Negative Positive
Title: This is thinking?
Review: I picked this book out with hope, as I had problems with Dennet and Penrose's books on the field. Unfortunately, Searle clearly lacks understanding of either of their main points, and his essential objections to both are mutually contradictory.Case in point: one objection to Penrose was that simulations of neural phenomena could clearly avoid the essential limitations Penrose proposes for algorithmic processes. That is idiotic on its face (how is a simulation any different from other sorts of programs?) Similar inconsistencies and plague his other writings.This is not serious thought, or indeed writing worthy of republication. I hoped to see writng backed by logical thought and consistency. Instead I found mostly semantic objections that attempt to conceal a deep lack of anything useful to say.
Is the review positive or negative? 