Talk:Multiple drafts model

From Scholarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

    Reviewer A:

    A beautifully done article! I especially liked the speciation analogy.

    Three very small comments: (1.) The plastic snake sentence with the dashes is hard to parse. (2.) Near the end, the repetitive "our" within dashes is a bit jarring. If that's meant as a mechanism to stress the "our", I'd italicize the second occurrence. (3.) Also near the end, isn't "ispo facto" the more common usage than "ipso fact"?

    Reviewer B - Murray Shanahan:

    This is a fine article on an important subject, written with Dennett's usual clarity and panache. Importantly, Dennett has related the Multiple Drafts model to his notion of "fame in the brain", which is explained here very well. I have just one suggestion, which is for material for further inclusion, now or at a later date. Specifically, this would be a good opportunity to spell out the relationship between Dennett's concept of fame in the brain and Baars's notion of a global workspace (or Dehaene's global neuronal workspace). To my mind these are compatible ideas, yet some authors have seen them as incompatible. As far as global workspace theory is concerned, broadcast of information via the global workspace is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be counted as conscious. Similarly, a precondition for fame in the brain is surely the global availability of the relevant information. (To use Dennett's example, Arthur the pizza-eater would have had no prospect of fame in the first place if his feat had not been reported in the newspaper, irrespective of the intervention of Robert Kennedy's assassin.) Yet such availability does not entail actual influence. It does not entail fame in the brain, it is just one of the conditions that make fame possible. If Dennett had any comment on this issue it would be a most interesting addition to the article.

    Personal tools

    Focal areas