New Book From Dennett...

Consciousness isn't an easy subject to write about, especially from the point of view of natural selection. It would be interesting to read this and see what truths come out of looking from his angle.
 
I hope you read that review - it is probably more useful than Dennett's book!

Speaking of Dennett's book, Nagel writes:
There is no reason to go through such mental contortions in the name of science. The spectacular progress of the physical sciences since the seventeenth century was made possible by the exclusion of the mental from their purview. To say that there is more to reality than physics can account for is not a piece of mysticism: it is an acknowledgment that we are nowhere near a theory of everything, and that science will have to expand to accommodate facts of a kind fundamentally different from those that physics is designed to explain.

David
 
Last edited:
My illusory self doesn't seem appealed by this book, but since determinism is absolutely true and inevitable... That can't be helped.

Let's just suppose he might be on to something (think of it as an exercise in open-mindedness). If the illusion wasn't so effective you* wouldn't be fooled by it.

To put it another way, the fact that you* think the idea is preposterous might be an indication of the effectiveness of the illusion.



*Anyone who asks, "but who is the 'you'?" in the above statements is dodging the issue and actually kinda reinforcing my point.
 
Last edited:
Let's just suppose he might be on to something (think of it as an exercise in open-mindedness). If the illusion wasn't so effective you* wouldn't be fooled by it.

To put it another way, the fact that you* think the idea is preposterous might be an indication of the effectiveness of the illusion.

*Anyone you asks, "but who is the 'you'?" in the above statements is dodging the issue and actually kinda reinforcing my point.

So doubting the idea is evidence of the idea's truth?....sounds like the atheist missionary equivalent of "Only the fool says in his heart that there is no God"?
 
Let's just suppose he might be on to something (think of it as an exercise in open-mindedness). If the illusion wasn't so effective you* wouldn't be fooled by it.

To put it another way, the fact that you* think the idea is preposterous might be an indication of the effectiveness of the illusion.
OK let's take it seriously! The obvious question, is what does it mean? I mean 'fooled' is a verb that can only be used about conscious entities, so saying that I am fooled into believing I am conscious is absurd.

The verb 'fooled' can also be used in a whimsical analogical sense about computers, but I am talking about the primary meaning of the word 'fooled'.
*Anyone who asks, "but who is the 'you'?" in the above statements is dodging the issue and actually kinda reinforcing my point.

Why is this dodging the point - which is that despite Dennett's erudition, he is making a claim that is nonsensical - rather like saying "Love tastes yellow". I dare say a poet could think of a meaning for this and for Dennett's assertion, but his meaning would definitely not be what Dennett wants to assert. You can't do science using non-literal meanings.

Suppose we assume that a table is not conscious - how do we fool it into thinking it is conscious? Do we have to assume three potential types of entities:

1) Those that are conscious (if you believe Dennett, that would be an empty category).

2) Those that are not conscious, but can be fooled into thinking that they are.

3) Those that are not conscious and can't be fooled into thinking that they are.

Curiously, the third category would include both tables and also Dennett himself!

David
 
Let's just suppose he might be on to something (think of it as an exercise in open-mindedness). If the illusion wasn't so effective you* wouldn't be fooled by it.

To put it another way, the fact that you* think the idea is preposterous might be an indication of the effectiveness of the illusion.



*Anyone who asks, "but who is the 'you'?" in the above statements is dodging the issue and actually kinda reinforcing my point.

So... You argument is that we should entertain the possibility that this -let's call it "idea", for lack of a better word- wasn't just conceived as a scapegoat and somehow found a way to live *way* past its prime? Amusing.
 
OK let's take it seriously! The obvious question, is what does it mean? I mean 'fooled' is a verb that can only be used about conscious entities, so saying that I am fooled into believing I am conscious is absurd.

You're merely playing with words here. But you are making my point. The fooling is part of the illusion... That you consider it absurd is also an indication of it's effectiveness.

The verb 'fooled' can also be used in a whimsical analogical sense about computers, but I am talking about the primary meaning of the word 'fooled'.

Interesting that you mention analogue computers as that appears to describe the brain far better than a digital system (and may lay behind your disappointment with AI). Ethan referenced some recent work in this area just the other day. This isn't particularly germane to the issue though.




Why is this dodging the point - which is that despite Dennett's erudition, he is making a claim that is nonsensical - rather like saying "Love tastes yellow"

You lost me here. What, precisely, is like saying "love tastes yellow"?




Suppose we assume that a table is not conscious - how do we fool it into thinking it is conscious?

It appears to need biological awareness (in this realm ;) ).


Do we have to assume three potential types of entities:

1) Those that are conscious (if you believe Dennett, that would be an empty category).

2) Those that are not conscious, but can be fooled into thinking that they are.

3) Those that are not conscious and can't be fooled into thinking that they are.

Curiously, the third category would include both tables and also Dennett himself!

David

I think I can see your misunderstanding here. Dennett would say we are all "conscious" (ie have bilogical processes providing awareness of, and interaction with, our environment) What he would disagree with (I think) is that there is some pseudo-profound otherness beyond those processes. It certainly can feel like there is, but that's the illusion.
 
I'm open to considering anything. I just do not see any evidence for his position/worldview. It seems to require an equal leap of faith to religion and is more counter-intuitive (to me at least).
I'll take "equal leap"... Probably as good as I'm gonna get ;)
 
I know it is hard to explain consciousness from a "mind=brain" position but I keep wrestling with these questions that are hard to explain from any other position.

1. Where does consciousness "go" when we are asleep or unconscious?

2. Why do most people who are rescusssitated from death not report an NDE?

Does Dennett's work answer any of these questions?
 
I know it is hard to explain consciousness from a "mind=brain" position but I keep wrestling with these questions that are hard to explain from any other position.

1. Where does consciousness "go" when we are asleep or unconscious?

For mind=brain you may need to let go of the idea of consciousness being a separate, stand alone thing that can 'go' anywhere. I agree it's tricky though.
 
For mind=brain you may need to let go of the idea of consciousness being a separate, stand alone thing that can 'go' anywhere.
This was my point - how do you explain what happens to consciousness during deep sleep from any position other than mind=brain? I am actually beginning to see how a "materialist" point of view might look on this subject. (Having said that, I hate polarizing. I prefer to think that we are all at different places along a sliding scale between the two extremes)
 
This was my point - how do you explain what happens to consciousness during deep sleep from any position other than mind=brain?
What about dreaming, what happens to our dream world during our normal waking state? All we can really say is that we tend to lose our memory of one world-view while in another. But memory isn't equal to existence. Just because we don't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
What about dreaming, what happens to our dream world during our normal waking state? All we can really say is that we tend to lose our memory of one world-view while in another. But memory isn't equal to existence. Just because we don't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Excellent point. You have recovered my sanity.....for now! ;;/?
 
You're merely playing with words here. But you are making my point. The fooling is part of the illusion... That you consider it absurd is also an indication of it's effectiveness.



Interesting that you mention analogue computers as that appears to describe the brain far better than a digital system (and may lay behind your disappointment with AI). Ethan referenced some recent work in this area just the other day. This isn't particularly germane to the issue though.






You lost me here. What, precisely, is like saying "love tastes yellow"?






It appears to need biological awareness (in this realm ;) ).




I think I can see your misunderstanding here. Dennett would say we are all "conscious" (ie have bilogical processes providing awareness of, and interaction with, our environment) What he would disagree with (I think) is that there is some pseudo-profound otherness beyond those processes. It certainly can feel like there is, but that's the illusion.
Malf, if there is one thing I do not do, it is play with words - I don't like it - if I thought that was all I was doing, I'd be inclined to ban myself from the forum!

Actually, I think Dennett is the one playing with words - I really believe that this is the level of this scientific debate. I think he wants to cleverly dither between saying we are conscious, but not explaining how this happens, and saying we are not conscious - it is all an illusion.

The point is that whether not not we have biological processes that give us awareness, nobody is explaining how these work - so why the hell did he title one of his books, "Consciousness explained" - isn't that playing with words?

The bottom line is, he doesn't give us an explanation of how awareness arises. One day there will be an explanation, and all his posturing will look damn silly. Whether that explanation is couched in terms of materialism as we now know it, is another matter.

However, look what all this silliness is doing. It is helping to create a climate in which phenomena such as NDE's in cardiac arrest, SDE's, etc don't get the in depth consideration that they deserve, because people are fooled into thinking that ordinary awareness is understood, so since that explanation wouldn't explain these things, these phenomena can't possibly happen as they are described.

That sort of logic turns the correct scientific process on its head.

Don't you ever worry that you yourself are being fooled - not that you are conscious - but with the idea that real, hard science has all this buttoned up.

David
 
Last edited:
Back
Top