I've been stressingoutlatelyabout what to do for my PhD. If I get accepted to both spots that I applied for, I'll have a major choice to make
( Read more... )
Out of curiosity, did you end up applying for both psych and HPS?
Yup.
I should find out about my Honours results around the end of November; PhD and scholarship offers should come in not too long after that.
I haven't the faintest idea which way I'll jump. Two weeks before handing in my psych thesis, I would've said that I was 90% likely to jump to HPS. Now it's back to pretty much 50/50, although it may be 51/49 either way at any particular point in time.
At the moment, I'm mostly deliberately not thinking about it. I traditionally end every year up at the Woodford Folk Festival, and that usually provides ample opportunities for lying on the grass under a nice tree and having a good think. I'd be a bit surprised if I didn't have a much better idea of where I'm going by the end of the festival.
I am actually in almost the same boat (phil of Mind instead of neuroscience, but close enough) so it was cool to read your post in the philosophy group.
So is it a philosophy vs history thing, or a Philosophy of Mind vs History & Philosophy of Science thing?
I am a first year MA and I can totally relate to what you said (especially about the readings--even though I know nothing of stats).
Lucky you.
(although, compared to the 3-D calculus I had to do in first year, psych stats was an absolute doddle...)
I am (at least today) leaning to mind, but I like the historical readings (in general I like the history of philosophy; but I may veer that way later in my career). Hume, Nietzsche, and James were always fascinating for me and it is a bit of a jump to the dense and dull analysis of "cognitive architecture" and "concepts"; however, I also think that there are some profound implications in the stuff (for the very patient reader) and the possible employment options are a plus...
Options are rarely a minus. ;)
Incidentally, with Philosophy of Mind (and philosophy in general), I'm heavily in agreement with Pat Churchland and company: making philosophical arguments about how minds work without paying attention the findings of modern cognitive psych and neuroscience is ridiculous.
It's akin to a 17th-century astronomer saying that he can't be bothered with all of this new-fangled telescope stuff.
Philosophy needs to pay attention to empirical data. It's the Mythbuster's approach to philosophy: "you say that qualia must work like that? Well, let's put it to the test...".
Philosophy of Mind vs History & Philosophy of Science thing?
yes
Incidentally, with Philosophy of Mind (and philosophy in general), I'm heavily in agreement with Pat Churchland and company: making philosophical arguments about how minds work without paying attention the findings of modern cognitive psych and neuroscience is ridiculous.
It's akin to a 17th-century astronomer saying that he can't be bothered with all of this new-fangled telescope stuff.
Philosophy needs to pay attention to empirical data. It's the Mythbuster's approach to philosophy: "you say that qualia must work like that? Well, let's put it to the test...".
I agree with this almost entirely (the last two sentences I totally agree with). We need to get out of our armchairs (playing the a priori games), but I am skeptical of the Churchland's eliminativism.
I urge you to read Peter Carruthers's "The Architecture of the Mind" which synthesizes a LOT Of empirical data in presenting a view of the mind.
Yup.
I should find out about my Honours results around the end of November; PhD and scholarship offers should come in not too long after that.
I haven't the faintest idea which way I'll jump. Two weeks before handing in my psych thesis, I would've said that I was 90% likely to jump to HPS. Now it's back to pretty much 50/50, although it may be 51/49 either way at any particular point in time.
At the moment, I'm mostly deliberately not thinking about it. I traditionally end every year up at the Woodford Folk Festival, and that usually provides ample opportunities for lying on the grass under a nice tree and having a good think. I'd be a bit surprised if I didn't have a much better idea of where I'm going by the end of the festival.
I am actually in almost the same boat (phil of Mind instead of neuroscience, but close enough) so it was cool to read your post in the philosophy group.
So is it a philosophy vs history thing, or a Philosophy of Mind vs History & Philosophy of Science thing?
I am a first year MA and I can totally relate to what you said (especially about the readings--even though I know nothing of stats).
Lucky you.
(although, compared to the 3-D calculus I had to do in first year, psych stats was an absolute doddle...)
I am (at least today) leaning to mind, but I like the historical readings (in general I like the history of philosophy; but I may veer that way later in my career). Hume, Nietzsche, and James were always fascinating for me and it is a bit of a jump to the dense and dull analysis of "cognitive architecture" and "concepts"; however, I also think that there are some profound implications in the stuff (for the very patient reader) and the possible employment options are a plus...
Options are rarely a minus. ;)
Incidentally, with Philosophy of Mind (and philosophy in general), I'm heavily in agreement with Pat Churchland and company: making philosophical arguments about how minds work without paying attention the findings of modern cognitive psych and neuroscience is ridiculous.
It's akin to a 17th-century astronomer saying that he can't be bothered with all of this new-fangled telescope stuff.
Philosophy needs to pay attention to empirical data. It's the Mythbuster's approach to philosophy: "you say that qualia must work like that? Well, let's put it to the test...".
cheers and good luck!!
Likewise.
(and try not to stress out anymore!!
It comes naturally to me, unfortunately...
Reply
yes
Incidentally, with Philosophy of Mind (and philosophy in general), I'm heavily in agreement with Pat Churchland and company: making philosophical arguments about how minds work without paying attention the findings of modern cognitive psych and neuroscience is ridiculous.
It's akin to a 17th-century astronomer saying that he can't be bothered with all of this new-fangled telescope stuff.
Philosophy needs to pay attention to empirical data. It's the Mythbuster's approach to philosophy: "you say that qualia must work like that? Well, let's put it to the test...".
I agree with this almost entirely (the last two sentences I totally agree with).
We need to get out of our armchairs (playing the a priori games), but I am skeptical of the Churchland's eliminativism.
I urge you to read Peter Carruthers's "The Architecture of the Mind" which synthesizes a LOT Of empirical data in presenting a view of the mind.
Reply
Leave a comment