Talk:New mysterianism

message: 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)
thread_title:  rewrite first para to refer to the hard problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dr. Johnson and Mysterianism? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cut questionable references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Colin McGinn self-identifies as a mysterian. 173.48.211.58 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative, or does anyone call themselves "New Mysterians"? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pinker

message: That is all  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.22.44 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Reference for Martin Gardener  

message: 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)
thread_title: Philosophy section

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Proponents? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is this related to the issue raised above ("Proponents?")? – Scyrme (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Jeeprs (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Categorisation