Andrew's Reviews > Consciousness Explained
Consciousness Explained
by
by
While Dennett is probably better known to most readers as a grumbly professional atheist, I really don't need any help in that regard, so I went straight to his book on philosophy of mind. I can see why he's a public figure-- he's downright chatty and personable for a chilly analytic philosopher, and at the same time clear and rigorous in his presentation of ideas.
As for the ideas themselves... OK, the multiple-drafts notion of consciousness is something I can certainly get behind, and his attack on the "Cartesian theater" notion, while it seems obvious, is something that really needs to be done every once in a while to clean philosophical house.
But as to how we arrive at that multiple-drafts state, he relies on an excessively inductive understanding of evolution and the brain-as-computer metaphor that seems to cripple cognitive research. I tend to agree far more with people like Searle, Dreyfus, Putnam, and Merleau-Ponty, whom Dennett explicitly rejects.
As for the ideas themselves... OK, the multiple-drafts notion of consciousness is something I can certainly get behind, and his attack on the "Cartesian theater" notion, while it seems obvious, is something that really needs to be done every once in a while to clean philosophical house.
But as to how we arrive at that multiple-drafts state, he relies on an excessively inductive understanding of evolution and the brain-as-computer metaphor that seems to cripple cognitive research. I tend to agree far more with people like Searle, Dreyfus, Putnam, and Merleau-Ponty, whom Dennett explicitly rejects.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Consciousness Explained.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
April 29, 2014
–
Started Reading
April 29, 2014
– Shelved
May 1, 2014
–
Finished Reading
May 18, 2014
– Shelved as:
analytic-philosophy
May 18, 2014
– Shelved as:
philosophy
Comments Showing 1-1 of 1 (1 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
Kalliope
(new)
May 18, 2014 03:10AM
Me too. Searle's approach just seems more convincing. The sense of quality is missing in this one.
reply
|
flag