Dangerous Idea 2: Leopold Steubenberg's Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Neutral Monism

Thursday, September 27, 2007

I still don't see how it can really be neutral.

At 9/27/2007 03:08:00 PM , exapologist said...: If I were to base my views about neutral monism on Stubenber's SEP entry, I'd be disappointed, too. I think Donald Davidson and Bertrand Russell do a much better job explaining this sort of view.

Also, when it comes to panprotopschism, the charitable thing to do would be to read Chalmers' book, and do one's best at understanding and defending it as rigorously as you could. At least, that's what I would do before criticizing it.

Here's the format I would take if I were to criticize Chalmers' view. First, I would read his book. Then, I would get clear on what his account is of panprotopsychism. Then, I would spend at least one post explaning it in a fair and sympathetic manner. Finally, I would point out where, exactly, I think it goes wrong -- or at least how, exactly, substance dualism is a *better* account of the nature of consciousness.