A Defence of Cartesian Materialism

Mind & Language, 1996

Abstract: In Consciousness Explained, Daniel Dennett presents the Multiple Drafts Theory of consciousness, a very brief, largely empirical theory of brain function. From these premises, he draws a number of quite radical conclusions—for example, the conclusion that conscious events have no determinate time of occurrence. The problem, as many readers have pointed out, is that there is little discernible route from the empirical premises to the philosophical conclusions. In this article, I try to reconstruct Dennett's argument, providing both the philosophical views behind the empirical premises, and the hidden empirical arguments behind the derivation of the philosophical conclusions.

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1995

Many of the arguments about how to address the hard versus the easy questions of consciousness put by Chalmers (1995) are similar to ones I have developed in Velmans (1991a,b; 1993a). This includes the multiplicity of mind/body problems, the limits of functional explanation, the need for a non-reductionist approach, and the notion that consciousness may be related to neural/physical representation via a dual-aspect theory of information. But there are also differences. Unlike Chalmers I argue for the use of neutral information processing language for functional accounts rather than the term "awareness." I do not agree that functional equivalence cannot be extricated from phenomenal equivalence, and suggest a hypothetical experiment for doing so—using a cortical implant for blindsight. I argue that not all information has phenomenal accompaniments, and introduce a different form of dual-aspect theory involving "psychological complementarity." I also suggest that the hard problem posed by "qualia" has its origin in a misdescription of everyday experience implicit in dualism.

Professor Dennett has recently embarked on what he considers a "demystifying philosophical investigation" with respect to the phenomena of consciousness. In essence the strategy he has employed is one of getting us to 'trade in' our ordinary intuitions so as to soften us up for the first phases of a full-fledged 'scientific' explanation of consciousness in terms of sub-personal systems and their ontogenetic origins. His hope is that, once we are freed from certain misleading metaphors about the mind we will be receptive to such an 'explanation'. In concentrating on this first stage of his treatment of consciousness phenomena I offer a critique of Dennett's project from a Wittgensteinian perspective. For Wittgenstein was also concerned to 'demystify' consciousness but his approach differed remarkably from Dennett's. And this ironic because in challenging our 'everyday' intuitions about consciousness the latter essentially regards himself as working within a Wittgensteinian framework. For example, he tells us that "My debt to Wittgenstein is large and long-standing" and he confesses that "what I am doing [is] a kind of redoing of Wittgenstein's attack on the 'objects' of conscious experience". I challenge the idea that the 'reductive character' of Dennett's project is in any way Wittgensteinian in spirit. I suggest that at a crucial point in their philosophy their views diverge significantly. That is to say, although they are good travelling companions up to an important cross-roads, in the end, their incompatible concerns take them in different directions. Furthermore, by reviewing Dennett's project of 'explaining' consciousness, we might begin to see some good reasons for preferring Wittgenstein's 'road less travelled'. Thus, although Dennett's account of consciousness is often given a centre stage in what follows, my ultimate aim is to throw light on the nature Wittgenstein's philosophical psychology by using Dennett as a foil. This should help us to see precisely how the former's approach differs importantly from those advanced by many of today's philosophers and cognitive scientists.

Talisik: Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy, 2017

This research will argue about which theory of mind between Searle's and Dennett's can better explain human consciousness. Initially, distinctions between dualism and materialism will be discussed ranging from substance dualism, property dualism, physicalism, and functionalism. In this part, the main issue that is tackled in various theories of mind is revealed. It is the missing connection between input stimulus (neuronal reactions) and behavioral disposition: consciousness. Then, the discussion will be more specific on Searle's biological naturalism and Dennett's multiple drafts model as the two attempted to answer the issue. The differences between them will be highlighted and will be analyzed according to their relation to their roots: dualism and materialism. The two theories will be examined on how each answer the questions on consciousness. It will be revealed in this research that consciousness can have different brands. Dennett's as one brand, operational consciousness, and Searle's as another, sui generis consciousness. It shall be concluded that Searle's theory of mind outweighs Dennett's if we take the two theories to answer what human consciousness is. This is due to two reasons: (1) Sufficiency of Explanation, where Searle has more comprehensively explained what consciousness is and (2) Pragmatic Picture of Reality, where Searle's theory can fit more in the social reality.

Abstract: Taking 'computational neuroscience'to denote theoretical neuroscience, I describe accounts of representation, neural computation, and cognitive function consistent with recent advances in this field. During this discussion I provide an overview of neural coding and survey its possible implications for more traditional theories of the meaning of mental representations.

Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Researc, 2023

The assumption that all behavior is ultimately neurophysical may be called the Standard Model (SM) of neurophilosophy. Yet, in the years since David Chalmers distinguished the Hard Problem of Consciousness from the easy problems of neuroscience, no progress has been made toward a physical reduction of consciousness. This, together with collateral shortcomings Chalmers missed, show that the SM is inadequate to experience. I outline the logical prerequisites for reduction and show that they are missing from the SM. Their absence is traced to representational problems implicit in: (1) The Fundamental Abstraction of natural science (attending to the object to the exclusion of the subject); and (2) The limits of a Cartesian conceptual space. Adding pre-Cartesian concepts allows us to construct an integrated representation bridging the dualistic gap. In particular, Aristotle's projection of mind provides a paradigm integrating intentional and physical operations.

The approach to consciousness taken by most philosophers is very different from the approach taken by most cognitive psychologists, so different that one could be forgiven for wondering if they are talking about the same thing. Most philosophers focus on individual psychological states. By contrast, most psychologists focus on properties of cognitive systems as a whole such as global workspace or attention. (Some philosophers favour this approach, too, Dennett and P. M. Churchland for example.) We will expose some of the peculiarities of the dominant philosophical approach and, by looking briefly into what is needed to give an adequate account of consciousness, advance some reasons for favouring the approach dominant among psychologists.

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1996

Both Dennett and his critics believe that the invalidity of the famed Stalinist-Orwellian distinction is a consequence of his multiple drafts model of consciousness.(MDM) This is not so obvious, however, once we recognize that the question "how do you get experience out of meat?" actually fragments into at least three different questions. (1) How do we get a unified sense of self (out of meat)? (2)How do we get awareness (out of meat)? (3) How do we get mental phenomena (out of meat)? Dennett shows how the MDM has a radical and profound way of interrelating awareness and self in the latter chapters of Consciousness Explained. But the Stalinist-Orwellian distinction can be dissolved by analyzing the nature of mental phenomena, without making any reference to awareness or self or the MDM . This is because The Stalinist-0rwellian distinction rests on much the same category mistake (confusing of parts with wholes) which Ryle pointed out in his Concept of Mind. Once we recognize that a theory of awareness is trying to do something different from a theory of mental phenomena, we can see why Dennett and his critics frequently talked past each other, and how we can resolve these controversies by incorporating something like Rosenthal’s theory of higher order thoughts into the MDM. (Something he has come very close to doing already in his discussions of the Hunt the Thimble phenomenon) This would require, however, that Dennett abandon his principle of first person operationalism, and recognize that it is possible for us to be mistaken about our own internal states.

In this essay, we attempt to demonstrate several key things-1. We are guided by the following reasoning methods-Occam's razor (simplicity), Holmes Shroud (falsifiability), and Alan Newell's Unified Theories of Cognition (teleology, basically goal-orientation, guides all real computation, there is no way to design a computer that doesn't solve some problem) This

Tourism Studies and Social Sciences, 2021

On the one hand, one may think that human beings differ from other types of intelligent creatures in the way they create and make use of a language. Having seen major differences between human primates and non-human primates, one may even go further and claim that there is no suitable way for ascribing thoughts and linguistic skills to mental beings other than human beings. On the other hand, contrary to this approach, Fodor claims that there must be an inner code, a universal language of thought in computational systems, including human and non-human primates. If we want to give an account of concept learning, perception and decision making, we must accept that they are actually computational processes. Computational processes require a system of representation, a language of thought where those computational processes take place (1975: 27). In this work, first I will present Fodor’s reasons for postulating a language of thought. In the second section, I will give room for Dennett’s criticism of Fodor’s hypothesis, then I will summarize Fodor’s response to Dennett’s criticism. In the conclusion, I will present a couple of remarks on the debate about the language of thought, and I hope to provide at least a middle ground between two opposing camps of philosophy, Intentional Realism and Intentional Anti-Realism.