Talk:Biological naturalism

message: "It is easier to see how the fact that one's thought about a desk is causally related with a desk can bear on the fact that person's thought is about a desk than it is to see how the fact that one's thought is made up of hydrocarbons can bear on the fact that one's thought about a desk is about a desk."
This sentence makes no sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.209.80 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking about a desk right now; what makes that thought "about" the desk instead of about the moon, or about nothing at all? It is easier to see that this aboutness comes from the fact that my thought is causally related to the desk, than it is to see that this aboutness comes from the hydrocarbons that compose the thought. Better? 65.96.114.192 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: First, it's a direct quote so it's irrelevant whether it makes sense. Second, you're mistaking your inability to parse it for it not making sense; it actually makes fine sense: ""It is easier to see how [the fact that one's thought about a desk is causally related with a desk] can bear on [the fact that person's thought is about a desk] than it is to see how [the fact that one's thought is made up of hydrocarbons] can bear on [the fact that one's thought about a desk is about a desk]." -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

message: Also eliminated the part that says Searle treats consciousness as an "emergent property" of the brain. He never speaks of it in these terms.
Stoned philosophaster (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergent property

message: The article reads:
Searle believes that consciousness "is a real part of the real world and it cannot be eliminated in favor of, or reduced to, something else" whether that something else is a neurological state of the brain or a software program. [...]
On the other hand, Searle doesn't treat consciousness as a ghost in the machine. He treats it, rather, as a state of the brain.
Am I slightly confused about the meaning here, or is the author? Because if consciousness is identical to the state of the brain, surely it can be reduced to the firing of neurons and the balance of chemicals?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.108.57 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Why is the page itself listed as a reference?  Quite circular.LéVeillé 06:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biological naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040102071840/http://csli-publications.stanford.edu:80/papers/CSLI-95-194.html to http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/papers/CSLI-95-194.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified