tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post5608480577140419005..comments2023-04-17T12:13:44.323+01:00Comments on Intropy: Information & consciousnessDaveoftheNewCityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04140446220455064332noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post-67716622978771324322010-02-12T17:58:33.466+00:002010-02-12T17:58:33.466+00:00Thanks for thinking I'm up to it, but I've...Thanks for thinking I'm up to it, but I've very recently come to the conclusion that, given the "state of the arts", I'd rather work on information than consciousness. I think I have more to offer regarding info. You're right, of course, to think they're closely connected, but they're a long way from being the same thing. I hope to either do a PhD on info in phil of mind starting Sept 11 (too late this year), or else a book on the subject (or maybe, given time, both).Robin Faichneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02934242111645004159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post-5834412494605490642010-02-02T15:15:39.444+00:002010-02-02T15:15:39.444+00:00"It's been solved, IMNSHO, but not yet cl..."It's been solved, IMNSHO, but not yet clearly explained all in one place."<br /><br />Perhaps you should have a go at doing it - writing a clear explanation.David Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01959069828311977846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post-55784392913897478652010-01-27T13:15:31.744+00:002010-01-27T13:15:31.744+00:00It's been solved, IMNSHO, but not yet clearly ...It's been solved, IMNSHO, but not yet clearly explained all in one place. Dennett got a great deal right but neglected empathy/affect/simulation, which people like Gallese have made great strides on.<br /><br />I've read some Strawson (we're talking about Galen, the son of PF), and heard him speak at a conference in July 09. He's very plausible in person, with a confident, Oxbridge-type manner, but I'm afraid I'm not at all keen on his thinking. It doesn't seem right to dismiss him in a few words, though, so I'll leave it at that.Robin Faichneyhttp://www.robinfaichney.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post-35611941969537815332010-01-26T17:22:52.015+00:002010-01-26T17:22:52.015+00:00Hi Robin,
Thanks for your comment, and the recomm...Hi Robin,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment, and the recommendation of 'Kinds of Minds'. I'm intrigued that you say the Mind Problem has been solved.<br /><br />I'd seen your Blog post (and the comment it provoked). It caught my attention because from what little I have read of Dennett, I've <i>not</i> warmed to him!<br /><br />Are you familiar with Strawson? Do you have any thoughts on his work?David Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01959069828311977846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3317748811909502538.post-79665594835614309022010-01-26T15:02:05.389+00:002010-01-26T15:02:05.389+00:00Hi David,
In my opinion the "mind problem&qu...Hi David,<br /><br />In my opinion the "mind problem" has been largely solved. On the other hand, only a minority of philosophers would share that opinion. But a helluva lot has happened since 1969. I think you should read some of Dennett's more recent work. It's not his most recent, but as I'm reading it right now, and I'm sure little or nothing of significance in his thinking has changed, I'll mention Kinds of Minds. Then have a look at my blog post "No wonder people don't like Dennett" for what has to be added in to complete the picture! :)Robin Faichneyhttp://www.robinfaichney.org/noreply@blogger.com