Scan barcode
A review by vikingvisuals
The Mystery Of Consciousness by John Rogers Searle
2.0
I give Searle credit for recognizing that there is no current explanation or understanding of how consciousness works. However, despite this lack of explanation in the physical realm he goes on to state the wonderfully outdated Cartesian ideas that have increasingly hindered rather than helped this understanding. I think that arguing along the lines of 'we will never have a third-person understanding of consciousness because consciousness is simply a first-person experience' and that neuroscience and other fields of research into consciousness' lack of explanation is an automatic sign that there is no explanatoin are both faulty arguments and one's that seem to keep humanity in a further state of ignorance rather than in a state of exploration and revelation.
Perhaps consciousness is something that cannot be explained, perhaps it is simply a first person "insight" that only each individuals can know of themselves better than anyone else, but I do not believe that at all to be the case. I kind of see the problems of consciousness in the same way that various philosophical problems from the greeks or even more modern philosophies were solved as human progress and understanding of the world expanded. Luckily for Searle and the others in his camp, we are not yet at the stage at which consciousness has a vast and proven framework with which it works so there theses are, in their eyes, currently holding ground. But I can not stand on ground myself that bases itself off the idea of ignorance (or better stated, that my own personal understanding of myself and my world is automatically more colorful than those around me, in a sort of "third-person ignorance" way) and hope that these grounds hold. I much rather prefer the further research into these ideas, especially as our understanding of the world progresses, as a potential means of truly explaining these concepts and not just leaving them as a pandora's box not needing to be open.
I should state that this is, however, not a formal book in it's own right. It is more or less just a republication of Searle's review of other books in regards to consciousness. He attempts to argue against most of the ideas expressed in the books and works of others, and although he does manage to make some good points at times, I believe he is misguided in his overarching idea of consciousness. It is the sort of things that philosophers do that irritates the rest of the world, and it is the sort of philosophy that I personally stand against.
Since it is a review of other books and thus not a formal writing, I believe it is better as a companion to other works of philosophy of consciousness, although even in that regard there are enough arguments between philosophers that you can find anywhere else online simply by searching that the ideas in this book are nothing that couldn't be acquired in shorter versions elsewhere. The area of consciousness is probably the msot hotly debated area of philosophy, so there is no shortage of arguments and counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments from all sides.
Perhaps consciousness is something that cannot be explained, perhaps it is simply a first person "insight" that only each individuals can know of themselves better than anyone else, but I do not believe that at all to be the case. I kind of see the problems of consciousness in the same way that various philosophical problems from the greeks or even more modern philosophies were solved as human progress and understanding of the world expanded. Luckily for Searle and the others in his camp, we are not yet at the stage at which consciousness has a vast and proven framework with which it works so there theses are, in their eyes, currently holding ground. But I can not stand on ground myself that bases itself off the idea of ignorance (or better stated, that my own personal understanding of myself and my world is automatically more colorful than those around me, in a sort of "third-person ignorance" way) and hope that these grounds hold. I much rather prefer the further research into these ideas, especially as our understanding of the world progresses, as a potential means of truly explaining these concepts and not just leaving them as a pandora's box not needing to be open.
I should state that this is, however, not a formal book in it's own right. It is more or less just a republication of Searle's review of other books in regards to consciousness. He attempts to argue against most of the ideas expressed in the books and works of others, and although he does manage to make some good points at times, I believe he is misguided in his overarching idea of consciousness. It is the sort of things that philosophers do that irritates the rest of the world, and it is the sort of philosophy that I personally stand against.
Since it is a review of other books and thus not a formal writing, I believe it is better as a companion to other works of philosophy of consciousness, although even in that regard there are enough arguments between philosophers that you can find anywhere else online simply by searching that the ideas in this book are nothing that couldn't be acquired in shorter versions elsewhere. The area of consciousness is probably the msot hotly debated area of philosophy, so there is no shortage of arguments and counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments from all sides.