- Here, Edward Feser discusses Dennett in an aside, and suggests: "Daniel Dennett is one naturalist who does not see this, or at least who constantly helps himself to teleological concepts which he cannot successfully “cash out” in naturalistic or non-teleological term". I consider Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" among the most important books written...and to a significant extent, the book is about how natural english talks in teleological terms, but that's not what's going on. "Helping himself to teleological concepts" is very distinctly NOT something that I remember to have occurred in the book.
- Here, Robin Hanson mildly disses my new favorite book. Also, slightly, here. My read of the book seems very different than that of Hanson. I read one of the major theses of the book to be that the mind works better if there is intentional non-coordination. Kurzan explicitly argues that a press secretary who actually knows what's really going on can't lie as effectively as one kept in the dark...and the press-secretary (consciouness) mind can't lie (be hypocritical) as well if was fully informed. Hence, hypocrisy is a substantial portion of the purpose of consciousness.
Why the heck are the readings so different?