• Eugen
    702
    Guys, forgive me for this non-philosophical question. Could you please recommend to me a book (the best in your opinion) that deals with Philosophy of Mind? I want something that presents all the ideas in a neutral way, with pros and cons for each metaphysical view, like a debate. Thank you!
  • Manuel
    3.9k
    Someone asked a similar question, so I'm repeating myself but I think the following book is quite good and covers a lot of territory:

    Mental Reality by Galen Strawson
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    Sounds philosophical to me.
    Hegel wrote a book with that as a title.
    Are you interested in some kind of summary of arguments?
    Toward what end?
  • Amalac
    489
    I'd recommend The Analysis of Mind, by Bertrand Russell.

    Beware though: some parts of it are quite complicated.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    For philosophy of mind, my better reads since 2019:

    The Number Sense, Stanislas Dehaene
    • Understanding Consciousness, Max Velmans

    For philosophy of mind-adjacent neuroscience, cognitive psychology, etc I've read since 2019:

    • How We Learn: Why Brains Learn Better Than Any Machine . . . for Now, Stanislas Dehaene
    The Self-Assembling Brain: How Neural Networks Grow Smarter, Peter Robin Hiesinger
    The Nocturnal Brain, Guy Leschziner
    The Psychology of Stupidity, ed. Jean-François Marmion
  • _db
    3.6k
    I want something that presents all the ideas in a neutral way, with pros and cons for each metaphysical view, like a debate.Eugen

    One of the better introductions I have read about philosophy of mind was written by E. J. Lowe.

    I really do not recommend you purchase any of these sorts of books though. Introductions/anthologies to anything are typically redundant, superficial and incomplete. They serve the purpose of providing a general map of the territory and giving the reader the opportunity to dip their toes in. You can get exactly this for effectively no extra material cost by reading articles on websites like SEP.

    The unfortunate reality is that you really do need to take the time to study individual works if you want to get a grip on anything, at least anything with depth. You will choose a line of thought and follow it for as long as you find it worthwhile, kind of like wearing a pair of shoes until you wear them out. Then it's on to the next pair.
  • Thunderballs
    204
    "Gödel, Escher, and Bach".Douglass Hofstadter. A bit too computer oriented though. "The Mind'sEye". Don't remember the author.
  • Eugen
    702


    Thank you a lot, guys! I'll start searching.
  • Eugen
    702
    Sounds philosophical to me.
    Hegel wrote a book with that as a title.
    Are you interested in some kind of summary of arguments?
    Toward what end?
    Valentinus

    Yes, something like how would two guys argue on panpsychism for example, one for and the other against, presenting the arguments and counter-arguments. Same for materialism, idealism, and every other ontology.
  • Hanover
    12k
    No one mentions Chalmers The Conscious Mind?
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Also, Hofstadter's I Am a Strange Loop is quite good on these issues too.

    Recommend Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, ed. Jonathan Shear (26 papers in response to "the hard problem" "p-zombie" "explanatory gap" ideas) also when recommending Chalmers.
  • Corvus
    2.7k


    Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Handbook-Philosophy-Mind-Handbooks/dp/019959631X
    has a variety of essays covering wide topics from the top philosophers of Mind all around the world.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle.
  • frank
    14.5k
    Recommend Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, ed. Jonathan Shear (26 papers in response to "the hard problem" "p-zombie" "explanatory gap" ideas) also when recommending Chalmers.180 Proof

    So as to emphasize how fundamental Chalmers is to philosophy of mind (that 26 philosophers offered responses)?
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    How detrimental is more like it.
  • frank
    14.5k

    That's a minority view.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    No doubt. :roll:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.