[ExI] Chalmers

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:46 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> That’s the problem with philosophers. They like making up their own terminology. It can be
> difficult to distinguish the gibberish from the coherent. In this case Chalmers is trying to say
> that something is reducible if the workings of the whole is explainable in terms of the parts.
>
> In my experience philosophers try to explain their theories in the most complicated way
> possible to obfuscate potential errors. Politicians use the same technique and seeing
> exactly where the error is can be difficult. I suggest you read something more intellectually
> honest such as a physics or mathematics book.

That's the problem with overgeneralization and double standards. I
find it hard to think of an area of discourse that does end up
inventing terminology to make it easy for those involved to discuss
their views and try to make progress. Engineering, mathematics, logic,
history, anthropology, film criticism, etc. Can you think of one?
Maybe you can, but this is hardly a vice -- if it is one at all --
that philosophers have a monopoly on.

Often, too, there's two ways you can approach terminological problems.
One is to use an existing term -- usually one that already carries an
ordinary meaning or set of meanings -- and stipulate what you mean by
it that is more precise or just plain different from ordinary usage.
That runs the risk of outsiders (and even less perceptive insiders)
misunderstanding the meaning. (An example of this is 'work' and
'power' in physics. These are words that came from ordinary usage and
have a more precise meaning in physics. This can easily confuse the
lay audience.)

The other is, of course, to come up with new terms. This has the
virtue of less confusion with a term already in wide use. It's easy to
see how this can befuddle outsiders (and insiders). I don't think it's
an act of intellectual dishonesty though. (Of course, it can cover
intellectual dishonesty, but so can using an existing term in a
different way: that can be used easily to bait and switch people in
any field.)

By the way, though Chalmer's book is a classic and often sold as an
intro book on the subject, it seems to me not to be an intro... Not if
you're looking for a work on philosophy of mind more along the lines
of 'I'm new to philosophy, including philosophy of mind, and just want
to get my feet wet.' I believe a book in that regard is Smith and
Jones _The Philosophy of Mind: An Introduction_. (I haven't read John
Heil's entry into the Routledge 'contemporary introduction' series on
philosophy of mind, but the series is overall decent, so you could try
that one.) There's also Jaegwon Kim's _Philosophy of Mind_, which has
several editions. That's a bit more advanced, but still quite good.

Also, there's the issue of how much you want to invest in a book. I
mean invest in terms of effort to understand. If it's a struggle, then
you can blame the author, but you can also blame yourself. It's not
always the author's fault that someone has picked up a book that's
really not for them. (I believe Chalmers was targeting an audience of
fellow philosophers or at least philosophy undergrads and not the lay
audience.) For instance, you think mathematics is clear and honest. I
have dozens of mathematics books -- mostly graduate texts -- that are
not books I read before bed or after a few beers. I certainly don't
speed read them. For me, they're a struggle, but kind of a worthy one.
(That said, I often give up the struggle after a few chapters. To be
fair, some are more for reference.)

Regards,

Dan