3 ms·

I think the suggestion that lengthy arguments in the philosophy of mind are attempting to short-circuit scientific progress is a bit uncharitable. There is a s

I think the suggestion that lengthy arguments in the philosophy of mind are attempting to short-circuit scientific progress is a bit uncharitable. There is a small minority of individuals on both sides that seem to want to slow scientific progress (whether intentionally or not). Now, the vast majority of the time it is presumed people like Searle fit this description. People like Dennett fit this description as well, though. Anyone truly making definitive claims about having resolved the question of (say) conciousness, is not taking the right tack from a scientific perspective.

mannykannot 8y ago
I did not intend to suggest that there is anything wrong with attempting to cut the Gordian knot with an insightful analysis, it is just that, in these cases, it does not seem to have led to anything useful. And Dennett's book 'Consciousness Explained' is certainly presumptuously titled, though he is at least looking for explanations, when he is not confronting those who claim it can't be done. Meanwhile, the state of technology has advanced to the point where we can at least imagine Searle, in his room, competing successfully in a Chinese-language game of Jeopardy. No-one ever disproved vitalism, but its implicit threat to the progress of biology simply dropped by the wayside.