🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26646@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <burt.718400899@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>>  I can tell you my reaction ...
>>exercise of his ego .... sell me a bill
>>of goods ... rather patronizing attitude ... offensive ...
>>arguments ... not convincing .... agree with ...
>>Zelaney that the book was intellectually dishonest.
>
>Despite promising us a detailed review, and being asked detailed
>questions by a number of posters, Zeleny in the end refused to make
>any detailed criticisms, contenting himself with his usual well-turned
>sneers. Care to give some examples of why you found the book
>unconvincing and dishonest, or did you just want to share your
>feelings with us?

It depends on what you mean by "detailed".  Zeleny didn't just
say "intellectually dishonest" and stop right there.  On the
other hand, he didn't elaborate all that much further.

Perhaps you saw the tv show about Dennett.  Was it Panorama?
BBC?  ITV?  Maybe I'd better look it up...  

Anway, I found that more or less infuriating.  For instance, Dennett
told us a bit about Descartes, consciousness and the pituitary gland,
etc, and then tried to make it sound like virtually all philosophers
held that view!  We call this a straw man where I come from.

Then, again and again, there was a huge gap between some amazing
example or experiment and the conclusion Dennett seemed to want
us to draw from it.

I like Dennett, enjoy his books, even agree with a lot of the things
he says.  I think he's shown that certain aspects of consciousness 
are stranger than they often seem.  But he didn't say

  Aspects of consciousness revealed by amazing observations
  and experiments; the multiple-drafts of experience

he said

  Consciousness explained

(Yes, I know.  I should read the book, not watch tv.  I will.
Someone borrowed my copy, but I now have it back.)

-- jd