{"id":8264,"date":"2013-12-19T16:38:25","date_gmt":"2013-12-19T16:38:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/12\/19\/ted-honderich-is-one-quirky-writer\/"},"modified":"2013-12-19T16:38:25","modified_gmt":"2013-12-19T16:38:25","slug":"ted-honderich-is-one-quirky-writer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/12\/19\/ted-honderich-is-one-quirky-writer\/","title":{"rendered":"Ted Honderich is One Quirky Writer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Honderich\"<\/a>I am reading Ted Honderich, On Consciousness<\/em> (Edinburgh UP, 2004) and trying to get a handle on just what his theory of consciousness as existence amounts to.  An awkward and quirky writer, he doesn't make things easy on the reader, and doesn't seem to realize  that in this very fast brave new world of ours the writer must get to  the point without unnecessary circumlocution if he wants to keep his reader glued to the page.  Here is an example of Honderich's style, from p. 206:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The other option from spiritualism now deserves the name of being devout physicalism<\/em>. You can say and write, in a career that keeps an eye on some of science, maybe two, and is forgetful of reflective experience, that being conscious or aware of something is only having certain physical properties in the head.<\/em> Usually this cranialism is a matter of only neural properties as we know them — thought of computationally or with microtubules to the fore or in any other way you like.<\/big><\/span><\/p>\n

[Note the awkward placement of "Maybe two." It belongs right after "eye."]<\/span><\/p>\n

Nobody not on the philosophical job of trying to approximate more to some of science or horse sense believes this either. We all know, to make use of a pefectly proper and enlightening parody,  that consciousness, isn't just cells<\/em>, however fancily or fancifully conceived. Everybody on the job tries to give a place to or register what they know<\/em> when they're not on the job. But they can't do it if they have it that consciousness has only neural properties or conceivably silicon or otherwise physical properties, no matter how they are conceived additionally.<\/big><\/span>
<\/big><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Honderich's thought is not so much expressed as buried in the above  mess of verbiage. Here is the thought which is correct as far as it goes expressed in three sentences.
<\/span><\/p>\n

Devout physicalism is the main alternative to spiritualism, or substance dualism.  But only someone who fails to reflect on his actual experience could suppose that being conscious of something is a matter of the instantiation of neural properties in the brain.  Both philosopher and layman know that consciousness is not brain cells, but the philosopher trying to be scientific is apt to forget it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here<\/a> is Colin McGinn's savage review of Honderich's book.  Be aware that there is personal animus between the two men.
<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Overview<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Philosophy of Mind Relevant to the Practice of Neuroscience?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Relevance of Conscious Robots for the Philosophy of Mind<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Bad Philosophy in Scientific American: Why Life Does Not Really Exist!<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Galen Strawson versus Colin McGinn<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I am reading Ted Honderich, On Consciousness (Edinburgh UP, 2004) and trying to get a handle on just what his theory of consciousness as existence amounts to.  An awkward and quirky writer, he doesn't make things easy on the reader, and doesn't seem to realize  that in this very fast brave new world of ours … Continue reading “Ted Honderich is One Quirky Writer”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[96,6,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consciousness-and-qualia","category-language-matters","category-mind"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}