Napoleon Mabaquiao
De La Salle University
John Searle and Roger Penrose are two staunch critics of computationalism who nonetheless believe that with the right framework the mind can be naturalized. While they may be successful in showing the shortcomings of computationalism, I argue that their alternative non-computational frameworks equally fail to carry out the project to naturalize the mind. The main reason is their failure to resolve some fundamental incompatibilities between mind and science. Searle tries to resolve the incompatibility between the subjectivity of consciousness and the objectivity of science by means of conceptual clarification. He, however, fails to deal with the concepts crucial to this incompatibility, namely, the publicness of scientific knowledge and the privacy of psychological knowledge. Penrose tries to resolve the incompatibility between the non-computationality of psychological process and the computationality of scientific process by expanding the scope of science through some radical changes in quantum physics. His strategy, however, has the danger of trivializing the distinction between science and non-science thereby putting into question the very value of the project to naturalize the mind. In addition, the feasibility of this strategy remains dubious in light of the mysteries that still surround quantum physics.
Keywords Computationalism  Searle  Penrose  Naturalizing the Mind  Mind
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Concept of Mind.Gilbert Ryle - 1949 - Hutchinson & Co.
Philosophical Investigations.Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Transcendence and the Elusive Science of the Mind.Napoleon M. Mabaquiao Jr - 2009 - Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture 13 (1-3).
Remarks on Penrose’s “New Argument”.Per Lindström - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Why Searle has Not Rediscovered the Mind.David Hodgson - 1994 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):264-274.
Mind in the Shadows.Michael Detlefsen - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29 (1):123-136.
Mechanisms, Microtubules, and the Mind.Roger Penrose - 1994 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):241-49.
What's Wrong and Right About Searle's Chinese Room Argument?Stevan Harnad - 2001 - In Michael A. Bishop & John M. Preston (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Oxford University Press.


Added to PP index

Total views
181 ( #59,329 of 2,455,489 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #36,931 of 2,455,489 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes