Talk:Reflexive monism

As the history tab shows, the entry on Reflexive Monism originally appeared in Wikipedia in December 2006 (source unknown) with a request to fill in information about it. As I was the originator of this philosophical position it seemed appropriate to supply a short stub that summarises the position in 2007.This summary quotes directly from text of the book Understanding Consciousness (2000) in which the position was originally developed. As the author, it did not seem appropriate to go further than that. Quite a few independent sources for reflexive monism can be found by typing "reflexive" and "monism" into Google. Many commentaries on reflexive monism can also be found in the reviews of Understanding Consciousness (editions 1 and 2) - see for example Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com. Reflexive monism has many additional features not mentioned in the stub, elaborated in my main book Understanding Consciousness and many academic papers that have been discussed or referred to in the field of consciousness studies. In some cases the discussions have been extensive, for example the 40 published commentaries on my target article in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences on "Is human information processing conscious?" and the 12 commentaries on my target article in the Journal of Consciousness Studies on "How could conscious experiences affect brains?" (published along with replies in 2002 and 2003). In recent years scholars in India have become interested in this position on the grounds that it forms a potential bridge between modern Western philosophical/psychological thought and classical Vedic writings. In response to a request from a Wiki editor for an independent source for this I recently added a reference to the stub relating to an extensive discussion of these connections by K.Ramakrisna Rao (2011) (see entry on Koneru Ramakrishna Rao in Wikipedia). If I can help any editor with more specific information to improve this entry following Wikepedia standards let me know. M Velmans (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia Editor IRWolfie’s suggestion I have gathered together some sources for anyone who has an interest in improving this stub. As ever, the most comprehensive and accurate sources are primary ones, particularly Velmans (2009) Understanding Consciousness Edition 2. Routledge/Psychology Press, chapters 6 to 14, and the introduction to some special features of Reflexive Monism in Velmans (2008) Reflexive Monism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (2), pp. 5-50. (online at http://goldsmiths.academia.edu/MaxVelmans/Papers/980443/Reflexive_monism). Ways in which RM can be used as a potential way of integrating and specifying the relations among many other standard, seemingly opposed philosophical positions (e.g. physicalism, functionalism, neutral monism and dual-aspect monism) are given in Velmans (2012) Reflexive Monism: psychophysical relations among mind, matter and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19 (9-10),143-165. (online at http://www.academia.edu/2053423/Reflexive_Monism_Psychophysical_relations_among_mind_matter_and_consciousness)

There are also a range of secondary sources: Simple introductions to the reflexive model of perception that forms a departure point for reflexive monism are given in Blackmore, S. (2003) Consciousness: An introduction. Hodder & Stoughton, and other elements of the theory in Eysenck & Keene (2005) Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook, 5th Edition. Psychology Press. Useful introductions to various features of reflexive monism can also be found in the many reviews of Understanding Consciousness (see a list at http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Consciousness-Max-Velmans/product-reviews/0415425166/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 ). Some of these are online, for example: Harris, K. (2009) Review of Max Velmans Understanding Consciousness. Metapsychology, 13 (52) http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=5300&cn=396 ; Faw, B. (2009) Book review of Max Velmans, Understanding Consciousness (2nd ed.) Journal of Consciousness Studies. Vol. 16, No.9, pp103-108 http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/16-9_br.pdf ; Zeman, A. (2001) The paradox of consciousness: a review of Understanding Consciousness (2000) by Max Velmans. The Lancet Vol. 357, Issue 9249, p77. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)71582-8/fulltext ; Batthyany, A (2002) Consciousness in the natural world (a review of M.Velmans, 2000, Understanding Consciousness). Theory & Psychology 12(3), pp. 415-417. http://www.psych.ucalgary.ca/thpsyc/Reviews12(3).pdf

Of the online secondary sources, the most detailed one is: Hoche, Hans-Ulrich (2007) Reflexive monism versus complementarism: An analysis and criticism of the conceptual groundwork of Max Velmans's reflexive model of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6 (3), pp. 389-409, online at http://cogprints.org/4748/ However it should be noted that ultimately Hoche wishes to argue for his own position (a form of European phenomenology that he calls complementarism) and his arguments in favour of this and his consequent critique of some elements of Velmans’ position need to be considered together with Velmans’ reply: Velmans, M (2007) How experienced phenomena relate to things themselves: Kant, Husserl, Hoche, and reflexive monism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 411-423, online at http://cogprints.org/4760/1/Hoche_reply_final.PDF

Another relatively detailed account of reflexive monism is given in K. R. Rao (2011) History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization Volume XVI, Part 1: Cognitive Anomalies, Consciousness, and Yoga. New Delhi: Matrix, pp. 322-323, 377-382, 766-774. Rao also gives a detailed comparison of elements of reflexive monism and elements of Indian philosophy. Unfortunately this resource is not available online.M Velmans (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

An additional, detailed account of how the epistemological and ontological principles developed within Reflexive Monism apply to the study of how conscious experiences relate to brain states is given in Price, D. and Barrell, J (2012) Inner Experience and Neuroscience: Merging both Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Velmans (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC) In the Wikepedia entry, Donald Price and James Barrell are said to write "that, according to reflexive monism, experience and matter are two reflexive sides of the same reality." We think the word "complementary" should replace the word "reflexive" because the latter is more applicable to the relationship between the known and the knower in an instance of experience or perception, whereas "complementary" is more applicable to overall ontology of the experience-matter relationship. 98.117.67.16 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Listing the links to reliable academic journals and books not by yourself is probably the best approach. It is good to have a good sense of the discourse. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)