From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 09:44:22 GMT
Ant,
David Chalmers I'm not actually convinced about either, but he has
"rock-star" persona that has attracted the great and the good from both
philosophy and science around his events, so he's someone I watch.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: MD ID/Ling, again
> Ian Glendinning stated February 16th 2005:
>
> Ant,
>
> These were two specific [references] I noted earlier ...
>
> The first is one of many blogs about Dr James Austin's "Zen and the
> Brain" on which Marsha also commented positively on MoQ Discuss
> after I'd drawn attention to it...
>
> http://www.psybertron.org/2004/11/amazing-brain.html
>
> (I would say though, that I was getting
> the same message from Sacks, Edelman, Zeman and Searle.)
>
> [See] http://www.psybertron.org/2004/11/chalmers-and-qualia.html
>
> [And] this is my most recent post.
>
> http://www.psybertron.org/2005/02/consciousness-and-pirsig.html
>
> I have many other unposted notes on those 5 authors books referred
> to.
>
> Ant McWatt notes:
>
> Thanks for these references Ian. Some of them are new to me while a
> couple are familiar faces especially David Chalmers and John Searle. The
> latter is someone featured heavily in Chapter 3 of my PhD thesis as he
> makes a lot of sense for an SOM philosopher. One of the few SOMists I
> have serious time for, actually. I also found Chalmers interesting
> though he appears to be conflating concepts by intuition with concepts by
> postulation with his "Hard Question" of consciousness. As I note:
>
> "Essentially, it appears that Chalmers is conflating the 'connecting
> principles' for why consciousness developed (from physical matter) with
> the 'connecting principles' of how consciousness and physical matter
> operate between each other. Yet, he is addressing the second question
> when his 'hard question' clearly relates to the first. In consequence,
> Chalmers confuses the metaphysical obstacles of the connecting principles
> between mind and matter with the scientific explanation of their
> relationship. Critically, the scientific explanations of consciousness
> (as with theories concerning phenomena such as electricity or light) are
> essentially concepts by postulation and, as such, open to continual
> revision."
>
> I hope that Chalmers doesn't mislead too many of his readers with this
> conflation. His brief dismissal of evolutionary criteria and lack of
> analysis of the influence that social patterns have on intellectual
> patterns are further limitations with his ideas. (Still, at least, he
> hasn't set himself as some sort of expert on consciousness. :)
>
> Anyway, the title of James Austin's text looks especially interesting so
> it will be another book for my 2005 reading list!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Anthony.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself with cool new emoticons
> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 09:48:38 GMT