Harris (2010) and Dennett (2018) Have Relevant Discussions on Consciousness and They are Qualified. C.S. Lewis is Not. More Examples of Mr. Lundahl’s Poor Judgement in Identifying Appropriate References
Kevin R. Henke
September 30, 2022
In Henke (2022ap), I discuss the issue of human consciousness. I stress that Mr. Lundahl’s recommended expert, C.S. Lewis, only was an expert on English literature and that he had no qualifications on the human brain and consciousness. Even if Mr. Lewis was qualified, he wrote more than 60 years ago (i.e., Lewis 1960). Considering the progress that has been made in studying the human brain and consciousness in the past 60 years, especially after 1977 with the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), references from 1960 would definitely be outdated and obsolete. I then recommended two experts on the topic of consciousness: neurologist Harris (2010) and cognitive scientist and philosopher Dennett (2018).
Rather than deal with the very relevant issues of consciousness raised by experts Dennett (2018) and Harris (2010), Lundahl (2022r) shockingly makes the following totally misleading claim:
“Henke makes the mistake of taking an expert on neurology as expert on consciousness in the aspects relevant for the discussion.”
You’re wrong Mr. Lundahl. For example, in Lundahl (2022a), Mr. Lundahl brings up the topic of the “hard problem of consciousness.” Yet, Dennett (2018) deals directly with this issue and states that it isn’t a problem:
Dennett, D.C. 2018. “Facing Up to the Hard Question of Consciousness”: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 373, 20170342.
I quoted in green font what Dennett (2018) concluded about this “problem” in Henke (2022ap). So, what justification does Mr. Lundahl have for ignoring this very relevant 21st century article that I recommended in Henke (2022ap)? Did Mr. Lundahl even read the title of this article? Why does Mr. Lundahl consider C.S. Lewis to have more relevant expertise in consciousness?
In my other recommended reference, Harris (2010) extensively deals with the issue of consciousness and outdated religious beliefs (for example, pp. 158-159, and also pp. 32-33, 41-42, 62, 108-109, footnote #18 on pp. 221-222, footnote #66, p. 235). Did Mr. Lundahl even bother to review Harris (2010) before he condemned it as irrelevant to our discussions? It is clear from Mr. Lundahl’s statements in Lundahl (2022r) and his other essays that he does not have the ability to distinguish relevant sources of information from irrelevant and outdated ones.
References:
Dennett, D.C. 2018. “Facing Up to the Hard Question of Consciousness”: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 373, 20170342.
Harris, S. 2010. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Hunan Values: Free Press: New York, N.Y., USA, 291pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.