Galen Strawson (Texas) comments. Is he right?
(Thanks to Arthur Smith for the pointer.)
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Dear Robert of Invisible America, Having read your outstandingly interesting comments here, I would now very much like to have…
Mark, in my view, the article is stronger historically than philosophically precisely because it conflates three distinct questions: whether a…
Chat GPT generated comment on this discussion. I believe in a detente with AI This is a particularly interesting discussion…
References: https://explainx.ai/blog/china-robot-lightning-100m-usain-bolt-record-august-2026 https://theawesomer.com/robots-humans-perform-martial-arts/796716/ https://www.aiplusinfo.com/blog/robot-learns-badminton-via-ai-simulation/
To be completely explicit: this refutes the statement that “The field, he argued, had succeeded precisely where knowing-that applied: formal…
Here’s one such argument. AI-enabled robots have broken the world 100-m sprint record, can do world-class martial arts, and play…
Thank you for linking to this. Ironically, Dreyfuss is already on my TBR stack, thanks to a suggestion from Google…
Galen Strawson (Texas) comments. Is he right?
(Thanks to Arthur Smith for the pointer.)
The quantitative data show a very substantial decrease in interest in the mind-body problem, from a peak in the 20th century to a much lower level today.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714002315
Spot on, nicely done. Crick/Chalmers/Dennett did increase interest in topic among cognitive scientists/neuroscientists, even if the basic issues are not new as Strawson shows. The result has been a lot more imaging research on correlates of consciousness, which is interesting but doesn't solve the problem, and hardening of the eliminativist vs. don't known/maybe can't know positions. I liked Strawson's reminder that lack of knowledge about how physics works is as much a barrier as ambiguities about "consciousness".
One person that Strawson didn't mention is Chomsky, who has written on this issue a great deal; his emphasis has been on the dissolution of a coherent concept of "body" during the eighteenth century. He argues that that is what has led to our present position in which we cannot even formulate the "mind-body" problem because we don't know just what the "body" is supposed to be. I think this is a reason why Strawson prefers to refer to the problem as the "matter-consciousness" problem.
McGinn thinks Strawson's right: http://www.colinmcginn.net/galen-strawson-consciousness-myth/#.VQ8g8xDF9fw
In answer to Bryce, I say quite a lot about Chomsky’s awareness of these issues in Real_Materialism which appeared in 2003 in a (long-delayed) Festschrift for Chomsky. There was a strict limit on the Times Literary Supplement piece, but I also mention Chomsky in the slightly expanded (and fully annotated) version here
BL COMMENT: The links didn't come through, here they are:
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003
https://www.academia.edu/11234039/The_consciousness_myth_2015
Hi Galen, I appreciate the links. I knew of the "Real Materialism" essay but not of the extended TLS piece. Thanks!
Leave a Reply