Nagel Review of Dennett's new book
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:15 pm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03 ... evolution/
In this review, titled Is Consciousness an Illusion?, Nagel, the author of the famous article on the bat ear view, analyses Dennett's recent book on the evolution of minds.
The main comment I have is about Nagel's statement
But then Nagel goes even further with his reductionism, saying values are not only neural entities, but neural "systems of representation". A representation is a conscious thought. Given that much of ethics is unconscious, this suggestion that ethical values are conscious thoughts is wrong. I suspect that Nagel may be wrongly summarising Dennett's argument.
In this review, titled Is Consciousness an Illusion?, Nagel, the author of the famous article on the bat ear view, analyses Dennett's recent book on the evolution of minds.
The main comment I have is about Nagel's statement
This reduction of ethics to neurology seems to me difficult. While I essentially agree with the theory that all spirit is a function of matter, I also think that intertemporality - the relationship between events at different times - is more complex than neurology alone. Values are embedded in culture so deeply that reduction to brain science seems questionable. It is useful to consider the concept of karma, moral causation, and ask if this can really be understood as residing in the brain alone.Thomas Nagel wrote:if Dennett is right that we are physical objects, it follows that all the capacities for understanding, all the values, perceptions, and thoughts that present us with the manifest image and allow us to form the scientific image, have their real existence as systems of representation in the central nervous system.
But then Nagel goes even further with his reductionism, saying values are not only neural entities, but neural "systems of representation". A representation is a conscious thought. Given that much of ethics is unconscious, this suggestion that ethical values are conscious thoughts is wrong. I suspect that Nagel may be wrongly summarising Dennett's argument.