http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7643&view=findpost&p=124494
Sabunim4Dan @ Nov 28 2007, 00:22
I would like to ask a serious and honest (non-loaded) question of you both. Which books have you read on the subject of consciousness?
FWIW (not much) My reading is far behind what it should be. I went broke in college (math and physics major) and never finished my degree. I've gone back twice to try to finish it (switching to CS major) but life, as in job, raising kids, et al, always interfered. For most of that time I did very little (book) reading at all, while occasionally perusing the web for things that interested me. About two years ago I made up my mind to try getting "caught up" in the current trends and fashions of thought in "intelligensia", at least on matters which interest me.
In that time, I've read several of Dawkins' works, one of Penrose's books, and am currently reading Hofstadler's EGB. [post edit. Hofstadter, GEB aka "Goedel, Escher, Bach, the Eternal Golden Braid"]
The only complete book I've read which might be considered specifically topical is Minsky's "The Emotion Machine" - need to reread that, there's a lot of meat there! Of course my intention is to read as many more as I can find time for. Obviously now Dennet is on my "must read soon" list.
Genuine question: does *ANY* of Searle's work really merit attention from a rationalist? The flaw in "The Chinese Room" "paradox" is so blatant and glaring that I really have to question whether he is worth my time when I certainly won't have time to read all I'd like to read.
Now my next question, what motivates your question? An "appeal to authority" is not a valid reason ... unless you can demonstrate that the authority in question has conclusively and completely answered for a specific question discussed in topic.
As far as I can see from what I'm seeing in this thread, ambiguity, subjective references and confusion between symbol and referent still litters academic discussion on the topic with no "authority" as yet cited in this thread giving reference which is sufficiently satisfying to "close" any question or issue discussed in this topic. Of course I expect the experts to be a lot less diffuse and *hopefully* will have thoughts which will both widen the range of periperal topics and narrow the specific issues worth attention on the subjects under discussion here. In other words I hope the experts can get me closer to a better understanding. But I am not sangune based upon what I see here.
-- TWZ
|