it’s ‘philosophical Darwinism’.
......
But as an explanation for why there is anything at all, it is a pseudo-philosophy. — Wayfarer

Sure. And Darwin did not espouse it. So please don't call it Darwinism, philosophical or otherwise.

Be as rude as you like about radical reductionists and I won't complain. I may even tacitly agree. Just don't conflate radical reductionism with acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution. The two have nothing to do with another. If Nagel conflated the two (and I don't know whether he did) then I can understand his receiving an angry reaction. In fact, apart from Coyne, Dennett and Pinker, some of the people who were angry with him may have been Christian biologists - incensed that he gave support to those that seek to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology in US schools.

When inside the car and the car moves, do you not move with the car? A radio is inside the car and can be removed. Does that make the radio not part of the car? Do you even think before typing and submitting a post, or are you simply trying to pull my leg? — Harry Hindu

OK, so when you are inside your car you believe that you are part of your car. I don't, so we have a difference of opinion on that. — Metaphysician Undercover

There were several questions above that you avoided. I'm trying to get at WHY you think that your mind isn't part of your body. You simply saying that we disagree doesn't answer my questions or improve my understanding of your position.

I know what we are disagreeing about, it's stated right above. You think that because a mind is inside a body it is part of a body. I do not. You don't see a difference between a mind and a body. I do. So we disagree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said that I don't see a difference between a mind and a body. The mind is not the body. It is a process of the body.

When I first engaged you in conversation, it was because I didn't agree with your claim that if the mind and the body are two distinct things, they couldn't interact. Is that why you claim that you a part of your car when you are inside it, because you believe that if you were not part of your car, you wouldn't be able to interact with it? — Metaphysician Undercover

There were more questions that you ignored, yet Wayfarer quoted them and took a stab at trying to answer. Go figure. If you can't answer questions, MU, then don't bother striking up a philosophical conversation with me. I'll continue this once you have answered my questions.

I understand your perplexity. The dualism of body and mind - the idea that these are separable - goes back to Descartes. He depicted the human as a composite of the physical, res extensia, which has size but no intelligence, and the mental, res cogitans, which is intelligent but has no extension.This can be depicted as body and mind, physical and mental, body and spirit, and so on. — Wayfarer

My position isn't dualism. It wasn't me that was saying the mind and body are separable. It was MU. I was asking those questions of MU to get at how a mind can exist independent of a body, as if the mind isn't caused by the body and it's interaction with it's environment.

My point was that the mind and body are made of the same substance, whether you want to call that substance "physical", "mental", or something else, it doesn't really matter in the end. Both idealists and physicalists are saying the same thing but don't seem to realize it - that the mind and body interact, and if they interact they must be of the same substance, the same reality of cause and effect.

I have noticed that you often refer to the 'cause and effect' relationship between objects and perception - that objects cause perceptions - and that your view is very similar to what is described in the above passage. And it is the common-sense view which I think many people would naturally accept. Part of this view, is that the fundamental constituents of being, are the physical elements which comprise objects, namely atoms. In this view, everything, including the mind itself, is ultimately atoms and can be ultimately explained in terms of physics. Evolution itself can be understood in similarly physical terms, although in that case higher-level factors are said to supervene on the physical, so as to give rise to living organisms and eventually the evolved intelligence of h. sapiens even though these might seem not to be purely physical. However, the only real entities are physical entities.

So that is the view of the 'neo-darwinist materialism' which Thomas Nagel is setting out to criticize. But it might be helpful to spell all of this out so it is clear what is being criticized by this book, and on what grounds. — Wayfarer

To say that everything is composed of atoms is off the mark. Atoms themselves are the interaction of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons are the interaction of quarks, and who knows what quarks are the interaction of. It seems that science doesn't describe objects at all, as there isn't anything object to point to - only interactions, or processes. If everything is a process, which includes cause and effect, then there really isn't any substance at all, only processes, or another term we could use is, information.

I'm trying to get at WHY you think that your mind isn't part of your body. You simply saying that we disagree doesn't answer my questions or improve my understanding of your position. — Harry Hindu

I studied philosophy for many years. It would be very difficult for me to recount here, under these conditions, why I don't think my mind is part of my body. Generally speaking, I believe in the freedom of the will, and this means that the decisions made by the mind are not caused by the body.

The mind is not the body. It is a process of the body. — Harry Hindu

As I explained before, this doesn't make sense to me. The mind is a thing which thinks and makes decisions. Therefore it is a thing which is active, involved in processes, it is not itself a process. To this objection, you simply said that everything is reducible to processes. Again, I explained why this doesn't make sense, every description of an occurring process describes something which is carrying out the process. So in the case of thinking and making decisions, you can describe this as the body carrying out this process, or as the mind carrying out this process, and these would be two different ways of describing the same process, thinking and making decisions. But what sense would it make to say that the mind is a process of the body, and making decisions is a process of the mind? Why not just say that making decisions is a process of the body? Where does this leave the mind?

If you can't answer questions, MU, then don't bother striking up a philosophical conversation with me. I'll continue this once you have answered my questions. — Harry Hindu

I explained to you why I couldn't answer some of your questions. They did not make sense to me. And you never proceeded to straighten them out. Others I answered, and you just didn't like the answers. Maybe you could describe more clearly what you are asking.

Both idealists and physicalists are saying the same thing but don't seem to realize it - that the mind and body interact, and if they interact they must be of the same substance, the same reality of cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

This is where you seem to be lost. Why do you think that if two things interact they must be of the same substance. Vinegar and baking soda interact, right? How are those two the same substance?

It seems that science doesn't describe objects at all, as there isn't anything object to point to - only interactions, or processes. — Harry Hindu

Have you not heard of fundamental particles? Physicists reduce all processes to a number of fundamental particles, it's called particle physics. It is really not true to say that science doesn't describe objects. Each fundamental particle is a different type of object.