Please shout out if you find something particularly hard to swallow.
There is a balance between pausing repeatedly to acknowledge that opinions might differ and just pressing on to lay out the framework. A lot of what I want to say will not make full sense until the entire framework is there, and ultimately the argument between my view and the hardist view is about non-falsifiable matters. If I don’t stop often enough to acknowledge this, it might seem as though I am simply begging the question.
I’m guaranteed not to keep everyone happy, but I would still welcome a skeptical voice.
Wow, fantastic post! This isn't the one I read first but obviously in retrospect it should have been, it really explains where you're coming from. Fascinating to hear from a clinical neurologist who is also so well versed in philosophy. I found this blog from reddit (I'm u/lordnorthiii).
I too originally got interested in philosophy of the mind from reading "The Mind's I", probably around 1998 or so? The reason I originally picked it up started with Martin Gardner, who wrote the column "Mathematical Games" for Scientific American. I learned that after Gardner retired, Douglas Hofstadter took over the column, renaming it "Metamagical Themas" (and anagram of Gardner's title). Reading these, Hofstadter instantly became my favorite author, and I ended up reading "The Mind's I" because of that (and of course Godel Escher Bach).
Interestingly, Chalmers PhD advisor was none other that Hofstadter. I believe Chalmers and Hofstadter are (or at least were back then) functionalist "at heart" in some sense, both strongly believing that AI can be conscious just as humans can. However, at some point I think Chalmers realized there was a very real disconnect between functionalism or other physicalist accounts and what he experienced every day of his life. I give him credit for going "against the grain" and positioning himself as a non-physicalist at a time when I think most people thought it was a matter of time before neuroscience fully explained the mind.
You're obviously on the other side of the coin from Chalmers, but you not only undertand the non-physicalist side but also have genuine sympathy for it, something some anti-hardists lack. I hope you keep up the blog.
I think you are only one or two steps away from where I stand, so you are what I would consider a potential convert, and hence in my target audience. If I can’t make myself understood to you, I need to rephrase.
Someone coming from a full-blown hardist perspective, like an idealist, might be beyond my reach.
I still need to track down the Mary anthology you mentioned.
Let’s strap in then and see if you can do it. I’m skeptical you will be able to, but I’ll read
Skepticism is entirely appropriate.
Please shout out if you find something particularly hard to swallow.
There is a balance between pausing repeatedly to acknowledge that opinions might differ and just pressing on to lay out the framework. A lot of what I want to say will not make full sense until the entire framework is there, and ultimately the argument between my view and the hardist view is about non-falsifiable matters. If I don’t stop often enough to acknowledge this, it might seem as though I am simply begging the question.
I’m guaranteed not to keep everyone happy, but I would still welcome a skeptical voice.
Wow, fantastic post! This isn't the one I read first but obviously in retrospect it should have been, it really explains where you're coming from. Fascinating to hear from a clinical neurologist who is also so well versed in philosophy. I found this blog from reddit (I'm u/lordnorthiii).
I too originally got interested in philosophy of the mind from reading "The Mind's I", probably around 1998 or so? The reason I originally picked it up started with Martin Gardner, who wrote the column "Mathematical Games" for Scientific American. I learned that after Gardner retired, Douglas Hofstadter took over the column, renaming it "Metamagical Themas" (and anagram of Gardner's title). Reading these, Hofstadter instantly became my favorite author, and I ended up reading "The Mind's I" because of that (and of course Godel Escher Bach).
Interestingly, Chalmers PhD advisor was none other that Hofstadter. I believe Chalmers and Hofstadter are (or at least were back then) functionalist "at heart" in some sense, both strongly believing that AI can be conscious just as humans can. However, at some point I think Chalmers realized there was a very real disconnect between functionalism or other physicalist accounts and what he experienced every day of his life. I give him credit for going "against the grain" and positioning himself as a non-physicalist at a time when I think most people thought it was a matter of time before neuroscience fully explained the mind.
You're obviously on the other side of the coin from Chalmers, but you not only undertand the non-physicalist side but also have genuine sympathy for it, something some anti-hardists lack. I hope you keep up the blog.
BTW, I have a copy of Metamagical Themas on my shelf, the book version of the column, having got to it because DRH was the author.
I am also partway through “I am a strange loop”, having stalled about 2/3 of the way through. I’ll need to get back to it.
Great to have you on board.
I think you are only one or two steps away from where I stand, so you are what I would consider a potential convert, and hence in my target audience. If I can’t make myself understood to you, I need to rephrase.
Someone coming from a full-blown hardist perspective, like an idealist, might be beyond my reach.
I still need to track down the Mary anthology you mentioned.