John Searle on Consciousness

I took a break from reading Chalmers' book, and quickly read a much smaller volume (and much easier to read) by John Searle called "The Mystery of Consciousness". Searle writes very clearly, soen't over use philosphosical terms (he explains them when he does) and so does a great job at tacking the issues in this great debate. The book is interesting because he reviews the views of 6 other writers on Conciousness, and explains where he thinks they are right, and where they go wrong (in his view, of course).

The authors he discusses are Francis Crick (of DNA fame), Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers and Israel RosenField.

Searle believes that Consciousness is a biological phenomenon. He believes that Crick, Edelman and Penrose are all on the right track, although he has probelms with all their attempts to explain consciousness. The key thing is that he believes they are on the right track because they are looking for an explanation in the workings of the brain. He thinks Dennett has missed the point, because he believes Dennett is saying that there is no such thing as Consciousness. (I think that is misrespresenting his views). He thinks Chalmers is off with the fairies because for Chalmers, Consciousness is some kind of fundamental informational aspect of the universe - ie Chalmers is a kind of dualist.

An especially interesting part of the book is that both Dennett and Chalmers reply to Searle's comments, and then Searle makes his rejoinder - all of which is included in the book.

It is only about 200 pages long (small paperback format), and easy to read; if you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend it.
As an aside, I find it curious to see how much they all actually do agree in many things - eg all of them say consciousness is biological, but they put different meanings into that description. For Penrose, the biological bit is actually a quantum effect in structures called "microtubules" in the brain. For Crick, it has something to do with 40 Hertz electrical oscillations in the brain. For Chalmers, its the "informational aspect" of the neuronal processes. The biggest objection, I think, that he has of Chalmers is that Chalmers must accept that everything is in some sense conscious - even rocks - because everything has some level of "information" coded. This is called pan-psychism, and Searle believes this is simply absurd (I think I agree). Chalmers answers that he doesn't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but admits to its possibility.

There is also a lot of discussion about computer models of the consciousness - Penrose says consciousness is "non-computable" - hence he is looking at quantum effects, I suppose. Penrose says a computer could never be conscious. Dennett certainly thinks that in principle they can,; his model of consciousness is a sort of "virtual machine" software implemented in biology. I'm not sure about Chalmers, but I think he also believes that it is possible in principle.

The Internet Single Handed

I never knew how much you needed your shoulder and upper arm for everyday movement. I tripped and fell hard onto my shoulder two days ago, causing great pain and making me virtually immobile . I can get around now, and type with one hand, but its really painful. The movement is slowly coming back, but I am amazed how even little moves like getting out of bed, undoing buttons and turning are now painful!

David Chalmers shedding light on Consciousness

I am still reading his book (The Conscious Mind), but I keep getting stuck in the basics and find it hard to proceed. I just can't easily come to grips with Chalmers' arguments about consciousness and what it is, or rather might be. In the section of the book called "Foundations" he talks a lot about logical or metaphysical conceivability and about supervenience. Lacking philosophical education, I hardly know what he is talking about. He says that because he can imagine a being which was physically identical to us in every way, except that it lacked consciousness, then that says something about consciousness. I can sort of imagine a universe where time stops for a thousand years, then runs for for three seconds, then stops for a thousand years, then runs for three seconds, and so on ad infinitum. Of course, our universe might be doing that right now, but we would never know. That says nothing about time at all. Because Chalmers can imagine a philosophical zombie, he thinks he can draw conclusions from that. I just don't get it. Thought experiments are dangerous things, I think - they can deceive as well as enlighten.

PS I can't sleep, that why I am blogging when I should be sleeping.

Tom Waits For No Man

Went to see a fabulous tribute to the work of Tom Waits by an artist who equals Waits ever increasing gravel voice. (An Aussie artist by the name of D'Arrietta). The performance was fabulous, the band was magnificent. They performaned many of Waits' best like Tom Trauberts Blues , The piano has been drinking (not me) - one of my favourites. The embarrassing thing was that I read about the concert through my email subscription to Ticketek, noticed the Tom Waits concert and immediately bought it on-line. It was only weeks later, as the concert time approached that I realised it was a tribute/cover for Tom Waits, not Tom Waits. I felt cheated and went back to the original email to prove that I had been deceived - but it plainly said what it was. I saw what I wanted to see, not what was there. I felt very silly. Luckily, it didn't matter in the end, because I enjoyed it so much.

Philosophical Jokes

I did like the philosophical jokes on David Chalmers site which David Weinberger pointed to (and provided by Gary Stock of unblinking) . I hadn't seen it before, although visiting the site many times to understand Chalmers' ideas on consciousness. My favourite philosophical joke is this one (though it may be well known to philosophers...?)

"I will always remember the day Rene Decartes died. We had just finished a wonderful meal and were sitting around plotting our next move over coffee. The waitress came up and asked, "More Coffee?" Decartes replied, "I think not." And just disappeared right before my eyes."