Talk:Cartesian theater

A start.

-- ArtificioSapiens

Dualism?
Loxley, Dennett asserts that the theater is present in materialistic theories as a remnant of Descartes' dualism. Even if you don't agree with this, it's your job to neutrally report it, and perhaps neutrally report criticisms, if any. If you have any reference for your claim that the theater does not apply to dualism, please offer it. Also, you erased an explanatory paragraph that I inserted for the purpose of explaining some of the background of these terms. I don't know why you did this, but I reverted it. If you have specific problems with that paragraph, address them in specific. Alienus 20:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In your latest bit of vandalism, you misleading claim that Dennett is "redefining" Cartesian materialism to suit his desires. As far as I can tell, Dennett is the one who coined the term, so he was the first to define it. Anyone else's definition qualifies as a redefinition. I won't bother repeating myself about your recurring instantaneity error, except to point out that you still don't seem to understand what Dennett is claiming, so you need to go educate yourself before you try to contribute on these issues. The stuff about regress is an especially bad case of miscomprehension. Please stop with the vandalism. If you genuinely want to make these pages better, as opposed to merely force them to lean towards your bias, you'll participate in discussion here in Talk. Alienus 12:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. The point about regress is extremely important because it explains why Dennett has gone to such great lengths to develop an argument that is not based on regress. loxley 13:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What did Dennet say?
This article and dispute might be helped by tracing Dennett's initial use of the term "Cartesian theater" in Consciousness Explained (hereafter CE)

In CE, ch. 1, p. 17 of the first paperback edition:
 * The Multiple Drafts model of consciousness ... is an alternative to the traditional model, which I call the Cartesian Theater. (emphasis mine)

In CE ch. 2, p. 39, he says that:
 * the exclusive attention to specific subsystems of the mind/brain often causes a sort of theoretical myopia that prevents theorists from seeing that their models still presuppose that somewhere, conveniently hidden in the obscure "center" of the mind/brain, there is a Cartesian Theater, a place where "it all comes together" and consciousness happens. This may seem like a good idea, an inevitable idea, but until we see, in some detail, why it is not, the Cartesian Theater will continue to attract crowds of theorists transfixed by an illusion.

My definition of the term "Cartesian theater" would be:


 * Term coined by Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained for any single, specific place in the brain presupposed by a model of consciousness to be the place where perceptions are presented and "consciousness happens".

This seems to be to be a factual, NPOV definition of the term, suitable for use in the opening sentence of the article. In the article itself, one could discuss his use of the term in CE (and elsewhere?) when characterizing models other than his own, as well as the use of the term by others. I don't think the "Cartesian theater" itself is a "straw man", but claiming that a particular model of consciousness presupposes a "Cartesian theater" might well be a straw man argument if the model does not, in fact, presuppose such a thing.


 * The cartesian theatre is not a straw man argument in itself, it only becomes a straw man argument when Cartesian materialism is characterised as the cartesian theatre. There are several types of cartesian materialism and, in its general sense of "the mind is the brain" the cartesian theatre is a non-sequitur. We must be careful to characterise Dennett's ideas as proposals made by Dennett, not as accurate summaries of the whole field. loxley 12:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read CE in a while, so I may be missing some things that quick skimming has missed. But, I hope this is a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Gwimpey 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting involved. What you've proposed so far would be an improvement over the current state of things, so feel free to implememnt it.  Take a look at the closely related Cartesian materialism article for more on these issues.  I think it would be easiest if we took this one article at a time. Alienus 10:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've observed the recent wave of changes by Loxley, and they're still very, very POV. In particular, it accuses Dennett of redefining the term to serve his own purposes. This is about as POV as saying Protestants redefine Christianity to exclude the Pope. In any case, I'm not going to fight a war on all fronts at once. I'm currently focusing on Cartesian materialism, and I'll move on to other articles as earlier one settle down. Alienus 16:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed "redefine" to "define". This paragraph is not POV, it is a factual account. Please outline why you believe the last paragraph is POV using the last paragraph as an example rather than Christian politics. loxley 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Loxley, I don't see your changes as constructive. The Cartesian theater is NOT at all about presentism, nor does the stuff about self-reference apply. I'm reverting it unless you show me some relevance. Alienus 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The text that you have contributed about the regress argument is irrelevant to the Cartesian theatre. Please tell me where in Dennett's 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. [...] Many theorists would insist that they have explicitly rejected such an obviously bad idea. But [...] the persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us — laypeople and scientists alike — even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized. [p.107, original emphasis.]"


 * the regress argument applies. The interesting thing about the Cartesian theatre argument is that it is NOT the regress argument. I will edit your contribution so that it is relevant. loxley 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your changes were wrongly intentioned, but mostly harmless. If you read at least CE and DDI, you'd know that he's arguing against any theory that concentrates all the hard work of thinking on a single "consciousness module", which then becomes a homunculus that cannot be explained.  He's referred to this as misguided boxology, for example, and he's argued extensively against Chalmers' the notion of the "hard problem", which Dennett says is just a side-effect of precisely thise unequal distribution of mental labor.
 * However, the article did go on a bit long about infinite regress, and you added this tedious reference to the claim that regress is unavoidable, and so on. Your changes cut a lot of excess weight, so I've left them alone, with the exception of removing the reference to presentism.  As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with anything. Alienus 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this term relevant outside of Dennett's work?
Not being familiar with the philosophical or cognitive science literature, I am wondering if this term is used at all by people other than Daniel Dennett (other than when referring to Dennett's work)? It seems to be a metaphor that Dennett chose to highlight certain features of some models of consciousness, but is it now a term that people in the field would use generally? If not, does it deserve its own article, or should it be merged into another, such as Cartesian materialism, Consciousness Explained, or Multiple Drafts Model?

Just a thought... Gwimpey 03:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It got 744 hits on google. People like Blakemore are beginning to popularise it.. loxley 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)