zotz | Further reading matter.

Yesterday there was a Guardian article about the philosopher (and sculptor, and jazz pianist, and sailor, and cidermaker . . .) Dan Dennett, who it turns out is a man too talented to be allowed to live. I have recommended his work to some of you before - especially Consciousness Explained and Darwin's dangerous Idea.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

steer.livejournal.com

Thanks for pointing that out. Dennett totally rocks. Have you read "The Minds I" that he edited with Hofstadter? That's an amazing book.

From:

zotz

Indeed. Currently on loan to

karmicnull, I believe.

I thought the best bit was the Turing reprint, where he summarises Penrose's position on consciousness in one sentence and then dismisses it in the next. Written in the early fifties, of course.

From:

steer.livejournal.com

Hmmm.... is that somewhere in "Computing machinery and intelligence"

http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm#contrary_views_to_the_main_question

I'm afraid that Penrose's view is much closer to my own than Dennett or Hofstadter (though I think the latter two are better writers). Penrose was widely (and unfairly I thought) criticised for providing arguments in principle not proofs. Fundamentally I have much sympathy with his main thrust, that nothing we currently know about in physics can genuinely explain consciousness.

From:

zotz

His argument is more that current physics forbids consciousness, therefore the only major hole in it - gravity - must therefore take a particular form, and consciousness must depend on gravity. The fact that this all follows from a reading of Gödel that pretty much everyone else thinks is hilariously wrong doesn't exactly promote the view to me, regardless of his excellence in other areas.

From:

steer.livejournal.com

His argument is more that current physics forbids consciousness

Yes, or better phrased, that nothing in current physics can explain consciousness. To me this is self-evident. I would have willingly accepted that as an axiom.

therefore the only major hole in it - gravity - must therefore take a particular form

I wish my copy of emperor wasn't in my office (and my copy of shadows is missing presumed lent)... that is certainly not what I took away from it. Certainly he wished to argue for a certain form of those physical laws - he's something of an expert there. But again, I recall this differently - that that was an optional part of his argument about minds... "Having done all that, I wish to convince you of that the following is one possible way forward..." I would say that his argument did not in the slightest rely on any particular form of theories on gravitation.... he just wished to champion one.

The fact that this all follows from a reading of Gödel that pretty much everyone else thinks is hilariously wrong

That was part of what I meant about the condemnation. I wouldn't say his reading of it was hilariously wrong but I would agree it is wrong. But his position was not that everything followed from that... his position remained tenable without that part of the argument and that is how I took his position. I did not believe his argument via Goedel was correct but having removed it totally the rest of his position was still intellectually sufficiently coherent for me.

[What is interesting, is that while everyone agrees that his interpretation of Godel is wrong there's a considerable amount of disagreement about WHY it is wrong -- which is in itself intriguing. If the experts in a field are all totally in agreement that someone is wrong in mutually contradictory ways then that at least tells you things aren't as simple as they might appear.]

From:

zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com

Yes, or better phrased, that nothing in current physics can explain consciousness

No, that implies that consciousness is something to be explained in terms of physics. It's not the same thing at all.

that is certainly not what I took away from it. Certainly he wished to argue for a certain form of those physical laws - he's something of an expert there.

Well, he needs a physical interaction that is only described by a non-computable description. We don't have any such thing, and the only obvious place for such a thing is in gravity. I'm not aware of any practical reason to suspect that any physical process would be like that. It's consequent on his reading of Gödel - Dennett asked him personally which way round the argument was suppose to work. He's not trying to argue the gravity line from his knowledge of physics.

I did not believe his argument via Goedel was correct but having removed it totally the rest of his position was still intellectually sufficiently coherent for me.

I read a TLS review of Emperor before I read the book itself. There was a summary of his argument and I counted points in it that I as a biologist thought were definitely or probably wrong, or entirely speculative. 27, as I recall. Without his argument from principle, it collapses like a stack of cards.

(forget I said that)

Further reading matter.

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags