. Examines how people adapt to traumatic events such as rape, domestic violence, terrorism, and combat, discusses the healing process, and provides a framework for treatment. Introduction to Psychology, Rod Plotnik, Haig Kouyoumdjian, Feb 25, 2010, Psychology, 712 pages. Like reading a magazine--not a textbook--plotnik's INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY, NINTH EDITION will draw you in and show you how exciting the study of psychology can be. Rod... Sceptical Essays, Bertrand Russell, 2004, Philosophy, 225 pages. 'These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.' With these words Bertrand Russell introduces what is indeed a... Autobiography, Bertrand Russell, 1998, Biography & Autobiography, 750 pages. Bertrand Russell was born in 1872 and died in One of the most influential figures of the twentieth century, he transformed philosophy and can lay claim to being one of... The Principles of Mathematics, Bertrand Russell, 1996, Mathematics, 534 pages. Russell's classic The Principles of Mathematics sets forth his landmark thesis that mathematics and logic are identical that what is commonly called mathematics is simply later... The Analysis of Matter, Bertrand Russell, 2007, Philosophy, 408 pages.. The Mind and Its Place in Nature, Volume 3, Charlie Dunbar Broad, 1925, Philosophy, 674 pages.. The Varieties of Reference, Gareth Evans, 1982, Business & Economics, 418 pages. Gareth Evans, one of the most brilliant philosophers of his generation, died in 1980 at the age of thirty-four. He had been working for many years on a book about reference... Stranger behind the engram theories of memory and the psychology of science, Daniel L. Schacter, 1982, Biography & Autobiography, 294 pages.. Ð Â Ð ÂµÐ Ð Ð ÂµÐ Ñ Ð Â Ð â Ð Ñ Ð Ò Ð Ñ Ð ÐƒÐ Â Ð Ñ Ð Ñ Ð Ñ Ð Ñ Ð Ð Ð Ñ Ð Â Ð Â. Ð ÑŸÐ Ð Ð ÂµÐ Ò Ð Ñ Ð Ñ Ð ÐƒÐ â ¹Ð Â»Ð Ñ Ð Ñ Ð Â»Ð Ñ Ð â Ð Ð Ð Ñ Ð ÐƒÐ â šð Ð Ð Ñ Ð â Ð Ñ Ð ÂµÐ Ð Ð Ñ Ð Â Ð Â»Ð ÐŠÐ Ð Ð Ñ Ð ÐƒÐ â šð Ñ Prerequisites to Personal Genius, John Grinder, Judith DeLozier, Sep 1, 1995, Self-Help, 392 pages. Rich with humor and metaphors from other cultures and disciplines, Turtles develops the characteristics common to the geniuses whose patterning formed the initial body of NLP...

3 An unabridged edition with updated footnotes and layout, to include: Recent Criticisms of "Consciousness" - Instinct and Habit - Desire and Feeling - Influence of Past History on Present Occurrences in Living Organisms - Psychological and Physical Causal Laws - Introspection - The Definition of Perception - Sensations and Images - Memory - Words and Meaning - General Ideas and Thought - Belief - Truth and Falsehood - Emotions and Will - Characteristics of Mental Phenomena Russell forces us to move away from this laziness and reconsider what we take for granted about ourselves, and does so with his enjoyable style. He seems to possess the rare skill of finding the minimum amount of words and concepts needed to explain (and solve) the problem clearly and accurately. He will never forget to define precisely all the terms needed in the discussion, or to question the limits of the premises in order to understand the scope of the conclusion. In each chapter he considers a facet of what we call mind and explores it both from the point of introspection and of external analysis of observable behavior. Introspection gives use informations impossible to obtain with other methods, and it is what gives meaning to the problem of mind in the first place, but it has the intrinsic problem of an instrument trying to measure itself. So Russell keeps on correcting this "view from the inside" and the delusions it can create with the stick of behaviourism and objective observation. The only minus I can think of is that after one has understood the method of analysis employed he can probably predict how it will be used by the author to investigate the remaining items of his enquiry. While I was reading the second half of the book I often found myself anticipating his reasoning, and thinking that those last chapters could have been thinner. However the author's highly readable prose makes this a very small problem, and I suggest this book to everyone interested in the subject (anyone should be!) [A NOTE ABOUT BOOK READABILITY: Amazon merged on the same page the reviews for the paperback and the ebook, so please notice that the review below which warns you about the unreadable format of the book refers ONLY to the kindle version. If you are interested in the paperback edition you should disregard that warning. I don't remember finding any problem in readability in the book, but since the "Look inside!" feature is available you can check for yourself if the format is acceptable to you.) Read more Granted, this is my first reading of one of Bertrand Russell's works, and "The Analysis of Mind" is an interesting reading, regardless of the impression of it being outdated (1921). However, at the time of the publication, I'd say that it's quite insightful. Now, from reading, he is, quite right, saying that we take things for granted and focus on being more conscious than lulling ourselves into laziness, generally speaking. The book is broken into fifteen "lectures" (rather than "chapters") with each can be a slightly dry read, but with care and patience, one can grasp what the author's saying. It'll force one to think and ponder on the author's thoughts. Personally, I found a lecture on "Truth and Falsehood" to be quite fascinating. This set of fifteen lectures delivered in 1921 and available on line at the Pennsylvania State University, are important but have aged tremendously. Today we can follow in real time the activity of the brain and nervous system for any mental activity, or motor activity as for that. So a great number of pages discussing the difference between a sensation, purely at the level of the contact of some sensorial organ with an outside stimulus, and an image which is a mental representation of what the stimuli are bringing in, or of some mnemic, in other words remembered or recollected, representation in the mind can clearly be solved. Thinking of something or seeing something are very similar but different, just as doing something and seeing someone doing something are very similar but not exactly the same thanks to mirror neurons. And we can "see" the brain working today. In the same way he spends a tremendous amount of time demonstrating the existence of the mind, of a specific mental level of brain activity. But today that is no longer something to be discussed in

4 such length because thanks to the tremendous progress of medical imagery we know that the brain can work without any outside stimulus, on a stimulus that comes directly from inside, thought, recollection, imagination and so on. But Buddhism is more advanced on the subject than that because they consider that there are six senses in man: the five sensorial senses we know that receive the stimuli from outside and the mind that processes these stimulated sensations to analyze them, recognize them, classify them, identify them, etc, but also, because it is a meta-sense, the possibility to do the same with abstract notions that cannot be at the origin of a physical sensorial stimulus, and of course all other mental or brain element that activates the brain, because the brain can work on its own like an autonomous or semi-autonomous organ (dreams, abstract or artistic activities, etc.). He thus would have been able to come to a clearer notion of knowledge, something that is acquired and accumulated by a subject within some conditions and a context, most of the time collective. But strangely enough Russell neglects, if not rejects, the subject as an essential entity. The learner, the speaker, the hearer, the individual that receives the stimuli through his/her senses and then processes them, the individual that acquires some knowledge through a threshold of the acquisition of knowledge that is his or her own with motivation(s), cognitive strategies and cognitive styles, with the desire to learn or the refusal to learn. These mental dimensions are all motivated by the context of the subject and his own experience, and his experiential history. If we consider the individual in his experience of the world in which he has five physical senses and the mind, a meta-sense in the brain, that receives experiential stimuli all the time in a situation where he has to learn to become autonomous when a new born and independent when autonomous, if we take the individual in that context he is not an abstract subject but he is an experiencer. If we taker language he is a hearer or a speaker, eventually a writer but when Russell brings together hearing, speaking writing or reading, there is something wrong in his vision of language. Writing and reading are the results of a late invention in the phylogeny of language in humanity, and a late learning in children, and has little to do with oral language. We do not speak what we write first, but we speak first and we eventually write what we have spoken or what we are thinking with our mental voice. He would have then enriched his vision with that set of concepts he does not use. Matter the way it is defined by physics is a construct but that does not in anyway permit anyone to say that matter is a mental imaginary entity. Matter is what is outside us and it does not need to be seen, heard, touched or whatever to exist. We can only experience this material world through our senses in a situation of extreme need and feebleness for several years. There is no escaping that. And it is this extreme inferiority that forces humanity as a whole and each child to communicate, hence to learn a language, hence to learn a lot of things and increase their mental powers. Then the rest is social and no longer individual. If the new-born was to be an absolutely individual being it would not survive twelve hours. That social dimension of the mind is not taken into account properly, neither phylogenetically for the human species with the emergence of modern man and homo sapiens, not psychogenetically for each new-born. "All psychic phenomena are built up out of sensations and images alone." That's a good conclusion but tremendously short of the real situation. The very first experience of a new-born and even of a foetus over 24 weeks are going to be engraved in the brain and mind of that new-born and will build all his attitudes, motivations or de-motivations, learning experiences or learning refusals during his whole life. Then sensations and the mental representations a person may have in his mind going back to the first three to five years of his/her life are a lot more than just plain sensations, mnemic sensations, images, mnemic images, or whatever. They are most of the time unconscious and embedded in the brain at a very physical level, even in the architectures of the dendrites of the neurons that have grown along with this experience. I will not comment on what he says on language. He had not read de Saussure, that's obvious but today we are far beyond his very naïve definition of the word as if Semitic languages, isolating languages and agglutinative, synthetic or syntactically analytical languages could have the same definition of a word, which are in fact roots in Semitic languages, frozen categorized parts of speech (very badly called like that) in isolating languages, and fully syntactic words in all other languages

5 with different levels of realization of the syntax on the word (agglutinative) or around the word (the others). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions are essential for the various basic elements of our articulated languages, an other word, articulation, that is never used. Our languages have three articulations and we cannot economize on these facts. An important set of lectures though more for the historical approach of the :mind in out western society. We must also keep in mind that many languages do not have a word equivalent to "mind" in Europe and the West because "mind" is typically English and other languages have given some Christian or religious values to the words they may use to designate the physical and psychological dimension of the brain's functioning. I will quote brief segments from this book, because that can help clarify where and how I disagree with Russell. At the very beginning of the book, on page 4, Russell says "There is one element which SEEMS [Russell had the word in italics] obviously in common among different ways of being conscious, and that is, they are all directed to OBJECTS [Russell's emphasis]. We are conscious 'of' something". Although I will not claim to be dogmatic on this issue, I am inclined to disagree with Russell on that account. I refer to what I have personally experienced as being in deep meditative states, where I had a powerful sense of being conscious (somehow AWARE), and yet the consciousness was NOT DIRECTED at any object -- it was pure, undirected awareness (even if, in a sense, a "mystical" awareness). Maybe Russell would have denied that such a state is consciousness, but I can see no justification for such a denial. In Lecture III, "Desire and Feeling", Russell advocates a behaviorist worldview in regard to human feelings and desires. Of course, behaviorism was sort of flourishing when Russell wrote his book, but now in the 21st century, behaviorism seems to be largely dismissed as unacceptably simplistic by most psychologists and philosophers of mind. On page 33 Russell says the following: "The whole tendency of psycho-analysis is to trust the outside observer rather than the testimony of introspection. I believe this tendency to be entirely right,but to demand a re-statement of what constitutes desire, exhibiting it as a causal law of our actions, not as something actually existing in our minds". Here is a case where I disagree again with Russell. Admittedly, this gets to the crux of the perennially vexed mind-body problem, and the question forces itself upon us: Is the mind exclusively brain activity (something exclusively physical), or is there some mental property or power that transcends what physics can reckon with? Russell leans toward the viewpoint that it all devolves on physics, but I conclude that mind is a power in its own right. Nevertheless, I credit Russell with being fairly evenhanded and reasonable in his worldview. On the last few pages of the book, in Lecture XV, Russell concedes that science cannot (yet, although he hopes it will become able to do so) solve the awesome conundrum of WHAT MIND REALLY IS. On pages , Russell says: "This is the question upon which our attitude must torn towards what may be called materialism. One sense of materialism is the view that all mental phenomena are causally dependent upon physical phenomena in the above-defined sense of causal dependence. Whether this is the case or not, I do not profess to know. The question seems to me the same as the question whether mnemic causation is ultimate, which we considered without deciding in Lecture IV. But I think the bulk of the evidence points to the materialistic answer as more probable". If it is the case that the materialistic answer fails, then the world is far more wondrous and glorious than the materialist is inclined to believe. Russell continues this line of thinking on page 185: "The question whether it is possible to obtain precise causal laws in which the causes are psychological, not material, is one of detailed investigation. I have done what I could to make clear the nature of the question, but I do not believe that it is possible as yet to answer it with any confidence. It seems to be by no means an insoluble question, and we may hope that science will be able to produce sufficient grounds for regarding one answer as much more probable than the other. But for the moment I do not see how we can come to a decision". So, in the early 20th century, one of the most famous and influential of Western philosophers conceded that science had, at that juncture, failed to resolve the issues surrounding what mind

6 really is, how it relates to matter, and how it is that matter either generates mind, or at the least, mind and matter interrelate continuously in higher species of creatures -- this being a mystery that even in the early 21st century, science has made no credible headway toward resolving. Oh, I know very well about PET scans, brain structures that pertain to certain actions and thoughts, and how biochemistry of the brain is intimately tied to mental functions. Yet, science really has made no headway toward answering the question of HOW neurons firing generate feelings, desires, thoughts, insights, etc. It is still one grand mystery -- probably one that physical sciences will never be able to answer. After all, by my worldview, Spirit is the ULTIMATE REALITY, and trying to put Spirit under the analytical "microscope" of science will engender little but frustration and failure. To sum up, I give Russell's wonderful little book 4 stars for carefully, rather objectively, and reasonably fairly analyzing the greatest mystery confronting humanity, namely what the nature is of that apart from which we would know nothing, feel nothing, and care about nothing -- our minds, our consciousnesses. I deduct one star from a possible 5, because Russell was almost obsessed with finding a materialist-physicalist-behaviorist set of explanations for what ultimately will turn out to transcend the physical world -- mind and spirit. Even in his discussions of meaning in language, he stubbornly sidestepped the obvious fact that meaning cannot possibly exist except in a conscious entity, and this so skews his analysis of language that it is unworthy of the brilliance of such a great philosopher. All in all, Russell's book is a real service to thinkers and philosophers who are willing to analyze and critique their own worldviews. I'm glad I had the opportunity to read the book. Read more An admirable statement of the aims of the Library of Philosophy was provided by the first editor, the late Professor J. H. Muirhead, in his description of the original programme printed in Erdmann's History of Philosophy under the date This was slightly modified in subsequent volumes to take the form of the following statement: "The Muirhead Library of Philosophy was designed as a contribution to the History of Modern Philosophy under the heads: first of Different Schools of Thought Sensationalist, Realist, Idealist, Intuitivist; secondly of different Subjects Psychology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy, Theology. While much had been done in England in tracing the course of evolution in nature, history, economics, morals and religion, little had been done in tracing the development of thought on these subjects. Yet 'the evolution of opinion is part of the whole evolution'. "By the co-operation of different writers in carrying out this plan it was hoped that a thoroughness and completeness of treatment, otherwise unattainable, might be secured. It was believed also that from writers mainly British and American fuller consideration of English Philosophy than it had hitherto received might be looked for. In the earlier series of books containing, among others, Bosanquet's "History of Aesthetic," Pfleiderer's "Rational Theology since Kant," Albee's "History of English Utilitarianism," Bonar's "Philosophy and Political Economy," Brett's "History of Psychology," Ritchie's "Natural Rights," these objects were to a large extent effected. "In the meantime original work of a high order was being produced both in England and America by such writers as Bradley, Stout, Bertrand Russell, Baldwin, Urban, Montague, and others, and a new interest in foreign works, German, French and Italian, which had either become classical or were attracting public attention, had developed. The scope of the Library thus became extended into something more international, and it is entering on the fifth decade of its existence in the hope that it may contribute to that mutual understanding between countries which is so pressing a need of the present time." The need which Professor Muirhead stressed is no less pressing to-day, and few will deny that philosophy has much to do with enabling us to meet it, although no one, least of all Muirhead himself, would regard that as the sole, or even the main, object of philosophy. As Professor Muirhead continues to lend the distinction of his name to the Library of Philosophy it seemed not inappropriate to allow him to recall us to these aims in his own words. The emphasis on the history of thought also seemed to me very timely; and the number of important works promised for the Library in the very near future augur well for the continued fulfilment, in this and other ways, of the

7 expectations of the original editor. This book has grown out of an attempt to harmonize two different tendencies, one in psychology, the other in physics, with both of which I find myself in sympathy, although at first sight they might seem inconsistent. On the one hand, many psychologists, especially those of the behaviourist school, tend to adopt what is essentially a materialistic position, as a matter of method if not of metaphysics. They make psychology increasingly dependent on physiology and external observation, and tend to think of matter as something much more solid and indubitable than mind. Meanwhile the physicists, especially Einstein and other exponents of the theory of relativity, have been making "matter" less and less material. Their world consists of "events," from which "matter" is derived by a logical construction. Whoever reads, for example, Professor Eddington's "Space, Time and Gravitation" (Cambridge University Press, 1920), will see that an old-fashioned materialism can receive no support from modern physics. I think that what has permanent value in the outlook of the behaviourists is the feeling that physics is the most fundamental science at present in existence. But this position cannot be called materialistic, if, as seems to be the case, physics does not assume the existence of matter. The view that seems to me to reconcile the materialistic tendency of psychology with the anti-materialistic tendency of physics is the view of William James and the American new realists, according to which the "stuff" of the world is neither mental nor material, but a "neutral stuff," out of which both are constructed. I have endeavoured in this work to develop this view in some detail as regards the phenomena with which psychology is concerned. My thanks are due to Professor John B. Watson and to Dr. T. P. Nunn for reading my MSS. at an early stage and helping me with many valuable suggestions; also to Mr. A. Wohlgemuth for much very useful information as regards important literature. I have also to acknowledge the help of the editor of this Library of Philosophy, Professor Muirhead, for several suggestions by which I have profited. There are certain occurrences which we are in the habit of calling "mental." Among these we may take as typical BELIEVING and DESIRING. The exact definition of the word "mental" will, I hope, emerge as the lectures proceed; for the present, I shall mean by it whatever occurrences would commonly be called mental.