[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Dualism
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:28:49 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply, Stuart.
>
> My references include Searle's review of Chalmers' book on consciousness
> concerning the search for a fundamental theory of mind as well as Searle's
> review of Dennett's _Cons. Explained_.
>
> Let me know if you have gotton anything useful out of these reviews if you've
> already read them.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Budd
> =========================================
As I recall, Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is an expanded compilation
of book reviews published elewhere which includes both his review of Dennett's
Consciousness Explained and of Chalmers' A Theory of Consciousness. In Mystery,
responses are offered from the reviewed parties, including responses from
Dennett and Chalmers, and these are followed by Searle's rebuttals (giving him
the final word -- but then the book is his, published under his authorship, so
what would we expect?).
I have, in the past, expressed my view of Searle's critique of Dennett at some
length. I hadn't read Dennett at the time I read The Mystery of Consciousness
and, indeed, that book, with Searle's criticisms, was my first introduction to
Dennett's book -- it took me some years however to finally get around to
reading it.
I hadn't read Chalmers' book at the time either though I did ultimately pick it
up and begin reading it, too. I found his approach so incompatible with my own
that I ultimately dropped it without finishing because his views seemed
misguided to me. It's for that reason that I rarely comment on Chalmers in
these discussions, i.e., I do not consider that I have read enough of him to
offer serious commentary (though I later read some on-line pieces by him,
listened to some of his interviews, etc.).
The main point I recall from Searle's critique of Chalmers in Mystery was that
he claimed Chalmers' ideas implied epiphenomenalism which Chalmers, in his
rebuttal, denied and Searle, in his re-rebuttal, reaffirmed.
With regard to Dennett, Searle seemed mainly focused on his own critique of
so-called "strong AI", arguing that Dennett thinks we are all zombies and thus
he is denying mental content (something you, Budd, and some others have often
repeated).
Having since read the book by Dennett that Searle was critiquing, I can say
without hesitation that that is NOT the point Dennett was making.
Yes, I believe Dennett did write that, if there were such a thing as
philosophical zombies, then we ARE all such zombies. But his deeper point was
that the very idea of philosophical zombies is incoherent and therefore to say
we are all zombies in THAT sense is not to say anything meaningful at all.
Given this reading, which I take to be the correct one of Dennett's relevant
claim, Searle's charge that Dennett denies mental content is specious and a
major misunderstanding of the point Dennett was making.
I don't recall Searle's other critiques from that book too well. I believe he
took on Penrose and Edelman as well, Edelman at least being someone about whom
he had positive things to say -- but that shouldn't surprise as Edelman argues
for the same thing Searle does, i.e., against the possibility of computational
consciousness AND he has positive things to say about Searle!
I did not come away from Searle's critique of Edelman's book (Bright Air,
Brilliant Fire, I believe) with a very good idea of Edelman's actual thesis.
However, in more recent times I have read that book for myself -- twice,
because it is both complicated and turgid -- and concluded that 1) its main
claim (however byzantine in structure) is essentially an empirical hypothesis
(unlike Searle's anti-computationalist argument, which is a logical claim; and
2) Edelman's thesis is not highly convincing because it is insufficiently clear.
If you, Budd, have other thoughts about Searle's critiques of any of these
works, please feel free to share them here and I will look forward to reading
them. Just leave out the expletives, name calling and bad jokes.
Thanks.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
