Cancellation and Quotation
Cancellation and Quotation
Today I happened by chance on an article in Scientific American on panpsychism by Dan Falk. The second paragraph contains the sentences: “As philosopher David Chalmers asked: ‘How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?’ He famously dubbed this quandary the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.” In the second paragraph of my 1989 paper “Can We solve the Mind-Body Problem?” I write: “The specific problem I want to discuss concerns consciousness, the hard nut of the mind-body problem” and go on to say: “Somehow, we feel, the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness, but we draw a total blank on the nature of this conversion”. Chalmers’ book The Conscious Mind was published in 1996 (I reviewed it). Whose mistake is this? Will anyone correct it? Is it the result of cancellation? I suspect it is, which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sickening. Has it reached the point where my words are quoted admiringly and then attributed to someone else? I suppose the next thing will be that my books are attributed to another author!
Did Dan Falk say where Chalmers used the “water-wine” metaphor? You don’t say where he used it. If he used it in The Conscious Mind, then you would have noticed his plagiarism when you reviewed the book and presumably would have mentioned it in your review. Wherever Chalmers used it, did he credit you? I assume that he did not. Could he have used it before you or without knowing that you had used it? The notion of two people coming up with the metaphor independently, though unlikely, seems possible.
Chalmers also could have used it more than once.
He doesn’t give a reference. I don’t remember whether Chalmers used it in his book. I think he would credit me. I’m guessing the “mistake” is Falk’s, but it’s certainly odd.
Is there reason to believe that Falk knew of your 1989 paper? I googled him; he’s only a science journalist. They say that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you. Perhaps just because they are after you doesn’t mean that you can’t be paranoid on occasion. (I hope you’ll take that in the spirit I intend it. I take other instances of your cancellation quite seriously.)
I have generally not been paranoid enough. I continue to be amazed at the degree of cancellation. In this case it seems to parody what I have experienced hitherto.
Surreal. Even your cancellation may come to be cancelled and you will be a figment like Quixote written by Pierre Menard, an original quotation.
Or Kafka-esque: the writer who is so cancelled his works are assigned to another author because they are too important to be erased!
I clearly remember hearing Chalmers use the line, without attribution, in a video interview on YouTube. It’s likely that Falk saw that video or another where Chalmers uses the line.
Ah, that explains it. I did send Falk an email today.
Chalmers tells me he doesn’t think he has ever used the line!
Both Chalmers and Falk now agree it was a mistake to attribute the water-wine analogy to Chalmers, and that it is correctly attributable to me. The question now is whether Scientific American will issue a correction. A minor matter, perhaps, but not insignificant.
I now hear from Dan Falk that Scientific American intends to correct the error.
I’m glad to report that the correction has now been made by Scientific American and a link to my 1989 article inserted. This is a satisfactory resolution of the issue so far as I am concerned. But we do need to ask how the error came about in the first place.
He did use it: it’s imprinted on my memory. Maybe it’s not one he uses frequently.
A Google search reveals that Chalmers is also quoted as using the line in this 2017 New Yorker article by Josh Rothman:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/daniel-dennetts-science-of-the-soul
It says:
“In his most important book, ‘The Conscious Mind,’ published in 1996, Chalmers accused Dennett and the physicalists of focusing on the ‘easy problems’ of consciousness—questions about the workings of neurons or other cognitive systems—while ignoring the “hard problem.’ In a formulation he likes: “How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?” Since then, the ‘hard problem’ has been a rallying cry for those philosophers who think that Dennett’s view of the mind is incomplete.”
Amusingly, the line is also attributed to Chalmers on a couple of those lowbrow quotation aggregator websites.
Did Falk show any interest in correcting the error?
For some reason, neither of your October 4 replies were displaying on your blog page prior to me writing this last comment, which is why I asked a question you answered.
It is just as if people are intentionally avoiding crediting the line to me.
, I wouldn’t mind this sort of thing over-much. Chalmers seems like a decent chap. About Falk I have no idea. Superior writers and thinkers will always have their lines lifted. .
It’s a minor irritation in the larger scheme of things.