[simonh]

Sort of. He thinks there's something special about biology, but doesn't seem to be able to explain what that might be and how this is different from dualism, so it's hard for me to take it seriously.

To my mind both dualism and biological naturalism are both positing some special woo needed for consciousness without saying what that woo is, or what it's like, or how it works, or anything about it at all.

[meroes]

It may be woo, but how I understand his approach is a rejection of dualism and the Cartesian theater. To commit to physicalism but lean very hard onto what can be asked of it. One must do some kind of move to escape the Cartesian theater. There are those who say consciousness is too hard, and those who say we can take a stab at it. In the latter camp I think he’s more on the right track than anyone major figure I know of.

[simonh]

The Cartesian theatre is the view that there is some special place in the brain that ‘contains’ consciousness. Searle thinks there’s some special biological machinery in brains that causes consciousness.

Thats not quite the same thing, but if there is any distinction it’s a pretty darn fine one, and it certainly doesn’t exclude a Cartesian theatre interpretation.

[meroes]

Okay I thought the theater implied some impenetrability to studying itself too. I don’t see that from Searle.