Subj:	Re: Answer
Date:	99-06-19 14:58:06 EDT
From:	Anilmitra
To:	Joanelk

I forgot to mention that any map/atlas of mind must be useful in psychology/psychiatry even
if the map is transitional; the mental illnesses, for example, correspond neatly to a map that
includes the elements of a full-bodied temporal map in which not too much is made of the
mind/body cut. Yet, there's something so strange about the academic chess game in which
people would rather have good toilet practices than be useful. Not so strange after all
because that's just how people are [in part] and academics are a species of people.

Also wanted to mention significant dissapointment in the literature on consciousness: no
complaint about large amounts of detail; but complaints about repetition, triviality
[defined as ratio of volume to content], chess playing, bickering, posturing...some of
this has to do with the fact that a large number of modern writers on consciousness are
from the somewhat disenfranchised Artificial Intelligence community [the results and
progress are not very encouraging and are puny compared with expectations]...combined
with the intrinsic nature of the academic game.

But I need to cover the ground so as to be able to communicate and have done much of what I
need to do. Still think Searle is a relative beacon of light; Dennett is a posturer - though
intelligent and possessed of charm and charisma; Chalmers is brilliant though misguided and
somewhat pandering to the various constituencies; Penrose has excellent intuitions expressed
brilliantly though peripherally rather than head-on...this no doubt partially due to his
brilliance: when you are a tank you can go wherever your momentum leads you.

Anil