He's clearly a dualist and objects to Kurzweil's reductionist views. As I see it this isn't a book review in good faith so much as an excuse to air McGill's opi

He's clearly a dualist and objects to Kurzweil's reductionist views. As I see it this isn't a book review in good faith so much as an excuse to air McGill's opinions on the matter. Consider this phrase: > The belief that London is rainy intrinsically and literally contains the propositional content that London is rainy, but no state of neurons contains that content in that way—as opposed to metaphorically or derivatively (this kind of point has been forcibly urged by John Searle for a long time). Or this one: > So what is the basis for the theory? The answer must surely be that the brain is causally connected to the mind and the mind contains and processes information. This is not the language of a book review, but that of a philosophical argument - although absent any of the justification or rigor one might thereby expect. I'm not impressed with McGill - he shows little regard for his audience's time by pontificating on the subject instead of just reviewing the damn text. Lame.