Talk:Cartesian materialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alienus (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 30 January 2006 (→‎Direct realism, Dennett and the quotation in the article: Irrelevant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

By way of explanation, I originally used a text redirect because I couldn't find an example of how to do it right. I found one a bit later, but when I came back to implement it, it turns out that I'd been beaten to the punch. Thanks. Alienus 07:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loxley, in light of your record, any changes you make without discussion in Talk will have to be considered vandalism. Rather than reverting your changes outright, I've generously tried to salvage them. Having said that, I don't see how Rockwell's characterization of Cartesian materialism in terms of identity theory is at all helpful. Combined with your spiteful deletion of the Dennett quote, it serves only to mislead. Alienus 12:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a dispute, you bring it to Talk. If you make controversial changes but refuse to defend them in Talk, they're going to be taken as vandalism. I've lost any patience with you at this point, since you don't seem to want to follow the rules. Alienus 12:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who reverted the article to a description by Dennett, the sworn enemy of Cartesian materialism. loxley 12:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be writing as if Cartesian materialism is an invention of Dennett. The "Cartesian theatre" is Dennett's caricature of Cartesian materialism.
Dennet invented the "Cartesian theatre". Cartesian materialism, is a different thing, it was mentioned by Cabanis 1802, in Rapports du physique et du moral de l'homme. Marx also mentions it.
I believe the term "Cartesian materialism" was first identified with the work of Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century. Unlike Hobbes, Dennett is an eliminativist, he is against the idea that the mind is in the skull. loxley 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is Cartesian materialism Cartesian and materialistic?

This article does not explain at all how "Cartesian materialism" might be related to Descartes. One has to follow the link to Cartesian theater, then from there to Cartesian dualism, where one is informed that Descartes believed the mind to be immaterial, which seems to contradict the definitions presented here. I know this article has been the subject of dispute. Perhaps we could benefit from:

  • A cited history of the term and its historical meanings (saw some of this on the mediation page)
  • How it is "Cartesian"
  • How it is "materialistic"

I almost feel like this is topic for the old Mike Meyers "Coffee Talk" sketch: Cartesian materialism is neither Cartesian nor materialistic: discuss. Gwimpey 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian materialism must not be confused with Descartes' Cartesian dualism! It is not the same thing at all.
"Mechanical French materialism adopted Descartes’ physics in opposition to his metaphysics. His followers were by profession anti-metaphysicians, i.e., physicists.
This school begins with the physician Le Roy, reaches its zenith with the physician Cabanis, and the physician La Mettrie is its centre. Descartes was still living when Le Roy, like La Mettrie in the eighteenth century, transposed the Cartesian structure of the animal to the human soul and declared that the soul is a modus of the body and ideas are mechanical motions. Le Roy even thought Descartes had kept his real opinion secret. Descartes protested. At the end of the eighteenth century Cabanis perfected Cartesian materialism in his treatise: Rapport du physique et du moral de 1'homme.[48]
Cartesian materialism still exists today in France. It has achieved great successes in mechanical natural science which, “speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense”, will be least of all reproached with romanticism."
see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_d.htm
Dennett is opposed to Cartesian materialism, he is an eliminativist loxley 11:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I just reread Cartesian theater, and it does in fact make the link to Descartes. I think, however, this article still needs to tell us what Descartes has to do with Cartesian materialism. It apparently does not refer to Decartes' own philosophy, which was not materialistic. Gwimpey 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer that. The Cartesian part is that there's still a magic spot where it all comes together and mere data "enters consciousness". That's the idea, anyhow. Alienus 07:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just took a quick look at Loxley's edits and they're terrible. Too terrible for me to quickly repair without reverting. There's a horrible bias against Dennett, and a disconnect with the Cartesian roots. I will fix it later on. Alienus 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? This article is almost unrelated to Dennett. The first part is a historical introduction with definitions, all sourced. The second part covers criticisms such as Dennett's. Why are you bringing Dennett into everything? There is no bias here against Dennett, just a description of his definition plus links to where more about his critique of Cartesian materialism can be found. The first part of the article shows how the definition of Cartesian materialism is broad and always has been. The concept of "ideas" being "mechanical motions" is almost identical to the view of Vygotsky. loxley 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer with a question. Does Dennett oppose Cartesian materialism broadly defined? If so, what is his alternative? If not, then what does he oppose? Think about it. Alienus 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dennett's definitions are not to be used as the gold standard of what is and is not Cartesian materialism. Dennett is a Direct Realist:
"It does indeed appear to us as if we somehow enjoy, in our minds, some sort of direct and intimate access to "intrinsic" properties of our conscious states, but as Rosenthal observes, "We need not preserve the 'element of truth' in erroneous commonsense intuitions when we become convinced that these intuitions reflect how things appear, rather than how they really are."" In Dennett, D.. Lovely and suspect qualities. Commentary on David Rosenthal, "The Independence of Consciousness and Sensory Quality" in E. Villanueva, ed., Consciousness, (SOFIA Conference, Buenos Aires), Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview 1991.
His program involves arguing that there is no "virtual reality" inside the brain but that we are in direct contact with the things in the world by some (mystical?) phenomenon. Dennett is arguing against Cartesian materialism as part of his lifelong attack on indirect realism or representationalism.
Dennett is indeed arguing against the broad definition of Cartesian materialism. He is arguing that conscious experience does not occur in the brain but is directly the things that are experienced, its an old argument in a new disguise. Eliminativists can propose that the brain is like a digital computer because they can maintain that there are no experiences such as qualia in the brain. loxley 15:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All those words, and yet you failed utterly to answer the question. Amazing. Do you understand any of this stuff or is this pure bias against Dennett? Alienus
I did answer the question, Dennett is against the broad definition of Cartesian Materialism. However, this article has little to do with Dennett, why do you keep including him as the principle player and removing non-Dennett definitions etc.? loxley 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. Dennett is against the historical definition, not the broad one. You're wrong omn the facts, as usual. Worse, you're lying when you claim I've removed any non-Dennett definitions. It's the sort of lie enshrined forever in Wikipedia, for all to see.Alienus 23:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. But whatever Dennett's view we can both agree that he is utterly opposed to Cartesian materialism and hence should not be used as the source for its definition. loxley 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) You don't get to disagree, Loxley, because this is a matter of fact, not opinion. Dennett defines what sort of CM he's against, and it's very clearly the historical sort that does away with the soul but otherwise leaves Descartes' ideas intact. He does not in any way deny that the mind is the brain: he's a physicalist, after all. By your comment, you've shown why you should be kept far, far away from any article on this subject: you're too ignorant to contribute and too proud to recognize your ignorance. You need to stick to topics you have some grasp of. Have you tried forks? Alienus 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that, as a recent detractor from Cartesian materialism, Dennett's ideas and definitions should be kept in the "criticisms" section, not retailed as the main definition of the term. Why are you so keen on Dennett? loxley 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His definition of CM is as valid as anyone else quoted in the article, and more valid than some. If I was as partisan as you, I'd say that O'Brien and Opie are on the fringe with their support for CM. Since their essay is just a response to Dennett, perhaps we should shove them into the Criticism section of Multiple Drafts Model, eh? Cut it out and stop with the reverts. I've made a genuine attempt to contribute to this article and all you've done is erased whatever doesn't fit your biases. Alienus 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern synthesis

Ok, I took another pass at it. Most things speak for themselves, but I'll comment briefly on a few conscious decisions I made. First, I trimmed the end of the Marx & Engels quote because it was outdated and therefore misleading. Also, wherever a quote is a single sentence, or just part of one, I tried to keep it in the same paragraph. The most controversial changes, at least to Dennett-bashers, will be the inclusion of Dennett's definition as being entirely consistent with the historical usage. I felt a need to include a brief explanatory comment on what it is that makes Cartesian materialism still Cartesian despite the lack of dualism. Without this, the article is a bit confusing. Anyhow, I'd like to imagine that Loxley will give my changes a fair evaluation and make only small, constructive corrections rather than starting an edit war. Let's see how it actually plays out... Alienus 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Dennett bashing" in placing Dennett's contribution in "criticisms". Your changes did not improve the article in any way and have removed the clear definitions by other authors. The article is far more confusing after your edit because it does not stress the modern usage, that the mind is in the brain. Your comment that "A characteristic feature of Cartesian dualism is that, although processing occurs in various parts of the brain, conciousness is isolated in a specific spot. " is just plain wrong according to even the old definitions. loxley 15:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I don't know whether to chalk up your objections to ignorance, bias or malice. You decide. The article starts by admitting Cartesian materialism says that "somewhere in the brain, there is a preferred set of data that corresponds to our view of the world". That somewhere is what Dennett refers to as the Cartesian theater, although the quote I used doesn't complicate matters by introducing that term. Moreover, in complete contradiction to your edit comment, the article makes it painfully clear that Cartesian materialism is not identical to Cartesian dualism, but that it sprang from a partial rejection of the latter. I have no idea why you think people wouldn't notice that your comment is false. Perhaps you're hoping they're stupid. I don't know. What I do know is that the edits I made were fair and accurate. If you could justify saying otherwise, you would fix the parts that you can show to be wrong. Instead, you revealed your true colors by reverting my work. That's just not going to fly. I've been very patient with you, but I don't see any reason to continue to show this undeserved patience. Your vandalism will be reverted on sight. You started an edit war, but I will finish it. Alienus 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, "somewhere in the brain" just means somewhere, it could be the whole brain, part of the brain, some time extended field in the brain etc. etc. Why are you adopting Dennett's definition of Cartesian Materialism as if it were the gospel truth and changing any edits that differ by using third party definitions? What is going on here? loxley 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you don't know what "somewhere" means. Worse, as I've pointed out, I have not removed any other people's definitions. This is your standard lie and it does not amuse me. Drop your edit war; you will not win. Alienus 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another try at Criticisms

I have trimmed the quote from Dennett, as I don't think it's so great to have extended quotes in articles. I left in his quoted definition and a (very) brief characterization of his line of argument. Gwimpey 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something probably needs to be done with that Marx/Engles quote (but not by me right now). Gwimpey 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was very clear, thanks. I don't like the long quote about the history but I can't find any current translations of the French works in the library. I am not prepared to present Marx's analysis of the history as my own without further checking - I am not averse to summarising other analyses of history provided there are at least two or three independent sources. loxley 10:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian Dualism

There is no need to go into detail about Cartesian Dualism. At most it might be said that Cartesian materialism is not to be confused with Cartesian dualism - this was already done in the previous version. Why is Alienus perpetually moving Dennett's contribution from "criticisms" to the main article and removing other, standard definitions of Cartesian Materialism? loxley 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is simply a lie. Anyone who does a Diff can see that I preserved all the original definitions. The only thing I shortened was the irrelevant tail end of Marx and Engels talking about outdated current events. Dennett and Rockwell are both critical of CM and both now show up in the main body as well as the criticism section. After all, just because they're critical of CM doesn't mean their definitions are irrelevant. Alienus 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was why I used Rockwell as a third party critic of CM who was also mainstream. Why are you changing the text to make the definition of Cartesian materialism consistent with Dennett? Nowadays CM means the idea that the mind is in the brain. Why are you editing this article to be consistent with Dennett's complex definition? Dennett must be included in "criticisms". loxley 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More bias. Now eliminativists don't qualify as "mainstream"? As defined by what? Nonsense. Dennett's definition of CM belongs right alongside all the others. He's more than qualified to offer his view of this, so let it stand. Relegating people you disagree to the fringes is purely partisan and I will not tolerate it from you or anyone else. Alienus 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so keen on Dennett? He did not define CM. He is its principle detractor. An article on CM should define it impartially. loxley 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, impartiality means we don't side with either the advocates or critics, but present both views in a balanced manner. Take a look at the article on Intelligent design for a fine example of this. Just because something is the subject of the article doesn't mean it is sacred. Alienus 04:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the principle critic of a time honoured idea be used in its definition?

Cartesian materialism is simply the idea that the mind is in the brain. Some eliminativists and others disagree with this but should their views be used in the principle definition of this term? Is this encyclopedic or is a particular contributor distorting this entry? loxley 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one definition, though not necessarily the one closest to the historical usage. I suggest we show all definitions on equal footing, as I have done. I don't relegate those two pro-CM guys to the fringes, so you don't get to do the same for Dennett. Alienus 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dennett should have, and had, pride of place in the "criticisms" section. loxley 00:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does being critical of a thing stop you from being an expert on it? Alienus 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your problem here. If we look at the history of this article and the Cartesian theatre article it is clear that originally you thought Dennett was arguing against Cartesian dualism. Now that I have inserted a Cartesian materialism article and explained this concept with several sources you are coming to terms with a new set of ideas. The penny will finally drop when it occurs to you that Dennett really is against the broad definition of Cartesian materialism. He is a Direct realist and an eliminativist. Dennett is actually in the tradition of Skinner and Ryle but probably more extreme than either. Dennett is against the broad definition of Cartesian materialism because he is a direct realist. loxley 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear that you ought to avoid trying to insert your words into other people's mouths. Anyone who's even skimmed through CE knows that Dennett is arguing against Cartesian materialism. He does briefly knock Cartesian dualism, using Casper the Friendly Ghost to demonstrate the problem of interaction, but he takes it for granted that dualism is long dead. The whole point of the book -- a point which you do not seem to have grasped -- is that dualism is not the only mistake in Cartesian dualism. Dennett's goal is to remove what he calls the Cartesian theater, which is a materialist remnant of Cartesian dualism.
Dennett is certainly in the tradition of Ryle (I think he studied with him, actually), though linking him to Skinner would be very misleading, as he supports a much milder form of behaviorism that admits to the existence of internal states. In short, you don't have a clue about Dennett, or about my understanding of this issue. Instead, you substitute baseless accusations of extremism, which just demonstrate your partisan POV. In the future, you would do well to limit your statements to subjects you have some knowledge of. Alienus 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell's definition

I was looking at this article, which makes reference to Rockwell's work. According to the first footnote, Rockwell is attacking Cartesian materialism, which he defines so broadly as to include both functionalists and eliminative materialists. This is a fine example of how much variation there is in the definition of CM, with Rockwell casting his net much farther than, say, Dennett. This is something to keep in mind when editing the article. Alienus 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided this external reference (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#How_can_Wikipedia_deal_with_extremism.3F ). I did so with the intention of showing why it is important to have a clear definition of Cartesian materialism followed by "criticisms". This route allows the naive reader to understand Cartesian materialism and then get a grip on the externalist philosophy of approaches such as Dennett's. loxley 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again for the record, the article does a fine job explaining CM in terms of CD minus the D. Since CD featured a central location, we should expect historical versions of CM to do the same. Whether modern ones are truly free of this taint is a matter of some controversy, so we can't present just one side or endorse it over the other. Alienus 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loxley, edit warrior

So, you going to contribute to this article or just blindly revert whatever doesn't fit your biases? I intentionally stuck in that hypothalamus error to see if you'd do the right thing by fixing it. Instead, you reverted the whole thing, using that intentional error as an excuse. On the whole, all you do is revert and offer falsehoods as excuses. It's really lame and I'm not going to allow it. Please, continue this until mediation is triggered, so you can get yourself blocked from further vandalism. Alienus 19:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake! How old are you? loxley 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cabal did not give you the right to revert my changes, so I will not allow it. Thank you for your personal attack, though. It further undermines any claim you have to the moral high ground. Alienus 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the cartesian materialism article

I will try to be specific. The Cartesian materialism article is being edited by Alienus so that it is being introduced according to the viewpoint of a particular philosopher: Daniel Dennett. In particular the introductory paragraph has been changed to make Cartesian materialism sound like cartesian dualism and the following two paragraphs have been added:

"A characteristic feature of Cartesian dualism is that, although processing occurs in various parts of the brain, conciousness is isolated in a specific spot. Descartes wrote that the "[pineal] gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed". Cartesian materalists reject these details but generally maintain the existence of a central location.

In this tradition, Dennett defines Cartesian materialism as "the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of. (p.107) Dennett considers Cartesian materialism obsolete but endemic, saying it is "the view that nobody espouses but almost everybody tends to think in terms of", such as when they speak of "entering consciousness" or "the moment of awareness"."

The first paragraph is an original contribution by Alienus: he does not produce any source to show that Cartesian materialists maintain the existence of a central location. The only refernces I can find show that Cartesian materialists hold the general view that the mind is in the brain.

The second paragraph uses a definition given by Daniel Dennett, the principle opponent of Cartesian materialism. This definition is peculiar to Dennett and has been developed specifically to support his Multiple drafts model of consciousness. It is like introducing an article on Jesus Christ with a view such as "Christ was a mythical figure developed by the Roman Empire in an attempt to regulate the psychology and religious practice of the population" - these points might all be defended individually but it makes a nonsense of an impartial article. Specifically, Dennett introduces a "crucial finish line" so implies presentism and he says that cartesian materialism is "obsolete but endemic". Cartesian materialists are not necessarily presentists and "obsolete but endemic" is entirely pejorative.

I would like to see the first paragraph removed entirely because it is original work. I would like to see the second paragraph placed later in the article and labelled with a warning that this is a definition supplied by the principle opponent of Cartesian materialism. A fair presentation can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartesian_materialism&oldid=33761410 . loxley 11:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I disagree both with his characterization of my changes, and his suggestions. The first paragraph is a relevant quote from Descartes, prefaced with a framing sentence. Therefore, it cannot possible be original research, unless I'm Rene Descartes. In addition, the very first sentence of the article admits that "somewhere in the brain, there is a preferred set of data", which is precisely the point he's disputing. If he truly disputes this point, he should be arguing for a change in that first sentence. The second paragraph offers a modern definition of Cartesian materialism that is very much in line with the historical usage, as shown in the Marx quote. Yes, Dennett is an opponent of CM, but so is Rockwell, who Loxley has no problem quoting. Moreover, the O'Brien and Opie quote is from an essay written in direct response to Dennett's book, which means it's POV to offer it without showing the other side on equal footing. Also, there's a very short Dennett quote given with no context, which serves only to confuse. If he wants to use the quote, he should quote the full context here in talk so that we can evaluate its meaning.
Now, in addition to the content changes, I'm also cleaned up the layout of the article, and he's lost those improvements. His version of the article uses quote blocks even for fragments of a sentence, as opposed to reserving them for paragraph-sized quotes.
In short, I see nothing of merit in his latest round of changes and nothing worth preserving. As a result, I feel obligated to revert these changes. Alienus 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked it up and I was, unfortunately, correct. The Dennett quote is taken entirely out of context. As it happens, the full text of the article is available here; how odd that Loxley didn't link to Dennett's own page. In context, the quote is from a footnote that says:

3. This medium might be anatomically spread around, but that creates further problems for the model--see Dennett and Kinsbourne, "Escape from the Cartesian Theater," our response to the commentaries in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1992, pp.234-47, esp. sections 1,2 and 4.

In context, Dennett is arguing that an attempt to spread the medium around does not solve the problems of Cartesian materialism because it creates deeper problems. Moreover, spreading it around doesn't actually refute the original problem in that there is still a distinction between the part where consciousness lives and the other parts. He is in no way retracting his statement about CM involving a specific area of the brain, whether distributed or not. For these reasons, I must formally accuse Loxley of cherry-picking this quote out of its context to mislead the reader. This makes me very unhappy with his level of intellectual integrity.

I'm reverting his changes wholesale, with no further comment.

No, the claim you are making is that Dennett regards Cartesian materialism as localised. He does not regard this as a defining feature of Cartesian materialism. Damasio's comment that you included as if it were a direct quote from Damasio's article is actually a quote from a commentary on Dennett's (1993) article that I provided as a reference.. Should we include the copious commentaries that argue against Dennett's views? Of course not, not in an article on Cartesian materialism - maybe in the Multiple Drafts article - do you you want me to go to that article and include all dissenting views in the main body of the text? loxley 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can have the quote from Damasio that you lifted from the Dennett paper that I introduced (without reading Damasio himself) and you can have Dennett's opinions on CM right up front in this article. But if we establish this precedent I will introduce Multiple Drafts and Cartesian theatre with text from the scores of articles that oppose them. Obviously you think it is good practice to introduce topics and ideas from the viewpoint of their detractors so will appreciate this. loxley 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, given that I linked the Damasio quote to the Dennett article, I'm hardly trying to put one over on you. What exactly is your complaint? Do you suspect Dennett of doctoring the quote? Do you want to exclude Damasio because he dares support Dennett on this issue? What?
Anyhow, we're not bargaining here. I don't require or request your permission just to use a legitimate quote. And you are, as always, free to get some critical quotations and add them to the article, so long as you do so in an NPOV manner and don't generally destroy the flow. In other words, stick it in and I'll edit it into shape, as always. Alienus 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your responsibility to "edit it into shape as always". This is the whole problem. This is a cooperative effort. The text contains everything that you require in its original format. You changed it to present the data in a POV fashion that undermines understanding of the field. loxley 09:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly dug up citations that are relevant, then messed up their inclusion. Therefore, I've cleaned up your messes. It doesn't help that you show a hostility to Dennett matched only by your ignorance of what he's actually saying, which results in extreme POV that I have to remove. Now, move along. Unlike you, I actually do my best to work in other people's contributions instead of reverting them. However, when you revert the result, I undo your damage. Alienus 10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one crucial question. Is Dennett's definition of Cartesian materialism associated with Dennett's Multiple Drafts Model, ie: did Dennett create a definition and then attack it? Surely, if this is the case it must be treated as part of a critique of Cartesian materialism rather than as a definition of CM. There is a huge danger here of enshrining a straw man argument as a real definition in an encyclopedia. Surely you can see this? loxley 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenthal and Direct Realism

I re-read the Dennett essay that you cite, but I don't see where it supports direct realism, as such, so I dropped that line. Can you point out a specific place where he does this? Alienus 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It does indeed appear to us as if we somehow enjoy, in our minds, some sort of direct and intimate access to "intrinsic" properties of our conscious states, but as Rosenthal observes, "We need not preserve the 'element of truth' in erroneous commonsense intuitions when we become convinced that these intuitions reflect how things appear, rather than how they really are."" In Dennett, D.. Lovely and suspect qualities. Commentary on David Rosenthal, "The Independence of Consciousness and Sensory Quality" in E. Villanueva, ed., Consciousness, (SOFIA Conference, Buenos Aires), Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview 1991. loxley 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, your intuitions are of things as "they really are". Dennett is normally incredibly careful about exposing his views on this subject of direct/indirect realism, for obvious reasons. He cannot say you have no mind, that there is nothing there, but the moment he admits that there is something there he must ask where? Once he has defined "where" his opponents will ask "what is there?" and his thesis is in trouble. This is why he always uses a third person approach "Mary sees red", "Sy sees blue" - Dennett himself never sees red or blue. loxley 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither clear not convincing. At best, it is your biased OR interpretation of what Dennett said. His own words do not support your conclusion. Note that he said that it appear[s] to us" that we have direct access, but not that we actually do. Likewise, he goes on to quote Rosenthal against accepting intuitions as true. I'm sorry, but you have historically shown a poor grasp of the subject matter, and this case is no different. Alienus 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that I did not say that Dennett was a direct realist, just that he agreed with this particular idea of Rosenthal's. loxley 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennett and a specific location

Alienus, you yourself have admitted that Dennett has analysed Multiple Drafts in the context of the idea of a generalised location for conscious experience in the brain and found that it makes no difference to his argument. Dennett uses somewhere in the brain in its general sense of anywhere from a small volume to the entire brain. Somewhere in the brain means NOT outside the brain. Dennett's argument is about timing, not about a specific location in the brain. loxley 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your implication that Cartesian materialism is "Dennett's original conception" is quite peculiar. loxley 10:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attribute your mistaken inference to any implication by me. As I made clear in the article, the term can be traced back at least as far as Marx and Engels, so I don't see how Dennett could have coined it. This is a fine example of factual error on your part.
See top of this Talk page where I supplied you with the Marx & Engels quote(!). You are incorrigible. loxley 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is in your misunderstanding of what Dennett's argument is. I've tried to explain this before, but you seem resistant to understanding. I feel that this mental gap on your part disqualifies you from anything but the most peripheral role on articles that involve cog sci. 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You wrote of CM: "It can also refer to the more specific idea that conscious exists in a limited area of the brain, much as in Descartes' original conception. By this definition, Cartesian materialism is "the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of". (p.107).
Apart from the fact that you did not attribute your quote to Dennett, you have already argued in this Talk that "In context, Dennett is arguing that an attempt to spread the medium around does not solve the problems of Cartesian materialism because it creates deeper problems." In other words the exact location of the mind in the brain is of no consequence to Dennett, his argument is about the timing of mental events, not how big or small his Cartesian theatre might be. Your implication that Dennett's ideas are about localisation in the brain is wholly wrong ie:
"It can also refer to the more specific idea that conscious exists in a limited area of the brain, much as in Descartes' original conception. By this definition, Cartesian materialism is "the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of". "
The timing of mental events is almost unrelated to the question of location of a Cartesian theatre within the brain. Leave my edits in place, they are all directly supported by sources and do not involve speculation. loxley 11:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another case where your inability to put aside your blinders and understand the subject matter on its own terms renders your contributions worthless. Dennett is saying that replacing the pineal gland with a constellation of brain regions doesn't solve the problem because it still excludes some parts of the brain from the Cartesian theater. In short, it's a non-starter. The timing Dennett writes about is the supposed transition between being nonconscious in the brain to conscious. Without this division, there is nothing to be timed. Loxley, at risk of personal attack, I must say that you are entirely incompetent in your ability to grasp basic concepts relevant to this article. Worse, you like to operate by reverting instead of correcting. For these reasons, I feel obligated to revert your vandalism as soon as a compare verifies that you've added nothing. I suggest you go learn something about the subject before you try to contribute. Alienus 11:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are always insulting. That aside, Dennett's criticism could be maintained even if it were held by Cartesian materialists that the whole brain was a Cartesian theatre because he is using the timing of mental events and demonstrating that, if consciousness occurs at an instant the next instant will always reconstruct our idea of reality. It is the standard attack on the indubitability argument that Dennett evolves into Multiple Drafts in his Quining Qualia and later articles. Notice that his paper on multiple drafts was called: "Time and the Observer: the Where and When of Consciousness in the Brain." It is wrong to maintain that Dennett's ideas are limited to a conscious experience that is at a particular location in the brain. Most of all however, it is wrong to use his ideas as a principle definition of Cartesian materialism. Let them be considered later. loxley 12:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The use of Dennett's definition in the introduction to this article is retailing a POV.

This problem has been discussed at length and was the subject of an arbitration that has recommended a request for comment. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism

The existing text should be replaced by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartesian_materialism&oldid=34098628

which has the same content but does not push a POV.

Both arbitrators who commented said that this article was inappropriate in its current form.

ie:

Despite what loxley says, I feel that this is to a large extent a content dispute. If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject. James F. (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Reject as not a significant dispute, but I take the point that the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett. Fred Bauder 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to ask for comment from other editors. If I fail to obtain any comments it would be best that the article is reverted to the neutral format, given that the arbitrators felt this was the correct move. loxley 11:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the state of the article as it is. If you want to suggest specific changes, do so. Start by explaining briefly but clearly just how it's POV. Alienus 06:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have already seen all the arguments. To summarise, in the 1990s Dennett used his own, peculiar definition of Cartesian Materialism as the basis of his critique of the concept. To use this definition as the principle definition of CM is POV, the correct approach is as outlined in Cartesian materialism. The arbitrators both agreed: "If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject" and "the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett". Where a philosopher creates a definition for the purposes of an argument this should be made clear, in Wikipedia we must not enshrine such definitions as the correct definition. To make this point clear, suppose I defined earth as a sphere of custard and then denied that custard could exist - my argument would seem shaky - but then suppose a major encyclopedia defined earth as a sphere of custard on the basis of my "definition", my argument is then proven. At least to naive readers. loxley 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way I included Dennett's approach is not anti-Dennett, it just avoids the pitfall outlined above. I have reopened this as a "request for mediation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Cartesian_materialism loxley 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explain a few times now, Cartesian materialism is whatever remains of Cartesian dualism once the dualism is taken away and replaced with materialism. This is the definition used centuries ago, back when the term was coined. Dennett's definition is entirely consistent with this usage and your refusal to accept it is merely the result of your documented bias against Dennett. In short, your complaint has no merit. Alienus

Your own ideas are original research. In an encyclopedia article concepts are defined according to their normal definitions then opposing ideas are discussed. Dennett's definition is a very particular definition, peculiar to Dennett and developed to support the Multiple Drafts Model. It is not to be found in the historical literature. The way the article was written, before your changes, included the history of the definition then gave Dennett's definition due prominence but did not run the risk of confusing the reader. Dennett defined CM in papers that were devoted to dismissing his definition - surely defining a concept in Wikipedia in terms that the originator of the definition knew to be wrong from the outset is highly dubious or even POV. loxley 10:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I already explained why this is entirely false. Please address my explanation instead of repeating yourself.
Now, as for your recent change, it is unacceptable and has been removed.
Listen up because here's how it's going to be. We have a content dispute and we are going to resolve it. You are not going to pretend to have some mandate to vandalize the article to fit your POV.
If you try, I will revert the article. If you make changes in good faith, I will consider them independently of their origin. However, if your changes are simply an insertion of the same old anti-Dennett POV, I will revert them. Alienus 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference or repeat your argument as to why Dennett's definition is a widely accepted definition. Please also demonstrate where Dennett's definition is to be found outside of his articles that dismiss it as a false idea. I would draw your attention to the comments by the arbitrators who considered that: "If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject" and "the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett". Your insistence that I should modify your edits, which amount to a strange reordering of the original text plus the inclusion of Dennett's definition in the introductory remarks is equivalent to insisting that I accept your POV. loxley 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of this repeatedly. You refuse to accept the evidence offered so I'm not going to repeat myself. The point of an RfC is to bring in other people to end the deadlock you've caused. Talking to you has been proven to be a waste of my time. Alienus 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not done all this repeatedly. Indeed I can hardly find any specific answers to questions anywhere in your contributions. Please reference or repeat your argument as to why Dennett's definition is a widely accepted definition. Please also demonstrate where Dennett's definition is to be found outside of his articles that dismiss it as a false idea.
Just reading through the debate above, what you seem to be saying is that Dennett is an Indirect realist and against Cartesian materialism. This is a paradoxical position. By even the original definition of Cartesian materialism, that "ideas are mechanical motions" in the brain, indirect realism would make Dennett a Cartesian materialist. How do you explain this paradox? I would explain it by either deciding that Dennett has provided a unique definition of Cartesian materialism or that he is in fact a Direct realist like other behaviourists/eliminativists. The choice is yours but you cannot hold that Dennett is using the normal definition of CM and is an indirect realist. Either he has his own, unique idea of CM or he is a direct realist and believes that the mind is partly outside the body like any other radical behaviourist. In fact if you read consciousness explained carefully it is apparent that Dennett is guardedly direct realist, he believes that the brain is just a processor that generates dubious verbal reports (heterophenomenology) and that what we call experience is things in themselves (direct realism). loxley 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since every exchange we've had is permanently enshrined by the Wiki versioning system, I don't see how you imagine you might get away with pretending that I haven't answered these demands repeatedly. I'm guessing you lack the ability to understand my answers. This is preferable to concluding that you're lying due to partisanship. In any case, if our exchanges have proven anything, it's that we are not going to come to any sort of consensus. Therefore, it's silly to act as if you're genuinely open to my (much-repeated) responses, particularly since you're lawyering against me all over the admin pages. Alienus 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have endlessly said that you have already answered but have not done so. Please cut and paste the text of these answers below - it will only involve you scanning up this page to acquire them. The questions are:
"Please reference or repeat your argument as to why Dennett's definition is a widely accepted definition. Please also demonstrate where Dennett's definition is to be found outside of his articles that dismiss it as a false idea." and "By even the original definition of Cartesian materialism, that "ideas are mechanical motions" in the brain, indirect realism would make Dennett a Cartesian materialist. How do you explain this paradox?". loxley 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point. I'll wait for the relevant committee to rule.
How can we discuss anything if you will never answer specifics but just reply "I have answered that already" or issue some generalised insult? My principle reason for saying that Dennett's definition should not be used in the introduction is that he introduces his particular definition in papers and books that are devoted to the dismissal and disproof of that definition. His definition is not found elsewhere. Dennett's definition differs markedly from other definitions and looks like it has been produced as Dennett's own straw man to be knocked down by his own argument. You have not addressed this issue at all.

loxley 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You really don't understand the issue at all; Dennett's status as a direct realist has no bearing on whether the definition of CM that he and others use deserves mention in the body instead of in the criticism ghetto. The quotes you added may or may not be of value; if they are, then I will do my best to integrate them into the article. However, nothing in these quotes justifies the massive changes you included with them, so these are now reverted. As I mentioned in my edit comment, I'll review your new text for possible integration, but for now, the article is better off as it was before. I expect to have the time to deal with this in the next day. Alienus 18:43, 20 January 2006(UTC)
Dennett's direct realism is of importance because it shows that he defines "mind" without the contents of consciousness. For Dennett your experience is the actual world around you, he believes that "mind" is simply mechanical processes in the brain that have no experience. This is the classic direct realist stance and means that a direct realist can maintain that the "mind is in the brain" at the same time as maintaining that experience is not in the brain. The average reader would not assume these fine distinctions when reading the introduction to this article, they need to be explained later.
Clearly Dennett's status as a Direct Realist is of critical importance to his attitude towards Cartesian Materialism. Dennett defines CM as a finish point in the brain where the contents of consciousness occur; he then denies this definition. Obviously he never agreed with his original definition because he is a direct realist.loxley 10:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a truly bizarre conclusion to draw. And if you cracked the pages of "Content and Consciousness", you'd see it is entirely a product of your imagination and not anything to do with Dennett. Alienus 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, just accusing your opponent of ignorance does not constitute a debate. loxley 08:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of Dennett's 1969 book "Content and Consciousness", it was written 22 years before Consciousness Explained which elaborates the Multiple drafts model and Dennett's view on CM and the type of direct realism that is being discussed here. It says nothing clear about the subject in hand - perhaps you could quote the relevant text and page and clarify your point? loxley 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making sense of Cartesian materialism

Given that Direct realists such as Dennett consider that the mind is its processes, not its contents, this article needs to be carefully structured.

It should start with a history and the definitions applied by existing Cartesian materialists.

Next there should be some explanation of the difference between Direct realism and indirect realism vis a vis CM.

Then the Direct realist misgivings about CM should be introduced. Especially the idea of a mind that is processes rather than content.

For balance we should really introduce something about the huge body of neuroscience on dreams, imagination, visual imagery and inner speech, all of which is consistent with indirect realism, with some sort of virtual reality in the brain, and hence CM. loxley 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article as it stands, when your vandalism is reverted, is just fine. However, if you want to start with that as a base and improve on it, your efforts will be treated just like anyone else's. If you try to vandalize the article, that will likewise be treated just like any other attempt at vandalism and swiftly reverted. In any case, I've read the quote you added to your own private version and it doesn't seem relevant, especially after your explanation. Alienus 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you do not bother with any specific arguments, are you actually interested in this subject? You are the vandal Alienus, I created and provided all of the input for this article. You just gave it a peculiar spin and shuffled it! The quote is highly relevant, showing the direct realist position with remarkable clarity. Direct realists believe that the content of consciousness is the world itself, defining the world as outside the retinas in most cases. It is a powerful insight into why Dennett made his particular definition (and hence why this should be discussed outside of the introductory paragraph.). As a direct realist, Dennett defines "mind" as conscious experience without its content (ie: as the processes that occur which lead to reports of consciousness). Dennett's own definition of CM must be seen in this context. loxley 08:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you did any research that was relevant, I did my best to actually accomodate it, finding it a place in the article. This is precisely what we're supposed to be doing here. Unfortunately, you have significant limitations in your understanding of these matters and you have a hostile attitude that has made it pointless to try to explain anything to you. Instead, I wind up repeating myself while you very convincingly play dumb; or perhaps it's not an act. As it stands, your own personal version of this article sucks and part of doing the right thing is to keep your sucky article away from Wikipedia. That's why I'm going to once again look for any changes worth salvaging, then throw away the rest. The bottom line is that your'e biased, unknowledgable and a crappy writer. Your input, like anyone else's, may occasionally be of value, but your output is worthless. So go whine and cry to everyone that I'm bullying you and that I'm a vandal, but the fact remains is that you'd turn this article to garbage if allowed to. I've documented your hatred of all things Dennett, so no attempt by you to pretend to be the injured party is going to fool anyone willing to do even the most basic research. 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I created and placed most of the text in this article. I provided all the references. You shuffled it to promote Dennett. I have shown why this is a mistake. You have not answered any specific points. When I ask you to do so you just insult me and revert the article. It is clear that, having had your original point refuted you are just damned if you are going to lose face. Please stop this campaign. loxley 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're too stupid and biased to understand my answers, but I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Go away you little pest. Alienus 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the personal attacks need to stop, Alienus. It's a long time since I've read any of this stuff, but I can try to help a little, perhaps. Can someone explain (in brief, please) what the basic problem is? I saw someone write that it isn't fair to have Cartesian materialism defined by Dennett, who argued against it, and I'd agree with that. Are there other issues? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the basic issue is whether Dennett's definition should appear in the introduction as a conventional definition or be explained in the text.
My version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartesian_materialism&oldid=36206610
Alienus' version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartesian_materialism&oldid=36208811
Alienus has also shuffled the text so he could demand that I edit rather than revert. I believe the article is more readable as a simple flow of ideas rather than separate paragraphs. loxley 12:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Loxley, the separate headers and sections that Alienus has used is the house style and is actually easier to read than a continuous flow of text, so I suggest you see whether you can use that style for your version. However, I agree that it's inappropriate to allow the topic to be defined by one of its main opponents. The Dennett definition should be part of the description of Dennett's view of the subject, and should be in that section alone. Dennett has a tendency to define issues in ways that make them easier to dispose of. Let me know if this helps any. Alienus, what do you think? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have split the article. loxley 12:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section under History in Alienus's version, is it a quote from Lenin? See [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's in both your sections. Why are you mentioning Marx as a matter of interest? Perhaps he's important, I don't know. I would say not for this topic, but I really don't know. But you need to say where the quote is taken from at least. By the way, I don't want to get involved in editing this page as such. I'm only here because I saw the long-running dispute. Anything I put on the page is there as a suggestion only, so feel free to revert me; or I'll revert myself if that would help so that neither of you goes further toward 3RR, though I suspect you may both have passed it, so the reverting should probably stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was in Engels and Marx 1845 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_d.htm (Lenin wrote a conscpectus for a later edition). This reference was the earlist english account of the history of the term Cartesian materialism that I could find. Marx is only being mentioned because Engels and Marx wrote a historical review. The trouble is that La Mettrie's L'homme Machine, although Cartesian materialist does not describe itself as Cartesian materialist. The first clear reference to the term Cartesian materialism that I can find is Engels and Marx. I have not read Le Roy or Cabanis' work - it is not online and text versions seem to all be in french.
The introductory remark that "In philosophy, Cartesian materialism is the idea that, somewhere in the brain, there is a preferred set of data that corresponds to our view of the world." is quite central to the idea of Cartesian materialism. Alienus left this in place although he preferred to interpret it as meaning that "somewhere" meant that a subset of the brain corresponds to our view of the world. As Dennett (1993) agreed, "somewhere" could involve the whole brain. I do not think that the issue of how much of the brain would be conscious is critical to Cartesian materialism which is simply: "the idea that conscious experience is a process of presentation realized in the physical materials of the brain" (O'Brien and Opie (1999)). Even Engels and Marx leave the physical extent of consciousness in the brain as an open issue, "ideas are mechanical motions", not mechanical motions in a particular part of the brain.
I noticed that in your amended edit you removed the quote by Dennett on direct realism. The big debate about Cartesian materialism, involving Dennett, Gibson, Rockwell and many others, is whether "mind" contains the neural correlates of the objects of perception as a view/presentation or directly accesses the objects of perception. Dennett and many other philosophers who are direct realists believe that the view or presentation is the objects of perception themselves. If mind does not contain the 'view' but only contains the processes that operate on the view then Cartesian materialism would be incorrect from the outset. If mind is only processes and not presentation/view then the brain need not contain any presentation/view. This is why I drew attention to the conflict between Cartesian materialism and direct realism and included the quote from Dennett about direct realism. This quote was from Consciousness Explained which contains a lengthy attack on Cartesian materialism.
I have tried to introduce the debate rather than taking sides. Do you think it is worth mentioning the debate? loxley 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quote only because I thought you were objecting to it being at the top. By all means give details of the debate, so long as you say X says this and Y that, rather than taking sides yourself. I left a note on Alienus's talk page asking what he feels the problems are with your version, so hopefully he'll list them and perhaps then you can move toward a consensus version. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your input is very much appreciated. I will await Alienus' response. loxley 16:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Loxley's changes are completely unacceptable

On my Talk page, SlimVirgin asked:

Hi Alienus, can you say on the talk page what you feel is wrong exactly with the version currently on the page? This dispute's been going on for a while, so it would be good if you and Loxley could agree on a compromise.

0) Before I answer, I have to wonder why you're asking me to defend my version without asking the same of Loxley. I don't see why his should be the starting point, presenting at least the appearance of partisanship in this procedure, which I think we'd all like to avoid. Since it's my practice to act rather than complain, I've gone ahead and added a parallel request to Loxley's talk page, and would like very much for him to reply. In fact, I'd even like you to actively encourage him to do so.

1) Loxley's version removes the second sentence of the first paragraph, which explains up front just what the connection is between Cartesian dualism (CD) and Cartesian materialism (CM). Since the latter is defined in reference to the former, it's vital that we explain the relationship as clearly and early as possible. In fact, this issue was noticed by Gwimpey and addressed.

Loxley's version finally gets around to mentioning this vital detail a few paragraphs later, buried in a section on history. To be frank, the history section is something most people can be expected to skip over or at least skim past, since they would likely care more about what the term means than what Marx and Engels have to say about a list of French phiilosophers who pioneered it. It doesn't help that the M&E quote is a poor translation and rather dull.

I should mention that, in previous versions, I had more text about CD. As it happens, an explanation of CD makes clear the role of the pineal gland as the interface to the seat of consciousness, which supports Dennett's definition. More on this later.

2) For the second paragraph, Loxley removes the Dennett quote, incorrectly lumping Dennett in with Teed. With this deletion, the O'Brien and Opie (O&O) quote is is not balanced by anything. Instead, Dennett's ideas are summarized to oblivion, and you can't even tell that it's Dennett who argues for localization, much less what he actually means by it. That explanation is relegated to the criticism ghetto, where it's bracketed by POV OR. What makes this move particularly offensive is that the O&O definition is quoted from an essay written in direct response to Dennett, acknowledging his definition but offering an alternative that they then defend.

Please note that, unlike Loxley's version, the original was not biased for or against Dennett. It gave top billing to O&O's more general definition, only then mentioning Dennett's more specific one, and it gave both parties sound bites to define themselves with. It even had a Teed quote to show a third view. In short, it was in logical order and it was fair.

Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that Loxley's motivation for downplaying Dennett here is intentionally POV. I've got strong, independent evidence that Loxley is hostile to Dennett and seeks to minimize any positive mention of the man's ideas. In the real world, Dennett is highly influential and respected, though often controversial. In the world according to Loxley, Dennett is just a "flash in the pan" [2]. And in an effort to impose his worldview upon reality, Loxley has made a career here attacking [3] and censoring [4] Dennett. He's got a bias so big that it renders him incapable of the objectivity that this article requires. I don't see why we should let a sworn enemy of Dennett define the relevance of Dennett's contributions to the topic of CM.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm very familiar with Dennett's work, as well as the work of others in this field, and find myself agreeing with Dennett on the matter of Cartesian materialism, though not necessarily on all other issues. I recognize where I stand and have made a point of keeping my personal bias out of this. You'll note that I haven't made a career of vandalizing the pages of Dennett's opponents (and in fact, recently reverted vandalism against Ned Block). My hands are clean.

3) The two history sections are pretty much the same, so the only issue is placement. For the reasons mentioned above, I suggest that it remain at the end, where people can delve into it if curiosity strikes them, not up top where it would turn readers off before they get to the rest of the article. This is an example of why "poor organization" was a specific complaint against Loxley, not a personal attack.

4) We might as well discuss the historicity and validity of these definitions, since these disputed facts are relevant. Briefy, CM is Descartes' theory of the mind minus the original dualism of CD, and the key feature absent from the O&O definition of CM, but present in Dennett's, is the Cartesian theater. Descartes' original, dualistic theory arguably had the theater, though not by name; he identified the pineal gland for this role. Now, one of Dennett's contentions is that, although we got rid of the dualism, the theater remains implict (or even explicit) in modern CM theories. This is not some bizarre fringe view, and I've cited independent support for this contention in the Damasio quote, which was conveniently removed by Loxley.

One of Loxley's favorite claims is that we cannot allow a critic of CM to define CM. The fact is, the disagreement over the definition is independent of the criticism. For example, Teed is an opponent of CM, yet his definition is closer to O&O's than Dennett's, so Loxley never opposed it. In fact, Teed opposes both O&O's theory and Dennett's, so it's not even as if we have only two sides here.

5) As I think I've begun to make clear, there is a great deal of controversy, so we need to show all relevant sides in order to remain neutral. Loxley's alternative is to pretend that there is an uncontroversially accepted definition, then relegate anyone who disagrees to the fringes. By claiming that Dennett's definition is unacceptable merely because Dennett is not a supporter of CM, he's deliberately framing the article to be biased. His assertion is equivalent to saying that the Intelligent design article must omit all mention of the fact that ID is creationism because ID proponents won't admit to this fact. Dennett is arguing that, even if they say otherwise, anyone who supports CM is necessarily supporting a Cartesian theater. You can disagree with this contention if you like, but silencing it outright is POV.

Instead of creating that criticism ghetto, I have a section right after the introduction, entitled, "Controversies and criticisms". Here, we describe the controversy and let both O&O and Damasio weigh in on it, providing balance. Loxley's version, called "Discussion and Criticisms" is, to be frank, a cesspool of bias.

6) One of the intellectual limitations that I see in Loxley is that he likes to pigeonhole people inappropriately into categories, then reason on the basis of those categorical stereotypes instead of their actual stances. An example of this is the misleading characterization of Dennett as an eliminativist, which Lokley defines so as to entail ideas that Dennett violently rejects, such as epiphenomenalism. Likewise, Dennett's view are sufficiently different from the Churchlands' as to make it problematic to lump them all together in the same list. Yet another example of pigeonholing is Loxley's fixation on the question of whether or not Dennett is a direct realist; an irrelevant detail that does not belong here at all, much less with a huge quote.

Of course, the original research immediately following the Dennett quote is where Loxley really goes over the top, skewering Dennett as an evil Direct Materialist. Worse, here he takes sides explicitly by stating that Dennett invented his version of CM as a representationalist straw man. Besides the OR and POV, it's factually wrong on a number of points, reflecting Loxley's unfamiliary with and hostility towards Dennett's ideas. For example, Dennett is actually a sort of behaviorist, arguing against the notion of qualia, and not arguing against mental representation of sensory data. This entire paragraph needs to be removed and burned.

7) I added a link to the Message is: There is no Medium essay in the References, but Loxley keeps deleting it. Whether this is a mark of intentional POV censoring or simple incompetence, I don't know. Regardless, it's an example of Lokley's unwillingness to integrate my improvements, which stands in contrast to my willingness to integrate his.

Summary: As it happens, I've made all of the above objections over time, and Loxley has either failed to understand them or rejected them with contentious, endless and irrelevant debate. He seems to be more interested in skewering me than fixing the article, and when I've asked him questions, he's often been unable or unwilling to provide direct, non-evasive answers. Finally, I've requested that he contribute to the article instead of replacing it with an inferior, biased version. His response has been edit warring and whining to every single admin he can find, including you.

I won't pretend that I have any more respect for or patience with Lokley anymore. I've wasted more than enough time fixing the damage he's caused here and then defending my fixes, and there are much more interesting things that I'd rather be doing. I've contributed prolifically to a variety of other articles, dropping by here only when there was further vandalism to remove. And even though I tackle some pretty controversial subjects, Locki is the only person to have ever taken administrative action against me.

As I see it, Loxley is a bias warrior whose sole purpose here is to knock Dennett down a few pegs. He does this sort of thing all the time.[5] Loxley has found that he can't get his way through either consensus or edit warring, so he's engaged in an abuse of process to eliminate the opposition. In the end, he's hoping to once again fool an admin [6] into helping him. Alienus 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Alienus' points

0). Why would discussion of changes be based on my original edit, well, I did actually create this article, changing it from a redirect to "Cartesian theatre" that you created.

1) The relationship of Cartesian materialism to Cartesian dualism is mentioned in the history, it is a historical relationship. The placement of the history as the second item makes this clear and avoids us engaging in original research. If Alienus wishes we could insert the warning "not to be confused with Cartesian dualism" in the introduction. Remember, direct realism is Natural Dualism with the soul removed - should we go round all the references to direct realism or radical behaviourism and insert this point or would other editors of these articles think we had a POV agenda?

2) The issue of the location of conscious experience is dealt with swiftly in the introduction to the current version ("only a limited area of the brain is the conscious mind"). If you wish to discuss this at greater length I can see no reason why it should not be incorporated in the discussion, although I am sure you would mention that Dennett has considered CM occupying the whole brain and considers that it would also be contradicted by his Multiple drafts and other arguments about timing.

3) See (1).

4) The Cartesian theatre is a very specific definition of a presentation or view in the brain. Other definitions and ideas are possible. As you say, this is Dennett's idea, not a consensus opinion, and should be placed in the discussion.

5) The current introduction is very short (5 lines) and gets across the key features of the concept:

"somewhere in the brain, there is a preferred set of data that corresponds to our view of the world."

and

"Cartesian materialism can apply to the idea that only a limited area of the brain is the conscious mind or to the general idea that the mind is "realized in the physical materials of the brain"

This short introduction is very appropriate if, as Alienus maintains, the subject is controversial. The controversy should be covered in the discussion. Incidently, both these assertions are consistent with Dennett's idea of CM, what we should not do is go further and use Dennett's detailed argument as a definition. His detailed argument is not consistent with other definitions of CM.

6.) Please reference where I say "evil Direct Materialist" or "straw man" in the article. I introduced Dennett's eloquent description of Direct Realism because it crystallises why Direct Realists are against Cartesian Materialism - Direct Realism denies that the presentation or view is in the mind, let alone the brain. At a stroke it should allow students to get a grip on the debate. It is a very clear description of Dennett's direct realism, I dont know how I missed it in the past.

7.) Your reference has probably been lost in the reversion "war", it was not deliberate on my part.

Please stop calling me names. Stop trying to smear my reputation, the Space-time theories of consciousness discussion is a civilised debate about a user moving a page without warning see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypotheses_of_consciousness_and_spacetime. loxley 10:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The principle difference between your version and mine is that in my version there is a simple, general introduction describing the topic in terms that are used by almost all the authors involved, including O'Brien and Opie, La Mettrie, Engels and Marx, Dennett, Damasio, Rockwell etc. Then the history, such as we have, is discussed to provide some link to "Cartesian" then the criticisms are discussed. In your version Dennett's critical definition is introduced in the introduction and you have ditched Dennett's wonderful description of direct realism with its references to representationalism and mind without "plenum" (spatial content). You have also placed the history at the end using the reference that I introduced. The principle difference between our two approaches is the inclusion of Dennett's definition in the introduction. As you know, I think this would be a POV and it does no harm to have the definition in "criticisms", which after all, is where it arose in Dennett's work. Your omission of Dennett's description of direct realism also deprives the reader of an insight into why people attack Cartesian materialism. loxley 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: please direct your discussion here rather than to my Talk page. loxley 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section

Lets tackle this first. It is my belief that, by putting the history section as the second element (straight after the intro) we can quickly get the origin of "Cartesian" in Cartesian materialism out of the way without inuendos and original research about CM being "dualism" of some sort. loxley 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see below that you are still teasing rather than considering the issues. Would you be prepared to see the history section remain as the second element? Is there a compelling reason why this should not be the case other than reducing the profile of the discussion section? loxley 09:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Alienus' changes are completely unacceptable

On Loxley's talk page, Alienus asked:

Hi Loxley, can you say on the talk page what you feel is wrong exactly with the version supported by me? This dispute's been going on for a while, so it would be good if you and I could agree on a compromise.

(Loxley's response goes here. Alienus 02:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Move of Dennett's definition to Discussion section

Dennett's definition is part of an elaborate argument and attack on CM. It should be covered in context. loxley 09:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your conspiracy theory because Dennett's definition is very compatible with historical usage. CM was defined in contrast to CD, and the latter clearly contained a localized seat of consciousness. This seat was the soul, as interfaced through the pineal gland. Removing the dualism still leaves us with a seat, though the pineal has been abandoned in favor of the frontal lobes. Now, whether it is possible to support Cartesian intuitions about "entering into consciousness" without such a seat is a disputed issue that should be noted as such, not dismissed.
Furthermore, as I pointed out but you did not address, there is independent confirmation that the view of CM that Dennett defines is not unique to him, but is instead ubiquitous. In other words, it is dishonest to characterize the definition he offers as his personal, straw man version.
I've been doing some research on priority. It turns out that this article started when I noticed a red link to it and tried to create a redirect to an article that mentioned the topic. This deeply offended you, since that article centered on Dennett and there's more to CM than Dennett's views. That's true enough, but you unfortunately created a short, highly POV stub, and I've been fixing it ever since. So, as I see it, your text is a change to my original redirect and you need to justify these changes from my original.
Interestingly, it looks like you also expanded the stub for the related multiple drafts model article, first redirecting to the now-merged multiple drafts theory, then moving in some text that was not only highly POV (as usual) but an early indicator of your hostility towards and confusion about Dennett's ideas. You actually claimed that multiple drafts was dualistic, which is so off the mark as to be inexplicable. It's about as sensible as saying Chalmers is an eliminativist with regard to qualia.
Speaking of which, eliminativist is not a term that can stand alone. Like realist or nominalist, it is a modifer. It's quite possible to be a realist about one thing and an eliminativist about another, which is part of the problem with tossign Dennett and Churchland into the same pigeonhole. Alienus 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two arbitrators and User:Slimvirgin have agreed that the Dennett definition of Cartesian materialism should be moved from the introduction and might even represent a POV if it is not moved. My argument for doing this is straightforward, the 5 line definition in the introduction that I have suggested is acceptable according to all of the authors who have described CM. Dennett's definition is an interesting twist that should be placed later in the article. I am reverting the article to the compromise form. As a minority of one do you really feel that you should change it back again? Are you really making the article clearer? loxley 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Redirects are used when an editor thinks two topics are the same thing - like Multiple drafts theory and Multiple drafts model. Cartesian materialism is not the same as Cartesian theatre your redirect in this case was a POV. loxley 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about eliminativism, it is essential that Dennett's quote on Direct Realism is included. This shows that he is a particular sort of realist and explains why he is ardently against CM. I am happy for you to restore his quote on Direct Realism. loxley 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed my point about localization being a feature of the dualistic Cartesian theory inherited by the materialistic version. Nor have you addressed (except by deletion!) the third-party support for this usage. Moreover, the various admins have said (and I agree) that no enemy of a stance should be allowed to define the term as a straw man. However, this isn't a straw man at all. Dennett, as an expert on the history of philosophy, is pointing out that Cartesian materialism, in rejecting dualism, does not inherently reject localization. The controversial portion isn't the definition, but the claim that people who think they're endorsing non-localized Cartesian materialism are nonetheless acting as if it's localized.
Arguably, people can choose to explicitly exclude the localization and still refer to what results as Cartesian materialism, and they are free to do so. But their freedom to further move the definition away from its roots makes their definition less historically legitimate, not more. In other words, by removing the localization inherent in Cartesianism, the O&O definition is expressing POV and potentially strawmanning Dennett's historically accurate version. For this reason, I gave both equal weight in my text, actually putting O&O's in first because it's more general and perhaps more popularly accepted.
Unless you can address all of the above, and then answer the question of why we ought to change from the version that I'll be restoring in just a moment, there is no reason for your changes to be accepted. They're POV-pushing, not a compromise at all. Alienus 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point about localisation was included in both the introduction and the discussion. My change was about Dennett's definition which is not purely about localisation, it is about timing and localisation. It is a definition that is very particular to Dennett. Your concentration on the localisation issue seems strange because we have both read that Dennett's critique does not depend on the idea of localisation. Having addressed all the above as requested I am reverting the text. Dennett's definition explicitly says: "the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience", this is about timing, not localisation. If you can show that Dennett's "where and when of consciousness" is a widely accepted idea, current before Dennett suggested it, I will be happy to agree with your version. loxley 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I spoke of localization, that was polite short-hand for the notion that there is a seat of consciousness that can be isolated from the totality of the brain, such that it becomes possible to speak unambiguously of "entering consciousness". In other words, localization refers to what Dennett insultingly calls the Cartesian theater.
Descartes' dualistic theory had an explicit Cartesian theater in the pineal gland, with the ghostly homunculus watching all the sensory data "entering". If all we do is replace the dualism with materialism, we banish the ghost but incarnate it as a neurological homunculus. The theater likewise survives, but is relocated out of the pineal gland and moved to an unspecified location in the brain, presumably in the frontal cortex.
So long as there is a place that must be reached in order to attain consciousness, then it becomes meaningful to ask if we're there yet. In this way, the non-instantaneity of signal propagation entails that, if there is a place, there is necessarily a time. Therefore, if it's about localization, it must also be about timing. As Dennett pointed out, any attempt to expand the seat of consciousness so that it fills the entire brain avoids localization at the fatal cost of losing the ability to speak of sensory data that has enters the brain but never becomes conscious.
If the theater were truly banished then there would be no specific place that sensory data would have to arrive at to qualify as conscious, hence the question of whether it has at a particular moment becomes moot. In fact, under multiple drafts, consciousness is akin to fame; defined solely in terms of its influence as opposed to time or location, thus removing any trace of the theater.
Rather than being a straw man, Dennett's more specific (localized/theatrical) definition of Cartesian materialism is more faithful to its dualistic parent than O&O's curiously generalized rendering. Of course, it's possible that some models with origins in Cartesian dualism have escaped the shadow of the theater, and it is (arguably) accurate to refer to them as being a type of Cartesian materialism. It even seems that people like O&O think they've done precisely this.
If they have, then we would expect that thesr theater-free Cartesian materialists would no longer use the language of the theater, avoiding any reference to such thing as the moment something enters consciousness. Whether they've succeeded is the key issue, and the Damasio citation serves to establish that, rather than being obsolete, theatrical language is endemic to the field, revealing that Cartesian materialism as it exists today still has the remnants of the theater.
Arguably, this citation would suffice to justify putting Dennett's as the primary definition, but I'm not even asking for that much. Rather, I'm content with giving the more accepted, more general definition first, while leaving Dennett's adjacent but second. Likewise, I would not list Dennett ahead of Churchland, because the latter is a much better example of eliminativism. If anything, I'd water it down further to make clear that Dennett wants to eliminate only qualia and the theater, which is much less aggressive than Churchland's program.
In short, I have more than justified leaving things as is. If you disagree, let's see if SlimVirgin can round up a few people who are familiar with the issue but are more distant and objective than we are, so as to form a consensus. In the meantime, as I have rebutted your arguments and there is no consensus against my view, I am once again reverting. Alienus 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that including a mention of localisation in the introduction is wrong, it is that covering Dennett's definition as a consensus definition in the introduction is wrong, a POV. The introduction should cover the fact that there are different views on location and does so, it might even mention that there are different views on timing but the detailed definition offered by Dennett, and other detailed discussion must go in the discussion. If we cover all the views of the various authors in depth in the intro there will not be a POV but then this would violate Wikipedia structure. Surely you can see this? All the other people who have talked about this issue could see the problem. loxley 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(indent reset)

When I spoke of localization, that was polite short-hand for the notion that there is a seat of consciousness that can be isolated from the totality of the brain, such that it becomes possible to speak unambiguously of "entering consciousness". In other words, localization refers to what Dennett insultingly calls the Cartesian theater.

Descartes' dualistic theory had an explicit Cartesian theater in the pineal gland, with the ghostly homunculus watching all the sensory data "entering". If all we do is replace the dualism with materialism, we banish the ghost but incarnate it as a neurological homunculus. The theater likewise survives, but is relocated out of the pineal gland and moved to an unspecified location in the brain, presumably in the frontal cortex.

So long as there is a place that must be reached in order to attain consciousness, it remains meaningful to ask if we're there yet. Therefore, the non-instantaneity of signal propagation entails that, if there is a place, there is necessarily a time. In other words, if it's about localization, it must also be about timing. Also, as Dennett pointed out, any attempt to expand the seat of consciousness so that it fills the entire brain avoids localization at the fatal cost of losing the ability to speak of sensory data that has entered the brain but never becomes conscious.

Were the theater truly banished, there would be no specific place that sensory data would have to arrive at to qualify as conscious, hence the question of whether it has at a particular moment becomes moot. In fact, under multiple drafts, consciousness is akin to fame; defined solely in terms of its influence as opposed to time or location, thus removing any trace of the theater.

Rather than being a straw man, Dennett's more specific (localized/theatrical) definition of Cartesian materialism is more faithful to its dualistic parent than O&O's curiously generalized rendering. Of course, it's possible that some models with origins in Cartesian dualism have escaped the shadow of the theater, and it is (arguably) accurate to refer to them as being a type of Cartesian materialism. It even seems that people like O&O think they've done precisely this.

If they have, then we would expect that these theater-free Cartesian materialists would no longer use the language of the theater, avoiding any reference to such things as the moment something enters consciousness. Whether they've succeeded is the key issue, and the Damasio citation serves to establish that, rather than being obsolete, theatrical language is endemic to the field, revealing that Cartesian materialism as it exists today still has the remnants of the theater.

Arguably, this citation would suffice to justify putting Dennett's as the primary definition, but I'm not even asking for that much. Rather, I'm content with giving the more accepted, more general definition first, while leaving Dennett's adjacent but second. Likewise, I would not list Dennett ahead of Churchland, because the latter is a much better example of eliminativism. If anything, I'd water it down further to make clear that Dennett wants to eliminate only qualia and the theater, which is much less aggressive than Churchland's program.

In short, I have more than justified leaving things as is. If you disagree, let's see if SlimVirgin can round up a few people who are familiar with the issue but are more distant and objective than we are, so as to form a consensus. In the meantime, as I have rebutted your arguments and there is no consensus against my view, I am once again reverting. Alienus 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is highly debatable. However, I am not debating that issue. I am debating the issue of whether Dennett's ideas should be singled out for inclusion in the introduction as if they are part of a consensus approach. We know from the literature that Dennett's ideas are not widely accepted (however obvious they may appear to you). Your motivation for putting his definition in the introduction seems to be that you feel Dennett's ideas are correct. This is an encyclopedia article, we record the debate, not our opinion of its outcome. loxley 09:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, I would remind you that the Damasio citation is one from a set of comments following one of Dennett's papers. Most comments about Dennett's ideas are negative. loxley 09:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you're framing this is the most biased way possible, by pretending that there is some broad consensus and Dennett is an irrelevant lunatic on the fringe. What nonsense! Instead of asking why Dennett should be singled out for inclusion, we should be discussing why you wish to single him out for exclusion.
But we know why, don't we? It's not because his views are controversial; find me someone important in this field whose views aren't. And it's not because they're considered worthless; Dennett's ideas are respected enough by academia to earn them a place in the curriculum of even introductory philosophy of the mind classes. It's not even a matter of wide acceptance, because more widely accepted than the views you are eager to showcase.
What it all boils down to is that you personally do not agree with Dennett. To this, I say: So what? Why should we care? The only problem here is that you don't like Dennett. This is only a problem for you, and of no interest to this article. Get over it. Your opinion on this matter holds no weight because you are visibly biased and ignorant. This isn't a personal attack, it's a matter of fact, as I can demonstrate that you have spoken dismissively of Dennett and have made wild errors in characterizing his stance.
For this reason, I am reverting and will continue to do so unless something changes. I don't actually expect you to change, though, because that would require the intellectual honesty to recognize and overcome your own limitations. Instead, if anything happens, it'll be due to a consensus among editors. Alienus 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the general introduction should contain a definition that is not contentious to any of the parties and the discussion should contain points that require discussion. You agree above that Dennett's specific definition is contentious and there are other contentious ideas of CM. There is common ground however and this is used in the definition in the intro that I favour. Your inclusion of Dennett's definition as if it is widely accepted in the intro is a POV. Everyone who has reviewed this page has agreed with this except you. Why do you keep reverting?
Your argument above admits that Dennett's views are part of various contentious ideas about the detailed nature of CM: "It's not because his views are controversial; find me someone important in this field whose views aren't". These contentious views should go in the discussion. My point is entirely that controversy should go in the section that you labelled "controversy". loxley 19:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The O&O definition was written by them specifically in response to Dennett, so of course it's contentious. The problem is that it favors your side, so you don't mind. You are deeply biased, as are your changes. As usual, I am forced to revert them. Alienus 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no side. The version of the introduction that I favour is NPOV. Where is the point of view or bias in the short intro? Before you just revert, please read the article. It is your version with a minor change, it has a short, completely uncontroversial intro that all parties would accept (inc. Dennett) with more controversial ideas put in the discussion. It is what would be expected in Wikipedia. loxley 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you are extremely biased against Dennett, so you most certainly have a side. And, as I pointed out and you failed to address, to endorse either definition is to show bias. The reverse I'll be reverting to in just a moment avoids this bias. Yours does not, so it has to go. Alienus 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your conclusions about me, if you look at the article it is not biassed. loxley 17:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to personalize this. The problem isn't merely that you're biased, but that those biases are expressed in the article. Your entire rationale is based on the biased conclusion that Dennett's view is worthy of marginalization. Revert again. Alienus 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias in the article, it has a short, generalised introduction and then discusses the controversies. Dennett's view is not marginalised any more than other philosophers. Come on, its time to compromise. loxley 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the compromise. It's time for you to accept that any attempt to express POV by marginalizing Dennett is unacceptable. 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no marginalisation of Dennett here, the intro is entirely neutral and the controversies deal with controversies. Please stop this POV editing. loxley 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's NPOV now, no thanks to you. Leave it alone, as all your changes do is marginaize Dennett. Alienus 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-Loxley era

At this point, I've more than adequately explained why Loxley's changes are unacceptable, and I'm not ever going to repeat myself again. I consider the issue closed.

Instead, I've made a conscious effort to move away from the pointlessly adversarial nature of his edit war and concentrated on the factual deficiencies in this article. We've had way too many revisions that do nothing more than reverse Loxley's tampering. Now I've gone through some of the referenced articles and what they link to, using the information to improve the article.

It turns out that the biggest problem with Loxley wasn't his bias, but his lack of comprehension. For example, I can now say that even O&O don't deny Dennett's definition; they just disagree with whether Dennett has successfully argued against that conception of CM, which they embrace and defend. This is what I get for taking Loxley's claims at face value! Alienus 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only claim I have made is that O&O have used a general definition of CM, one that Dennett accepts (he is willing to argue against a CM that occupies the whole brain on the same grounds as a localised version). Controversies go in the controversies section. loxley 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple, provided you do not put Dennett's definition in the intro as if it is a consensus definition I am happy. Every philosopher who has studied Dennett knows that he uses specialised definitions to bolster his arguments. It would be stupid for Wikipedia to enshrine one of his definitions as if it were a consensus definition. SlimVirgin made this very point above. I do not know why you are so anxious to get Dennett's def in the intro, its extraordinary. My motivation is clear, it does no harm to put it with everyone else's ideas and this avoids any charge of enshrining a "straw man". loxley 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to jump in to offer my two cents; Loxley's latest edit (here) seems quite neutral. I can see how it could be taken as POV because it "gangs up" on Dennett by citing two opposing sources, but equal time is certainly given to Dennett's theories. There's a redundant passage at the end of that section, though, that repeats the same info from the first O'Brien and Opie reference. I'm going to take that out. Hopefully you can both agree on this now. Kafziel 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fray, Kafziel. Nice to see more people involved. So far, all third parties have quickly fled, so I ask that you try to be patient with Lokley and me.
As per my post-Lokley policy, I've integrated more material into the article, fleshing it out while further avoiding POV. Please let me know what you think of it. Alienus 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit seemed good. I don't think removing the "redundant" reference to Dennett was correct, though, at least not the way it was done. Now I don't see any internal links to Dennett anywhere in the article. Which is probably fine with one of the participants here, but...  ;) Kafziel 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I live only to please Loxley, I've restored the wikilink to Dennett. I'm still not quite happy with how stuff is broken up into paragraphs. Some seem short, others long. There's a logic to it, but it still doesn't look pretty. I've also thought about breaking up the second section into two pieces. The first would cover the controversy over the meaning of the term; specifically whether it is necessarily centralized. The second would focus on support and criticism for the various versions of the idea. think that might work? Alienus 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I removed a link to Dennett, this was a mistake due to an apparent "edit war" in which reversion was taking the place of contribution. The more links the merrier in this hypertext encyclopedia. loxley 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennett's explanation of direct realism

Dennett's description of direct realism is eloquent and explains why all these diverse philosophical movements reject CM at a stroke. Any naive reader will understand the philosophical position if they read this. I also rearranged the sections in the controversies section - they had become disconnected during the previous edits. loxley 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think Direct Realism is highly relevant, but you're simply mistaken. There is a variety of reasons why CM is rejected, and DR is, at best, a minor one. Moreover, your attempt to pigeonhole Dennett into the DR came is rather inaccurate, so making him the spokesman for the view is an error. Alienus 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A New Approach

Intro

Dear Alienus, Loxley, and others,

Help is here (I hope!). I came across this whole bruhahha a few days ago. So.. I've spent the last few hours here trying REALLY hard to make something everyone will be happy with. Or, rather, something that will start everyone on a path towards something that will make people happy. There are glaring holes-- I think of it more as a sort of framework or template that has a lot that needs to be filled in. I tried really really really hard to make it as fair and neutral and 'in the middle' as I could. I really, really hope I didn't upset anyone. Please, whatever you do, don't be mad at me. Don't say anything nasty about me, don't revert the whole thing, just add to it until you think it reflects your viewspoint too!

Discussion

So, first off, I have to say, I totally understand why this has been a big problem to get settled, because there are a lot of confusing things about it. I know ya'll know these, but I just want to list them for anyone passing by, so they can see how many crazy things are involved in this subject. For example:

  • People used "Cartesian materialism" as far back as at least 1845!
  • But! Everyone thinks Dennett coined it. Which he 'sorta' did. I mean, he took a word no one knew about that had a vague meaning and massively popularized it, after giving it a brand new very specific meaning that was totally different than . Now whenever absolutely anyone hears "Cartesian materialism", it means "There is a Cartesian Theater", because the Dennett book was so hugely influencial.
  • But! in addition to giving it a new meaning, Dennett gave it a very specific philosophical defintion: the whole thing with the "crucial finishing line or boundary" and "specific place".
  • Other people agree with Dennett's basic meaning (O'Brien and Opie), but dispute his precise definition.
  • Still other people use the word with a totally new meaning, where mind can extend over the whole universe! (Rockwell)

It gets weirder:

  • Dennett, who essential coined the modern usage, doesn't BELIEVE in Cartesian materialism.
  • Aside from O'Brien and Opie, it's not clear if ANYONE believes in Cartesian materialism. Many people say "No we don't", but Dennett and Damazio say "Yes you do-- you just won't admit it!"

Again, forgive me if some of the details above are off a little-- that just show how much legitmate material there is to be confused about.

The Problem

So, mulling over this, it seems like your biggest problem is "What is Cartesian materialism":

On principle, I agree with Loxley: in 99% of the time, you SHOULD use the meaning of the proponents of an idea, not the opponents of the idea. Don't let the opponents make up the meaning of a philosophy if they themselves don't believe it! Find people who do believe in it, introduce their definition first, and then include the rebuttle definition later.

But in this case, I agree that won't work. The reason is that Dennett is so huge and popular, and he basically coined the term Cartesian materialism. If you walk up to your average John Q. Philosopher and ask him what Cartesian materialism means, he'll almost certainly give you Dennet's basic meaning. CM has had different related meanings before AND after Dennett, but Dennet's is still the hugely popular one. (Not that everyone AGREES with Dennett's philosophy, but they have come to use his version of the word). For better or for worse, Dennett's has become the de facto meaning.

But on the other hand, just because we're stuck with Dennett's basic meaning, that doesn't mean we have to use his word-for-word definition as THE definition. We just introduce the basic meaning, originally coined by him, but refer to his word-for-word defintion not as THE defintion, but rather as Dennett's definition.

Solution: Generally, use Dennett's meaning through the article since that's the really popular one everyone knows about, but be sure to mention the other uses. But-- in exchange for generally using his meaning, you have to introduce all the arguments that claim Dennett constructed a straw man.

So I say we have the article say this:

  • CM generally means believing in a central locus. Usually when you hear the term, that's what the speaker meant by it.
  • Dennett explicitly defines it one way. Most other people who use the term use it to mean roughly, more or less, the same thing as Dennett, but they sometimes define it a little differently
  • But a few people mean something completely different when they say CM.
  • We definitely mention that lots of people feel Dennett's definiton is a straw man.


Alec's Template for an article with controversy (stolen from numerous articles)

  1. . What it is: simple version
  2. . What it is: expanded version.
  3. . There is controversy.
  4. . Side one
  5. . Side two
  6. . References and such

Template applied to THIS article

  1. . Introduction-- What Cartesian materialism means
  2. . History of the term and its relation to Cartesian Dualism
  3. . There is Controversy
  4. . Evidence & Arguments FOR Cartesian materialism
  5. . Evidence & Arguments AGAINST Cartesian materialism


Elaboration and Rationale:

1. First, tell what Cartesian materialism is. What is Cartesian materialism, in as plain and simple english as we can get. A quick and dirty "gist" of it. Don't try to define it yet: good definitions that fairly set the boundaries of EXACTLY what something is and what something is not are very hard to do. As Supreme Court Justice Stephens once said when the Supreme Court struggled to define pornography: "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it" In this case, philosophers themselves can't all agree on a definition. Dennett has one, but many people disagree with parts of his definition. So, don't try to "define EXACTLY TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW what is is", just start off by basically explaining it, to someone who has never ever once before heard the term before. Leave the definition debate for lower down in the article.

2. Now that we've explaing the very simplified 'gist' of it for the cursory reader, we can go in-depth and explain it really well for the heavy-duty reader. It seems to me the easiest way to really explain Cartesian materialism is to give a real quick run-down of what Cartesian Dualism is, and then explain that Cartesian materialism rejects the 'dualism' while keeping the Cartesian Theater. It's kinda long, but that's how Dennett explains it in the book, and it seems like a smart way to do things.

3. Is there a controvery? Introduce it in this section-- just say what the question is, and who is on what side.

4. Put in all the arguments against Cartesian materialism. (I put this side first, since it seems to be by far the most popular position held). Normally I put FOR first, but since most of the FORS seem to be writing in reply to Dennett, I'll put him and the Dualists first.

5. Put in all the arguments FOR Cartesian materialism.

6. References. I need to document a lot more, but.. I got sleepy.

Some apologies

  • I didn't document sources very well. It's sometimes hard for me to find exactly where and in which book I learned something. If these contributions survive edits, i'll try to fix this.
  • I did the whole write-up without mentioning the word Cartesian Theater. Normally, I would have included it, but since there's a dispute over at Cartesian theater, I thought I should make this article stand alone, and later we can introduce that term. But there were too many definitions flying around for me to try to include Cartesian Theater too, and have to decide how to define THAT.
  • Lots of little proofreading and typeface issues. Capitalization may not be standardized. Probably tons of spelling errors.
  • Some sections are completely blank still. Ideally someone will add to these sections, or else I'll try to do it. If no one does long enough, I guess the headings should be removed, but I left them in as pointers to where the article probably could use more work.
  • The arguments section are barebones. Ideally, Dennett's arguement will wind up in here, the Dualism folks will get a nod in AGAINST, and O&O's argument will get added to the FOR section.

Some Advice

  • Make Cartesian Materialism the main article which has all the arguments for and against. Use Cartesian Theater as a simple stub that quickly forwards people to CM-- I think that'll make life easier.
  • Don't revert back and forth-- just add your own viewpoints to separate sections. It's bettter to have a schiziophrenic article that was written by two side than to have one stub of an article because people revert warred. Leave the other guy's stuff up and just add your own.  :)
  • Stop being mean. Right now. Just make up your mind no matter what anyone says, you won't be mean, and then it'll stop. Don't use any words of any kind that could be hurtful. Aside from you two, me, and the four philosophers quoted in the article, probably nobody in the world cares this passionately about the subject. If we knew each other in person, we'd all be friends that would stay up late at night talking till the wee hours having a blast. So there ! :)


So, I really really tried hard to make something nice for ya'll and everyone. I hope it helps out a lot. I'm sure there's tons of things you each won't like about, it, but it's a start. Please give it a chance. -Alecmconroy 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes' dualism

As important as some understanding of Cartesian dualism is in order to grasp Cartesian materialism, this section seems a little large. How about cutting it down to a line or two, letting people follow the link if they want to know more?

I'm also wondering if we can work to remove some redundancy and repetition. For example, Dennett is mentioned all over the place, and it would make more sense if it were more confined to a dedicated section. I also commented out the empty heading for dualistic arguments against Cartesian materialism, because I don't know if there's really a lot of dualism out there to cite. Sure, traditional religions embrace it, but that's hardly philosophy. Want to trot out someone like Plantinga? Alienus 21:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments, I'd like to follow up on one issue. Dennett's overall definition is very much in line with the historical one, in that it specifies Cartesian dualism with the dualism changed to materialism. This isn't controversial. What's controversial is his argument that one of the remnants of the original theory is a centralized area where things "enter" into consciousness. Some people insist that they can endorse CM without such centralism, but Dennett insists that they're just waving their hands at it instead of really digging deep into what their beliefs entail. More controversial is this allegation that implicit belief in this is almost universal, although there's support for this from scientists such as Damasio.

I think we need to separate the controversies from the non-controversies. Alienus 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alright! now we're getting somewhere. Some of the initial edits you made just now are yummy. My favorite part of Wikipedia is watching people take my writing and editing it, making it there own, and making it a million times better.

Umm. Responding to your comments: Yeah, I agree that CM=CD - D isn't at all controversial. I noticed you removed one of my "According to Dennett:"'s in front of that non-controversial definition. Good job-- yeah, I didn't mean to imply that part was only Dennett's opinion. I guess I just get into the habit if writing "Dennett says", since that can help make things NPOV, and sometimes I go overboard. Loxley hopefully can help out with that part a lot and get rid of unneccessary "Dennett saids". If everyone agrees that it's a fact not just Dennett's opinion, then we can rip out the "dennett said" and just state it as a fact. And I think the one you did it on is a great example-- i think everyone agreess the CM is the CD without the D.

Yeah, I was worried about the length of the length of the history section too. I wanted to include it to show where Dennett got the whole "central locus" thing from. If we cut it too short, it winds up sound like "Cartesian Materialism generally means believing in a central locus because.. because... because Dennett says that's what it means". Going overboard on Descartes at least solves the problem of "What did the central locus crap come from?". But, I'm definitely worried about losing people mid-history. I think my lovely binocular movie thing, which I am so proud of, will probably have to go. It's one of my favorite demonstrations of how commonplace our intuitions about consciousness are. But ultimately, it's probably just wordy and redundant in this setting. I'm not positive the pineal gland has to be mentioned by name either.

Also-- yeah, good job commenting out the empty dualism section. I meant to add stuff to it, but didn't get around to it, and we certainly don't need empty sections. About the Dualism though-- don't count us dualists out yet. :). We're making a come-back. David Chalmers and others are getting pretty popular. Head over to Dualism (philosophy of mind) and you'll see that there's a lot of Arguments For. Now-- that doesn't prove anything other than that Dualists like to write on the Dualism article-- but we're not dead yet! we're getting better.. Think we'll go for a walk. hehehe In a similar vein, I'd dispute the it's the "consensus of scientists and philosophers" that dualism is dead-- but it's definitely the consensus of scientists, and the opinion of more than half the philosophers, so I think for simplicity I can handle calling that a consensus. I used to be a neuroscientist, and boy... those fellas are sure not into dualism! hehe

Can we think of a better way to say "privileged neural media". is "special brain areas" too dumbed down? I worry that the average reader will look at "privileged neural media" and say "huh?". I spent a lot of time wrestling with that, because ever single time I said "place", I wanted to say "or privileged neural media"(that concept anyway), but couldn't think of a succinct yet understandable way to say it. One concern I had with my version was that I used "place" and "location" to sound exactly like some specific undiscovered spot in the brain-- and nobody believes in that anymore, so the more I implied that CM thinks theres some specific position, the more i was adding insult to injury with regard to making it seem like a straw man. But on the other hand, "place" is so much easier to understand, even if it is innaccurate.

-Alecmconroy 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "privileged neural media" is a quote from Dennett, so it should probably be used at least once. What it boils down to, though, is a Cartesian theater. Still, you're right that it's rather technical and not especially clear outside of context, so it may be good to explain the idea after using its name. The key point is that the seat consciousness doesn't have to be a single area, just so long as there's some clear distinction between conscious and nonconscious areas. In contrast, Dennett argues that consciousness is akin to fame, so any part can participate and no clear lines can be drawn in advance.
At one point, I also added a summary of dualism, albeit a somewhat shorter one. Loxley was deeply offended by it and kept removing it, so I trimmed it down (in a pointless attempt at compromise). Perhaps I could try to rework what you have, shortening it and making some mention of the homunculus that's in the theater. I may give it a few days, though, to let others hack at it. The more the merrier, so long as they're not all like Loxley.
As for your dualism, you have my condolences. I hope your illness improves and you return to physicalism. :-) You're right in saying that zombiists and mysterians and such are effectively arguing for dualism even if they don't admit it. It's a powerful though misleading intuition, so it's easy to fall for. As a result, people do, over and over again. Alienus 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'd like to use his definition for "privileged neural media". Do you have any guess where he uses that phrase or defines it. I've been going through Consciousnes Explained, but haven't hit on it yet. Alecmconroy 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Realism

We owe it to the reader to explain that philosophers like Dennett do not believe that there is no conscious experience. They shift it into the world rather than the brain. We should contrast Cartesian materialism with direct realism - it is usual to explain philosophical ideas by contrasting them with their alternative (for instance, the article contrasts CM with Cartesian dualism). It also explains why a philosopher could be happy with a hypothesis that removes conscious experience from the brain. loxley 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the small problem of this not being factual. Alienus 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation that I included speaks for itself. Why do you feel that it is not factual? It is fully sourced and carries only the minimum of subsidiary comment. Dennett says: "When we marvel, in those moments of heightened self-consciousness, at the glorious richness of our conscious experience, the richness we marvel at is actually the richness of the world outside, in all its ravishing detail". If that is not a straightforward description of a direct realist position what is? loxley 18:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The relevance of the quote depends on the interpretation, which is not factual. As we've established, your hostility towards Dennett prevents you from understanding his stance, which leads to errors like this one. It's been removed, and the text you deleted has been restored. Don't tamper thoughtlessly. Alienus 19:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the quote is relevant. Explain yourself, dont just revert. loxley 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste another moment explaining while you're wrong, until you cut out the edit warring. Unless you can be civil, conversation is a sham. 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend that Loxley is reasonable, intelligent or open-minded. However, there are other people editing this article these days, so for their benefit, I offer the following link, which demonstrates that pigeon-holing Dennett as a Direct Realist is factually inaccurate. http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/maydede/pain.pdf

I consider this issue closed until such a time as someone can refute this citation. Alienus 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this matter closed until you understand that the quote I offered is direct from Consciousness Explained. The quote is about visual perception and stands on its own. The reference you gave is well known, Dennett is probaly not a direct realist when it comes to pain, he considers that subjects just react to, and report upon pain. Stop reverting my edits and discuss things up front. I have gone along with you, go along with me a little way. loxley 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've spent some time trying to ascertain other issues regarding Direct Realism. I think it's clear that CM is a form of indirect realism, and Dennett definitely disagrees with CM. I read his description of what he himself believes in (Consciousness Explained p459-61) and I personally couldn't figure out one way or the other WHAT in the world he actually actually believes. It seems like he certainly isn't inclined to dismiss qualia altogether (re: "greedy reductionism"), but it's not clear he believes in them either. I snagged the words "teleofunctionalist" and "verficationalist" as ones he'll self-identify with, but i don't know precisely what to make of them.

On the other hand, I looked at Alienus's link and I missed how that disqualifies Dennett as a DR. I think the relevant quote involved the fact that Dennett, unlike most late direct realists, accepts cognitivism? But the paragraph does mention that EARLY DRists favored Cognitivism, so.. I don't know what to make of it.

In any case, my opinions on the Direct Realism issue:

  • What Dennett ultimately believes is probably a subject for the Daniel Dennett page. I think for this page, it's probably sufficient to state that Dennett is a strong opponent of CM.
  • However, CM is definitely Indirect Realism, so we could certainly add a discussion Indirect Realism to the history section if ya'll think it'd help people understand CM.
  • We could also add a "Argument Against -- From Direct Realism" to introduce people to the idea of DR. Or we could make a section that's somehow "Other Philosophies" and have a

link to all the random "other" philosophies you can have aside from CM.

Unfortunately, that still leaves us with the issue of what in the world Dennett actualy does believe, and whether or not that's DR. So.. I just emailed him and asked him point blank. If he responds, I'll post the reply here. -Alecmconroy 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The problem with pigeonholing Dennett is that he's thought through a lot of these issues to the point where a single label kind of misses the point. For example, he's an eliminativist about some things, including versions of pain and qualia. However, calling him an eliminativist immediately groups him with epiphenomenalists and such, and ignores the fact that he's only eliminating some versions, and not others. He denies the folk concept of pain, but doesn't deny pain. Likewise, he denies the notion of qualia as existing independent of behavior, but I haven't seen him make a commitment to DR. In short, the problem isn't so much that Dennett doesn't support DR, but that Loxley is incredibly quick to stick Dennett in an ill-fitting box, then generalize from it as if it had been a perfect fit.

Dennett does respond to email, and fairly promptly at that, but I've made a decision not to bug him about articles that involve him. I only bug him about other stuff. Alienus 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennett is usually very guarded about DR but in consciousness explained he has let the veil slip. In several places he is challenged about DR and does admit that he sees stuff like you or I, laid out in a plenum. The passage from consciousness explained that I quoted explains, for the naive reader, where Dennett believes this plenum lies. It is an important insight, not only into Dennett but also into the motivation for rejecting CM. loxley 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that he's guarded, it's that there are people like you who are overeager to simplify his stance into one buzzword or another. In short, what you're offering is an attempt to pigeon-hole, not an important insight. The right way to handle this is to look for evidence, not launch into yet another edit war. Alec is doing this correctly; he's going straight to the horse's mouth. You're doing this incorrectly, which is why you're an edit warrior and not an editor. Alienus 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the War over "filtering" sentence

Lox,

Could you explain what you don't like about this sentence: "Similarly, Cartesian materialism might further predict that the brain would "filter out" any information which we are not consciously aware of before it reaches the place which corresponds to conscious content. "

Is it that you think CM doesn't actually suggest that? Or is it a stylistic thing that you feel it is obvious based on the previous sentence, and re-explain it is beating a dead horse?

Yes, the latter, it seemed to actually be obscuring the text. We have already talked about "set of information that directly corresponds to our conscious experience", "Cartesian materialism might predict, for example, that there is somewhere in the brain which would store a coherent representation of everything we are consciously experiencing in a given moment". loxley 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, he keeps deleting that as part of his edit war, and I never quite saw why and I don't remember him attempting to explain. That's why I keep restoring it. Alienus 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct realism, Dennett and the quotation in the article

Although I will be fascinated to hear what Dennett has to say about direct realism (if he responds to emails), please note that the quote in the article is not described as evidence for "direct realism", the words "direct realism" are not mentioned in the context of the quotation. The quotation is simply Dennett's own description of how we see the world and illuminates his idea of the relationship between "conscious experience", "mind" and "representation". Cutting the quotation will deprive readers of an essential insight into Dennett's motivation for rejecting CM. That it is an important quotation is clear from the reaction it evokes. As I said above, Dennett, like you and I, looks around and apprehends a "plenum" (a material filled space), in CM the plenum is considered to be a virtual reality, based on the world, in the brain. The quotation shows that Dennett, in common with certain other philosophers, believes it to be the world (many of them believe it is directly the world in some way).loxley 08:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the reader cared to understand the specifics of why Dennett rejects CM, they can click the link and read up on the Cartesian theater or the Multiple Drafts Model. This article is not about Dennett and his reasons, except in passing. At most, it should contain a survey of the stances philosophers hold with regard to CM.
Moreover, if the quote is not intended to show Dennett to be a DR, then it loses any relevance. Of course Dennett sees things around him and it feels to him like they're actually around him; this is true for any healthy human. And if the plenus is a VR, then that would be IR, not DR, which further muddies the point.
Fundamentally, it looks as if you're so proud of yourself for finding this quote that you can no longer remember why you were looking for it in the first place, much less what posssible role it might fulfill in this article. As far as I can tell, the quote has nothing to do with anything, so it doesn't belong here.
The irony here is that I'm the one arguing for lowering the amount of Dennett-related verbiage! Alienus 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is part of Dennett's analysis in Consciousness Explained', used to explain his ideas about why CM should be rejected. It adds immensely to any reader's understanding of this issue. Remember, 90% of the readers will be naive realists who haven't even considered the issue of how the plenum appears in conscious experience. Why are you censoring Dennett's writings in a section on Dennett's views? loxley 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping this article on track, avoiding large and irrelevant quotes followed by flawed analysis. You have no made a sufficient case for your repeated insertions, and edit-warring is simply not the right way to get your text in. Therefore, I will revert you until my fingers fall off. Alienus 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus' Reversions

Alienus' practice of reverting the entire article whenever he disagrees with a part of the text deprives other editors of a chance for passing comment. Alienus, please desist.

If you were content to make small, measured changes, then I could fix any problems with equally small, measured changes. However, the only way to fix the unwarranted deletion of text is to restore it, and the only way to fix the unwarranted insertion of text is to remove it.
You'll notice that, when editing the work of others on this article, I rarely, if ever, have to do an outright revert. It is only with you that reversion becomes unavoidable, doubly so when your reaction is to edit war by counter-reverting instead of stopping to think about why your changes were rejected in the first place and coming up with more acceptable changes.
Let me put it this way: If your change is reverted and you can't get support for it in Talk, give up. Ignoring consensus by counter-reverting will only launch an edit war that you cannot win. Work with the system, not against it, or you will get nowhere.
And now I'm going to look at the article and see if I have to revert your changes again. Alienus 17:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]