What do you think?
Very Short Introductions #691
فلسفة العقل .. سلسلة مقدمات موجزة
يبحث هذا الكتاب أهم موضوعات العقل وأكثرها إثارة للجدل، كازدواجية العقل والجسد الشهيرة، والرد عليها من جانب السلوكيين. وتتطرق المؤلفة إلى نظريات عدة حاولت تفسير العقل، لعل أهمها: الفيزيائية، والقصدية. ويتحدث الكتاب عن الوعي واختلاف الفلاسفة حول تعريفه، عارضاً تجارب فكرية متنوعة لتوضيح معناه وأشكاله المختلفة، ومناقشاً وعي العقول الأخرى غير البشرية، والإشكالات المرتبطة بتعريف الوعي لدى الحيوانات والآلات. وتوضح المؤلفة -أيضاً- كيف تتسلل أسئلة فلسفة العقل إلى المجالات الأخرى، كعلم النفس، وعلم الأعصاب، وعلم الأحياء التطوري، واللغويات، والفيزياء.
142 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 8, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
July 22, 2022
As far as intros go, it does the job of getting the initial questions and a basic understanding. 4 stars for that
Of course this is a very short introduction but the perennial problem with philosophy intro books I seem to come across is that they never take the extra step to explain what’s next on the process of the question at hand.
Example, Q: Is there facts or knowledge about the mind that is over and above the physical? Here’s a Thought Experiment, called Mary’s Room that argue’s yes. Here’s an objection and maybe a reply to objection…
…And then they move on. Maybe I am asking for a methodology book out of an intro book but it leaves me with nowhere to go and I find that is an issue that should be addressed in the intro book. “Ok cool what’s next step to deal with the problem?” Is the question and the answer that is given is “here’s a new topic!”
Because this is a very short introduction I didn’t knock it down much for this issue.
Back to the book.
It was a good intro to the mind-body Distinction, there’s dualism, behaviorism, physicalism and Idealism( not mentioned in the book) and out of these I am inclined to think that Dualism (rn natural dualism, which is that the mind IS a distinct property than physical properties and arose out of physical things and unlike substance dualism which is saying that mind and body are two different substance completely) or Idealism which is that everything is Mental or ideas (no abstract matter [not the physicist conception of matter]) and if that’s true, every thing that works for a physicalist’s take on the mind-body can be said of the idealist as well.
Then it moves on to Intentionality, a technical word, which argues that that states of the mind(beliefs, desires, fear etc…) and thoughts and any thing to do with mind are always ABOUT something.
Then it moves onto consciousness, what it is, why it’s hard to talk about etc… The most interesting part of this section was the difference between science of consciousness and philosophy of mind(or consciousness) and it comes down to the matter that science explains how a thing works or it’s causes and effects and philosophy explains what a thing is.
Next it moves on to emotions and asking what is an emotion? The two main theories are body-based, which is that emotions are your bodies reactions to things and followed by your feeling of that. Ex, the common sense view is that you step on a phantom step, you get scared, then your heart races. Body-based theories argue that the order is reversed. You step on a phantom step, your body reacts and your heart races, and this is causing you to have fear.
The alternative is Judgement-based theory, that it’s our judgments About things that are the root of emotions. If my cat knocks something over while I’m falling asleep and my immediate judgement is someone is breaking in or something, my fear is based from the judgment. The strong argument for this theory is that emotions can be rational or irrational, if I scream 🙀 at the top of my lungs and pass out from fear because my cat meowed, that seems pretty irrational, while a rational fear would be one that results from say, being let go at work on short notice and now you are in a state of fear but for a rational reason. If emotions are rational or irrational, body-based theory is dead in the water.
Finally it moves onto digital minds, the most interesting bit was the extension of the mind. If James and Jenny are meeting their dad for lunch, and James has a long term memory issue and the only way he knows where to go is because he had it written down in a note, while at the same time Jenny knows where to go because she can recall the info in your head, and they both arrive to meet their dad for lunch at the same place and same time, is their methods significantly different? In other words, is the notepad a part of James’ mind in the same way that the memory is a part of Jenny’s mind?
If yes, which I think so, this has an implication for how we should handle tests in school, should they be open note, as a notepad could be a functional part of the mind?
Of course this is a very short introduction but the perennial problem with philosophy intro books I seem to come across is that they never take the extra step to explain what’s next on the process of the question at hand.
Example, Q: Is there facts or knowledge about the mind that is over and above the physical? Here’s a Thought Experiment, called Mary’s Room that argue’s yes. Here’s an objection and maybe a reply to objection…
…And then they move on. Maybe I am asking for a methodology book out of an intro book but it leaves me with nowhere to go and I find that is an issue that should be addressed in the intro book. “Ok cool what’s next step to deal with the problem?” Is the question and the answer that is given is “here’s a new topic!”
Because this is a very short introduction I didn’t knock it down much for this issue.
Back to the book.
It was a good intro to the mind-body Distinction, there’s dualism, behaviorism, physicalism and Idealism( not mentioned in the book) and out of these I am inclined to think that Dualism (rn natural dualism, which is that the mind IS a distinct property than physical properties and arose out of physical things and unlike substance dualism which is saying that mind and body are two different substance completely) or Idealism which is that everything is Mental or ideas (no abstract matter [not the physicist conception of matter]) and if that’s true, every thing that works for a physicalist’s take on the mind-body can be said of the idealist as well.
Then it moves on to Intentionality, a technical word, which argues that that states of the mind(beliefs, desires, fear etc…) and thoughts and any thing to do with mind are always ABOUT something.
Then it moves onto consciousness, what it is, why it’s hard to talk about etc… The most interesting part of this section was the difference between science of consciousness and philosophy of mind(or consciousness) and it comes down to the matter that science explains how a thing works or it’s causes and effects and philosophy explains what a thing is.
Next it moves on to emotions and asking what is an emotion? The two main theories are body-based, which is that emotions are your bodies reactions to things and followed by your feeling of that. Ex, the common sense view is that you step on a phantom step, you get scared, then your heart races. Body-based theories argue that the order is reversed. You step on a phantom step, your body reacts and your heart races, and this is causing you to have fear.
The alternative is Judgement-based theory, that it’s our judgments About things that are the root of emotions. If my cat knocks something over while I’m falling asleep and my immediate judgement is someone is breaking in or something, my fear is based from the judgment. The strong argument for this theory is that emotions can be rational or irrational, if I scream 🙀 at the top of my lungs and pass out from fear because my cat meowed, that seems pretty irrational, while a rational fear would be one that results from say, being let go at work on short notice and now you are in a state of fear but for a rational reason. If emotions are rational or irrational, body-based theory is dead in the water.
Finally it moves onto digital minds, the most interesting bit was the extension of the mind. If James and Jenny are meeting their dad for lunch, and James has a long term memory issue and the only way he knows where to go is because he had it written down in a note, while at the same time Jenny knows where to go because she can recall the info in your head, and they both arrive to meet their dad for lunch at the same place and same time, is their methods significantly different? In other words, is the notepad a part of James’ mind in the same way that the memory is a part of Jenny’s mind?
If yes, which I think so, this has an implication for how we should handle tests in school, should they be open note, as a notepad could be a functional part of the mind?
February 25, 2025
One of the better Very Short Introductions I've read. Montero provides a concise, accessible introduction to the contemporary philosophy of mind. She touches on the main questions it addresses—the nature of the mind, its relation to the body, the role of intentionality—as well as the most important theories that have been proposed to answer them: property dualism, type identity theory, behaviourism, and functionalism. I particularly appreciated Montero's breezy, playful prose. She manages to include enough detail to be informative while keeping things engaging and readable. Granted, there are certain minor unclarities here and there. I also thought the chapter on the emotions was pretty weak compared to the rest. But unlike a lot of other volumes in the series, I'd say this one actually succeeds in being a good short introduction for beginners.
August 27, 2023
It's a very short but very informative book. The author talks about a complex subject in a very simple language. The only reason I cannot give it five starts are the many typos I found (I read the Kindle edition).
June 1, 2025
This book makes for a pretty good primer to a complicated topic. The author makes most of the material accessible for those of us not well-educated on philosophy, bringing humor to it. Philosophy of Mind: A Very Short Introduction is structured into seven chapters:
Dualism
Behaviourism
Physicalism
Intentionality
Consciousness
Emotions
Digital Minds
Out of these, I would say the final chapter on Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most outdated. The book was published in 2022 and already in 2025, there have been significant advancements in AI. We, of course, can’t blame Barbara Gail Montero for being unable to predict the future. I do have to admit that there is some of the Philosophy of Mind recounted in this book, at least that not directly tied to neuroscience, has a ring of sophistry. Philosophers have spent much time over the centuries making clever thought experiments, but how much of this has been simply mental masturbation? Dr. Montero never addresses this possibility.
***************************************************************************
[Image: Book Cover]
Citation:
Montero, B.G. (2022). Philosophy of mind: A very short introduction (eBook). OUP Oxford. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09...
Title: Philosophy of Mind: A Very Short Introduction
Author(s): Barbara Gail Montero
Series: Oxford Very Short Introductions #691
Year: 2022
Genre: Nonfiction - Philosophy, Psychology, & Neuroscience
Page count: 160 pages
Date(s) read: 5/30/25 - 6/1/25
Book 112 in 2025
***************************************************************************
Dualism
Behaviourism
Physicalism
Intentionality
Consciousness
Emotions
Digital Minds
Out of these, I would say the final chapter on Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the most outdated. The book was published in 2022 and already in 2025, there have been significant advancements in AI. We, of course, can’t blame Barbara Gail Montero for being unable to predict the future. I do have to admit that there is some of the Philosophy of Mind recounted in this book, at least that not directly tied to neuroscience, has a ring of sophistry. Philosophers have spent much time over the centuries making clever thought experiments, but how much of this has been simply mental masturbation? Dr. Montero never addresses this possibility.
A few quotes:
“The French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal commented in a 1657 letter that he would have written less, had he had time to do so. I thank Oxford University Press for their patience.” (p. XXXIII)
*
Dualism in philosophy of mind is the theory that the mind is distinct from the body…it is the theory that philosophy of mind cut its teeth on, and, though widely criticized, it continues to command the attention of contemporary philosophers who puzzle over thought experiments that seem to suggest the theory is true.” (p. 1).
*
Our actions are analogous to the buildings and grounds of a university while the mind is analogous to the university itself, and the dualist’s ‘big mistake’ is thinking of mind and body as two things that fall under the heading ‘parts of a person’....According to the behaviourist, there is nothing behind the scenes. What you think is what you do.” (p. 21).
*
“It took around 380,000 years [after the Big Bang] before the first atoms were formed…around the 9.2-billion-year mark, the solar system was formed. Life on earth is thought to have begun within a billion years after that, perhaps arising in undersea alkaline vents, and within a couple billion more years eukrayotic cells evolved with multicellular life developing in anothe billion years or so. Hundreds of millions of years later—approximately 4 million years ago—humans began to evolve along the verdant savannas of east Africa.
Where in this picture does the mind make its appearance?” (p. 33)
*
“The physicalist thinks that, although our knowledge of the creation and evolution of the universe is incomplete, we know enough to know that God isn’t working behind the scenes. Everything that exists today—including human minds—came about, according to the physicalist, in virtue of the rearrangements of and interactions between the physical particles and forces that emerged after the universe’s birth…
From behaviourism to the identity theory Physicalism is a theory about the general nature of the world; it asserts that everything—from particles to people, from multi-star systems to multiplayer video games—is physical. And since the mind is seen as physicalism’s greatest nemesis, the central challenge for physicalists is to show how the mind sits comfortably in the physical world.” (p. 35).
*
“Not only is there a possibility of a science of consciousness, but there is a science of consciousness; for scientists do in fact investigate subjective processes. Would you feel a bee’s wing drop onto your cheek from one centimetre away? How many hairs on the back of your hand need be touched in order for you to notice that they are being touched? These are some of the many questions about conscious experiences that science has cracked (the answers are ‘yes’, and ‘two or three’)...
Scientists also investigate the causes and effects of pain, the role of conscious attention in action, the effect of meditation on attention, and visual, auditory and olfactory perception, to name just a few of the ontologically subjective features of the world that yield to scientific investigation.” (p. 81).
*
“...scientists have found that intracranial electrical stimulation of various areas in the prefrontal cortex can produce feelings of anxiety, olfactory and gustatory sensations, the urge to move and laugh, and other conscious experiences.” (p. 82)
*
“Body-based theories of emotions also reap support from practices such as yoga or meditation that emphasize how calming one’s breathing is conducive to reducing anxiety.” (p. 90).
*
“Embodied emotions: Some philosophers maintain that mental processes are ‘embodied’, by which they mean that the body (in the sense, generally, of torso, limbs, head, neck, but not brain) is an integral part of our mental architecture, so much so that a disembodied mind makes no sense.” (p. 96).
*
“Alan Turing, the mathematician whose face is on Britain’s £50 note in recognition of, among other things, developing the first fully-fledged theory of computability and playing a key role in cracking the German secret code during the Second World War, suggests that the question of whether a computer could think is too muddled to be addressed. He argues that we should instead ask whether a computer could make us believe it is thinking.” (p. 111).
*
***************************************************************************
[Image: Book Cover]
Citation:
Montero, B.G. (2022). Philosophy of mind: A very short introduction (eBook). OUP Oxford. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09...
Title: Philosophy of Mind: A Very Short Introduction
Author(s): Barbara Gail Montero
Series: Oxford Very Short Introductions #691
Year: 2022
Genre: Nonfiction - Philosophy, Psychology, & Neuroscience
Page count: 160 pages
Date(s) read: 5/30/25 - 6/1/25
Book 112 in 2025
***************************************************************************
August 6, 2023
I started my philosophy degree specifically to study philosophy of mind. I felt like I had some ideas that might move the ball forward and I was eager to learn what the experts in the field had to say about the topic first. I've since decided that the entire topic is bogus and haunted by the faint echoes of dualism from a time before neuroscience. This book confirms it for me.
The book is a great summary of the topic of philosophy of mind—though Montero's flowery metaphors smell too sweet and her tendency towards sesquipedalianism becomes inharmonious after a while —but the topic itself is phony. Philosophers of mind have little to contribute to the advance of our understanding of what the brain is doing. Their superpower is concocting thought experiments that put a thumb on the scales of intuition. They bring obscurity rather than clarity.
Can a network of neurons be conscious? Can it think? Can it experience things? What if the role of neurons is played by Chinese people with Walkie-Talkies?
If I write an address on a piece of paper, does that now constitute part of my memory? So what if it does? Does that mean the entire New York Phone Directory is part of my memory too? [The answer is: No, duh. We can't remember a fact that we have never even known.] Whether or not an address on a piece of paper is a memory is a matter of definition, not a matter of fact and whether you can take your pieces of paper into the exam is a matter for the invigilator, not a philosopher. There is no deep fact here.
Other questions to which the answer is no:
* Is pain a particular kind of nerve fibre?
* Can a book understand Chinese?
* Can you know everything there is to know about colour from a black and white room?
* Can our minds exist independently of our brains?
* Can our minds survive our deaths?
* Do rocks and electrons have just a little bit of consciousness?
The chapter on whether a chatbot can fool a human interlocutor is like reading Ptolemy's Guide to the Solar System right after talking with Gallileo.
The chapter on emotions was excellent. This is what phil of mind could be and I want to learn more.
I'm amazed that philosophers are still talking about p-zombies in an era when neurosurgeons perform awake surgery on brain tumour patients. Patricia Churchland has it right when she says that even the concepts that philosophers of mind are fighting over are probably wrong. My advice to anyone wanting to learn about mind and brain is to study neuroscience instead.
Start with this book:
The book is a great summary of the topic of philosophy of mind—though Montero's flowery metaphors smell too sweet and her tendency towards sesquipedalianism becomes inharmonious after a while —but the topic itself is phony. Philosophers of mind have little to contribute to the advance of our understanding of what the brain is doing. Their superpower is concocting thought experiments that put a thumb on the scales of intuition. They bring obscurity rather than clarity.
Can a network of neurons be conscious? Can it think? Can it experience things? What if the role of neurons is played by Chinese people with Walkie-Talkies?
If I write an address on a piece of paper, does that now constitute part of my memory? So what if it does? Does that mean the entire New York Phone Directory is part of my memory too? [The answer is: No, duh. We can't remember a fact that we have never even known.] Whether or not an address on a piece of paper is a memory is a matter of definition, not a matter of fact and whether you can take your pieces of paper into the exam is a matter for the invigilator, not a philosopher. There is no deep fact here.
Other questions to which the answer is no:
* Is pain a particular kind of nerve fibre?
* Can a book understand Chinese?
* Can you know everything there is to know about colour from a black and white room?
* Can our minds exist independently of our brains?
* Can our minds survive our deaths?
* Do rocks and electrons have just a little bit of consciousness?
The chapter on whether a chatbot can fool a human interlocutor is like reading Ptolemy's Guide to the Solar System right after talking with Gallileo.
The chapter on emotions was excellent. This is what phil of mind could be and I want to learn more.
I'm amazed that philosophers are still talking about p-zombies in an era when neurosurgeons perform awake surgery on brain tumour patients. Patricia Churchland has it right when she says that even the concepts that philosophers of mind are fighting over are probably wrong. My advice to anyone wanting to learn about mind and brain is to study neuroscience instead.
Start with this book:
April 29, 2026
Again, the "A Very Short Introduction," series delivers! Barbara Gail Montero poses a slew of introspective questions within Philosophy of Mind. The topics discussed are ideologies expounding upon the relationship of mind and body, which attempt to ascertain their connection, or dissociation, with a physical or incorporeal explanation. These daunting concepts cause one to mentally marinate over the contentions these comparisons generate. Luckily, this seems to be the book's intention, and akin to all philosophy, it fails to deliver concrete answers because of it. Instead it relies on its reader to intellectually actualize their own ideas based off the queries presented. Then they'll be carrying the torches of whatever philosophical camps they find themselves relating with. All I can say is, read it and determine for yourselves the connection between your mind and body.
April 19, 2026
Läst för skolan som substitut för kursboken Theoretical Issues in Psychology: An Introduction, den absolut överlägset sämst skrivna bok psykologprogrammet i Lund har pådyvlat mig.
Såklart ett intressant ämne och Montero verkar ge en rättvis och relativt heltäckande och koncis överskådlig bild av fältet som det står idag (men jag har svårt att bedöma då jag inte kan så mycket om det). Mycket humor, vilket uppskattas.
Kapitlet om emotioner brister, något jag kommit att förvänta av alla icke-psykologiska och icke-litterära författare.
Såklart ett intressant ämne och Montero verkar ge en rättvis och relativt heltäckande och koncis överskådlig bild av fältet som det står idag (men jag har svårt att bedöma då jag inte kan så mycket om det). Mycket humor, vilket uppskattas.
Kapitlet om emotioner brister, något jag kommit att förvänta av alla icke-psykologiska och icke-litterära författare.
June 16, 2023
It’s exactly what it says it is, a very short introduction to philosophy of mind split into 7 chapters: Dualism, Behaviourism, Physicalism, Intentionality, Consciousness, Emotions, and Digital Minds. Reading it for me felt more like a refresher for these topics but I don’t think I learned all too much from it overall. I must be less interested in the topic as I thought I’d be, but it’s still a good read. It is short, effective, and worth reading, though I found the last section on AI quite shallow and outdated.
February 18, 2022
Well-Written, good introduction to many philosophical ideas and schools of thoughts. Learned how different abstract metaphysical theories develop by philosophers attacking and attempting to poke holes into even the most “obvious” theories. Lots of thought experiments and thought provoking definitions, divisions of items, and claims. Liked the parts about consciousness and physicalism a lot.
May 14, 2023
A very clear, accessible and short introduction to philosophy of mind. Even though I did not read or learn about philosophy of mind before, I had no difficulties understanding it. Since I am probably not going to memorise all of it, and since I enjoyed reading this introduction, I will most likely read it once again later.
August 14, 2025
Readable intro
A very accessible and concise introduction to philosophy of mind. While the book is concise, some depth is achieved because the topics covered are just the main ones, no more. Using the book as a stepping stone to more complex books on the subject, for a module I'm doing in philosophy of mind.
A very accessible and concise introduction to philosophy of mind. While the book is concise, some depth is achieved because the topics covered are just the main ones, no more. Using the book as a stepping stone to more complex books on the subject, for a module I'm doing in philosophy of mind.
September 25, 2026
very good intro to a variety of cool and vary topical concepts! i really appreciate the intro to this in a way that was accessible and actionable :D
(Copied from my StoryGraph review on Dec 1, 2025)
July 14, 2026
A nice, accessible introduction. I would have preferred something a bit more technical (some of the analogies were imprecise), but the introductory nature did spell out philosophical methods of inquiry that may be implicit in more advanced works.
February 20, 2023
Maybe a little more ready to be a psych guy now...
February 28, 2023
a very good introduction (except maybe for the chapter on intentionality)
June 22, 2023
Honest I’m grateful I read this overview of philo of mind cos idk if I want to do more of it! Also the extension theory of mind is sooooo ridiculous to me
May 3, 2024
an engaging swift introduction (or in my case, recap). a good recommendation for the lay people interested in the goings on in the mind.
September 8, 2024
Nice introduction
September 17, 2025
Nice survey of the different perspectives in the philosophy of mind. It seems written pretty impartially.
October 21, 2025
Buena introducción, pero breve, apenas tiene tiempo de exponer por encima las principales escuelas y temas. No entra en el detalle de ningún argumento.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2026
Didn't expect to be such a page-turner
July 20, 2026
Excellent. The prose are light and fun and the book is an overall accessible intro to philosophy of mind.
June 21, 2026
imagine mary ….
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews