What do you think?
Rate this book
A DIALOGUE ON CONSCIOUSNESS
In recent years, the problem of consciousness has developed into one of the most important and hotly contested areas in the philosophy of mind. Many philosophers regard consciousness as an entirely physical phenomenon, yet it seems to elude scientific explanation. On the other hand, viewing consciousness as a nonphysical phenomenon brings up even larger issues. If consciousness is not physical, how can it be explained?
Concise, up-to-date, and engaging, A Dialogue on Consciousness explores these issues in depth. It features two main characters, Tollens and Ponens--unemployed graduate students who secretly live in a university library--who bring the debate alive. Tollens and Ponens examine the most significant theories and arguments in the field, quoting key passages from both classic and contemporary texts. Their discussion encompasses an expansive and diverse range of ideas, from those that originated in the Enlightenment up to today's most current perspectives. The dialogue concludes with a consideration of the pros and cons of modern physicalist views and nonphysicalist alternatives. An extensive annotated list of suggested readings directs readers to the most relevant and helpful primary sources.
An accessible and entertaining introduction to this complex issue, A Dialogue on Consciousness ideal for courses in philosophy of mind and consciousness. It also serves as an excellent supplement to introductory philosophy courses.
Concise, up-to-date, and engaging, A Dialogue on Consciousness explores these issues in depth. It features two main characters, Tollens and Ponens--unemployed graduate students who secretly live in a university library--who bring the debate alive. Tollens and Ponens examine the most significant theories and arguments in the field, quoting key passages from both classic and contemporary texts. Their discussion encompasses an expansive and diverse range of ideas, from those that originated in the Enlightenment up to today's most current perspectives. The dialogue concludes with a consideration of the pros and cons of modern physicalist views and nonphysicalist alternatives. An extensive annotated list of suggested readings directs readers to the most relevant and helpful primary sources.
An accessible and entertaining introduction to this complex issue, A Dialogue on Consciousness ideal for courses in philosophy of mind and consciousness. It also serves as an excellent supplement to introductory philosophy courses.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
130 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
December 12, 2024
Awesomeness. Any dialogues on philosophy automatically wins my heart and love. Nice discussion of dualism and Descartes. Wish there’s more about monism and idealism, because I’ve never really met anyone who believe in them irl. The transition to philosophy of physics is interesting, and the dreaded H2O/water question at its finale made me want to pull my hair out. But I guess that’s what you gotta do when you’re trying to explain physical and phenomenal properties (although I feel that the book is trying to convince me they are not two different things).
June 2, 2022
This book is fantastic. The good thing about it is that it is done in dialogue form. Many of the main arguments for various views in the philosophy of mind are put forward and critiqued (dualism, physicalism, panpsychism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, property dualism). I had two issues with the book. First, dualism is given short shrift though maybe not too much since anti-physicalist arguments are often used by dualists. In that case most of this book would be friendly to dualism in that sense. Second, objective idealism is hinted at in passing. The authors mention George Berkeley but his views get no explication, which is sad since it is explanatorily powerful. That said it’s a great book.
March 28, 2024
As a dialogue, somewhat ridiculous. It consisted in one character occasionally interrupting a philosophical discussion with a bad joke (they were genuinely terrible--not 'good because bad,' even if perpetrated knowingly) and the other pretending to think the first was weird for doing so. The characters, I remember thinking, were indistinct. Of course, that is no demerit to this book's purpose--to introduce students to philosophy of mind--but I at first felt it so egregiously bad that it proved a problem, that there was some oh-so-minimal bar one had to clear, even if the meta-joke was that the dialogue was completely pretextual and low-effort. But now, I feel more fondness and respect than before... My reactions never stay with me, unfortunately. The original idea was that, while I thought myself perfectly receptive to what they were trying to do, the execution was so bad even for that that it felt beneath me. But now, maybe just because I read the whole thing through, I thought it was charming, that the effect was achieved after all. Maybe the earlier parts are worse? Memorably positive were: the pun-named protagonists, their homelessness in the library, the block quotations being flagrantly shoehorned in, and at the end, the 4th-wall break, ghost, and janitor.
As for the philosophical content (the whole book): I am oppressed by a hatred of philosophy of mind; I find dualism much more offensive than its supporting arguments false. I am not sure why [the arguments] don't work, and don't deny that they have some force, but there is a pungent stench of stupidity. For ex., that humans have sensory organs that evolved because of [the organs'] ability to provide reliable information about the external world into an integrated network, and at least appear to have brain functions that govern those lower-level sensors--that is, we have organs that appear designed to sense and be self-conscious--is obviously relevant when we want to maintain the commonsense view that rocks are't conscious. And while some part of the story that such a complex machine as the brain spontaneously develops a lagging self-consciousness (lagging because consciousness isn't causal, even though it appears to be) is mysterious, it doesn't seem mysterious in a tractable way; whereas the part that is is for scientific, not philosophical reasons. I get an agitated feeling contemplating philosophers try to extract a philosophical problem from empirical ones... even though the categories and 'intuitions' we have are obviously dependent on an even more naive empiricism, that of how things seem to the literalistic 21st c. Anglophones that compose the majority of philosophy of mind. There may be a strict sense in which the empirics don't speak to the questions we have at hand, but more empirical understanding--in principle, even if humans aren't yet capable of such an understanding--would, I think, spontaneously dissolve the whole discipline.
But I say 'hatred' first and then 'stupidity' because the very apparent stupidity of the issue is seemingly irreconcilable with how these (often very smart) people talk about it, take it so seriously. They seem to ask questions or propose ideas that I instinctively reject, but my rejection is somehow unacceptable for obscure reasons; like Obama, I am given only bad options, to be blamed for picking the least-bad, even when I never would have if my initial choice had been free. And I proceed in this state of frustration until they eventually themselves suggest views more like mine, dressed in technical language. And so I suffer first from coercion, then galling hypocrisy, gritting my teeth and seething in silence, learning to hate philosophy of mind.
A problem with philosophy in general is that it concerns things about which it is very hard to speak or think, and thus devolves--although it's not acknowledged, in fact is contrary to the brochure--into tribal affiliation and nastiness, for which I don't have the heart. If it were easier to talk about, there would be a release-valve: we could talk things through. Instead we rely on weird games that, to me, are meaningless. But I constantly feel pressured into accepting nonsense, as though the only reason I wouldn't is that I don't get that the nonsense has more going for it than the naive (e.g.) physicalist would protest. But it turns out that the naive protesations are invaluable, even if unsophistcated. Without them you end up with total lunacy.
That said, this book was a nice introduction, and I think I will read through its suggested readings, which are well-organized, informative, and seem (commendably) restrained and actionable as a next-step, to progress from beginner to intermediate in the area, and maybe myself learn the language in which to couch my anti-philosophy?
As for the philosophical content (the whole book): I am oppressed by a hatred of philosophy of mind; I find dualism much more offensive than its supporting arguments false. I am not sure why [the arguments] don't work, and don't deny that they have some force, but there is a pungent stench of stupidity. For ex., that humans have sensory organs that evolved because of [the organs'] ability to provide reliable information about the external world into an integrated network, and at least appear to have brain functions that govern those lower-level sensors--that is, we have organs that appear designed to sense and be self-conscious--is obviously relevant when we want to maintain the commonsense view that rocks are't conscious. And while some part of the story that such a complex machine as the brain spontaneously develops a lagging self-consciousness (lagging because consciousness isn't causal, even though it appears to be) is mysterious, it doesn't seem mysterious in a tractable way; whereas the part that is is for scientific, not philosophical reasons. I get an agitated feeling contemplating philosophers try to extract a philosophical problem from empirical ones... even though the categories and 'intuitions' we have are obviously dependent on an even more naive empiricism, that of how things seem to the literalistic 21st c. Anglophones that compose the majority of philosophy of mind. There may be a strict sense in which the empirics don't speak to the questions we have at hand, but more empirical understanding--in principle, even if humans aren't yet capable of such an understanding--would, I think, spontaneously dissolve the whole discipline.
But I say 'hatred' first and then 'stupidity' because the very apparent stupidity of the issue is seemingly irreconcilable with how these (often very smart) people talk about it, take it so seriously. They seem to ask questions or propose ideas that I instinctively reject, but my rejection is somehow unacceptable for obscure reasons; like Obama, I am given only bad options, to be blamed for picking the least-bad, even when I never would have if my initial choice had been free. And I proceed in this state of frustration until they eventually themselves suggest views more like mine, dressed in technical language. And so I suffer first from coercion, then galling hypocrisy, gritting my teeth and seething in silence, learning to hate philosophy of mind.
A problem with philosophy in general is that it concerns things about which it is very hard to speak or think, and thus devolves--although it's not acknowledged, in fact is contrary to the brochure--into tribal affiliation and nastiness, for which I don't have the heart. If it were easier to talk about, there would be a release-valve: we could talk things through. Instead we rely on weird games that, to me, are meaningless. But I constantly feel pressured into accepting nonsense, as though the only reason I wouldn't is that I don't get that the nonsense has more going for it than the naive (e.g.) physicalist would protest. But it turns out that the naive protesations are invaluable, even if unsophistcated. Without them you end up with total lunacy.
That said, this book was a nice introduction, and I think I will read through its suggested readings, which are well-organized, informative, and seem (commendably) restrained and actionable as a next-step, to progress from beginner to intermediate in the area, and maybe myself learn the language in which to couch my anti-philosophy?
December 2, 2015
Overall, an introductory thought provoking conceptual book on the topic consciousness. The 'real life debate' format is quite refreshing and has a positive familiar impact on the reader. The topics presented have been covered relatively well and with multitude of logical perspectives.
My only criticism is the following:
- although it covers some introductory concepts, I feel a lot of perspectives, both scientific and philosophical have been left out I.e it may lack variety (most likely intentional and perhaps rightly so by the writers as I assume this book is purely in some sense a limited philosophical one - but I feel that was what I was looking for)
Conclusively, to give it justice, I would definitely recommend this book for anyone, as a gate to flourish their curiosity and understand a limited philosophical aspect of consciousness.
My only criticism is the following:
- although it covers some introductory concepts, I feel a lot of perspectives, both scientific and philosophical have been left out I.e it may lack variety (most likely intentional and perhaps rightly so by the writers as I assume this book is purely in some sense a limited philosophical one - but I feel that was what I was looking for)
Conclusively, to give it justice, I would definitely recommend this book for anyone, as a gate to flourish their curiosity and understand a limited philosophical aspect of consciousness.
May 8, 2011
Would have liked to see the ideas present in the text go further in the thinking presented, was hoping for deeper thinking, but it does provide a decent framework and texts to go to that will help further the thinking. The narrative framework is interesting and made me miss having these types of discussion in my life.
December 31, 2014
I take it that the purpose of this book is to provide a basic introduction to the central topics in contemporary philosophy of mind in a clear and precise manner. Concerning this, my impression is that the authors do a very good job. I think this would be a good text to read in an introductory philosophy of mind course.
January 3, 2017
Fantastic introduction to the philosophy of the mind! The dialog presents the material in clear and compelling ways. It gets a bit confusing towards the end, but I don't fault the authors due to the complexity of the material and the fact that this is my first introduction to the topic. Overall an excellent read!
February 12, 2011
Great little intro to the subject. Accessible and humorous.
September 15, 2013
Nice primer for topics concerning philosophy of mind.
January 5, 2014
An accessible and helpful introduction to issues in the philosophy of mind. A bit hokey at times but that's ok.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews