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.
I only just learned of Barry’s passing, and I’m enormously saddened at the news. I wrote my PhD on his…
I respond to this report here https://jasonstanleyantifascist.substack.com/p/on-the-philosophical-muddle-that
For what it’s worth, I agree. I have, with some trepidation, given it a bunch of my papers and asked…
Looking at some of the AI-amplified cranks on philpeople, it is hard to agree with the assessment of this article.…
Perhaps a useful distinction here is between replacing philosophers and changing the conditions under which philosophical work gets done. LLMs…
Conditional on the hypothesis that journal editors sometimes desk reject high-quality papers written and commended by world experts on a…
Some users seem to have conflicting impressions about the (absolute level of) abilities of current iterations of the LLMs. But…
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