RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2397Goal: $5000

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Thinking hard
or hardly thinking?

Philosophy
Icon philosophy.svg
Major trains of thought
The good, the bad
and the brain fart
Come to think of it

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False is a book written by American philosopher Thomas Nagel. The book was published in September 2012.

Overview[edit]

Nagel proposes that the modern materialist approach to life fails to explain consciousness. He argues that mental activity is a fundamental feature of biological systems that has developed through evolution and the materialistic "Darwinian" version of evolution through natural selection fails to explain it.[1] It is, of course, a gigantic God of the gaps argument. It's also somewhat untrue: the development of consciousness can be explained quite well by evolution through natural selection. One might postulate that linked biological systems function more effectively and are hence selected for, and that "consciousness" is the product of a very complex web of systems. Explanations like this one have yet to go through the rigors of the scientific method and be proven (or disproved) in experiments, but they show that the gap in Nagel's God of the Gaps argument is not so big, after all.

See also[edit]

References[edit]