Thursday, July 5, 2007

Conversations on Consciousness








Conversations on Consciousness
Susan Blackmore
9/10



I was very tempted to give this book a 10/10, but I just couldn't. It was a great book and perfect for me (I would say it's perfect for anyone starting out exploring popular theories on the basis of consciousness and free will) but the book had it's problems.

Conversations on Consciousness details a series of interviews between psychologist and hard determinist Susan Blackmore and a smattering of well-known experts in the fields of philosophy and neuroscience. She does well at finding a variety of scientific viewpoints: you won't find any faith-based supporters in the book, only those who attempt to use our current scientific knowledge and theories as a base from which to make their speculations.

The interviews tended to center around four questions:

1) What is consciousness? Why is it so difficult to define and to study?
2) Do you believe we have free will?
3) Do you think that the Philopher's Zombie is an actual possibility?
4) This question varied, but was related to their specific field of expertise or their most well-known theory.

I didn't understand why Blackmore felt the thought experiment of the Philosopher's Zombie was so important. The question she was trying to ask was: "Do you think conciousness arises merely because of our capacity to behave the way we do?" but using the Philosopher's Zombie thought experiment to ask this question led to more problems than it solved. Too often, the answer was a criticism of the thought experiment rather than an answer to the real question. I agree with those who criticize the experiment: I don't see a lot of value in pure speculation that, at some level, has to be scientifically ungrounded. Of course, the way we live our life is partially through pure speculation, but that is through necessity.

The best thing I got from the book was an understanding of the controversy in the fields of consciousness. Dennett, author of Freedom Evolves, somewhat represents one side of the argument. He's certainly well-known - half of those interviewed used Dennett's views as a way to state their own through contrast. Dennett does not cohesively meld his viewpoint in a way that it represents "the determinists", but his viewpoint is well-known and clearly stated, which at least gives others in the field a way to contrast, a reference point from which to deviate.

Conversations on Consciousness fostered more questions than it answered. It's a book that I've read that's only shown me that I need to read more books. It has moved some authors to near the top of the list though. David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and Daniel Wegner (well, he was already near the top) all piqued my interest enough that I will certainly read their books to better understand their viewpoint. I identified with Penrose more than any other philosopher, and I'm interested to read more about why he believes what he does.

No comments: