Talk:New mysterianism

Interesting article

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pejorative, or does anyone call themselves "New Mysterians"?

I've encountered the term, outside of WP, entirely as a pejorative used by Dennett other who agree with him against non-reductionists or advocates of cognitive closure in the philosophy of mind. If it is used only (or for the most part) in this way, the article should indicate so, and perhaps be moved to a more neutral title. --Atemperman (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gardner self-identified as such in the context of other people doing so. I've heard Dennett refer to "these so-called New Mysterians"... I don't think it's pejorative. 71.191.134.156 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Colin McGinn self-identifies as a mysterian. 173.48.211.58 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinker

Should we add Steven Pinker to the list of proponents? http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/24/steven-pinker-is-a-new-mysteri/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.195.42 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No; Pinker is very clear in the citation given both here and in the wikipedia article that he is not only uncertain whether consciousness is mysterious to us, but that it is not intrinsically or essentially so; if it is mysterious, this is a contingent fact about our limited cognitive capacities, so that a greater (but still wholly naturalistic) mind might be able to understand ours. This is not much like the irreducible mysterianism of most of the other authors listed here. Hence, I urge consideration of removing Pinker from the list (or perhaps, giving a few short sentences explaining why he is (was?) at best a marginal and weak version of mysterian; indeed the latter might be better as it would better define the boundaries of mysterianism).ScottForschler (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No Reference for Martin Gardener

That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.22.44 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The section called 'Philosophy', which I assume is meant to give a proper account of the position, is hopeless. It needs to be scrapped and done properly (preferably without quoting Chomsky - he is not a philosopher of mind!) Ben Finn (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Proponents?

• I think some of the proponents cited are ill mentioned. There are also no sources for some of the people cited. The people include: John Searle (he insists on anti-dualism and a biological understanding of consciousness); Jerry Fodor (as far as I can know he is not working on issues of metaphysics of consciousness); — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianO1989 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Edward Witten has told me personally that he never really subscribed to this view (the interview cited in the footnote is very old) and certainly doesn’t now.Gmusser (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The section definitely needs to be reviewed and reorganised. The entire idea of listing proponents and opponents is bizarre and isn't encyclopedic (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

  I'd say any entries that can't be backed up with a reference need to be cut and those which are referenced need to be checked to make sure undue weight isn't given to passing comments or that their inclusion isn't based on some editor's own original interpretation of the views discussed. Any remaining entries need to be reorganised as prose which describes notable relevant views rather than just name dropping prominent people, and the resulting material should probably be integrated into New mysterianism § Philosophy. (Like the content pertaining to Noam Chompsky there.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dubious Categorisation

I'm not sure this article is accurate. I've read that Colin McGinn willingly describes himself as 'mysterian' but I've never encountered the use of the term in respect of any of the others on this list. Treat With Caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jeeprs: Is this related to the issue raised above ("Proponents?")? – Scyrme (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Jeeprs (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)