Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained": Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" » Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/04/04 - 10:32 AM:	#101
geoff23 wrote: This isn't science. It's metaphysics. So scientific definitions aren't particularly useful, unless your intention is to go round and round a circular argument. We have already agreed that science must assume physicalism in order to operate, so using scientific definitions in a debate about metaphysics is rather self-defeating. Metaphysics does not have to make this assumption. What does it mean to claim that mental properties are not physical properties? It means that these properties are non-physical. It means that they are something fundamental to existence but they are not physical. It means that non-physical properties can exist, hence it is called property dualism. Obviously such definitions are not particularly useful to a scientific materialist, but that does not make them invalid or incomprehensible to a philosopher like Chalmers, or even a layman. Again - this isn't science - it is metaphysics. Yes, but this is a discussion about a scientific understanding of consciousness. Metaphysics may someday explain consciousness- but right now we're interested in your questions and ideas about Dennett's scientific explanation of consciousness- particularly the ideas from chapter 2 summarized by Faustus earlier.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/04/04 - 10:40 AM:	#102
geoff23 wrote: Yes, according to a scientific materialist only physical things exist. We all know that. What do I mean by it? I mean that non-physical things can exist, and that "subjective experiences"/qualia/whatever-you-wanna-call-them-but-you-know-what-they-are are these non-physical things. It really is a bit of a non-question, since nobody actually has any trouble telling the difference between a physical and a non-physical thing. Our language is set up so as to make the distinction very easy. It is only difficult to reconcile it with the language of physics and materialism, and since I am not a materialist it does not seem to me to be all that much of a problem, although I recognise why it seems like a problem to you. Geoff23, I suggest that get to a possible real problem you might have with this discussion and post your concerns about whether it's even desirable to make a scientific explanation of consciousness. Should this mystery REMAIN a mystery? If so, why should it? Dennett discusses these concerns in chapter 2. What did you think of his answers to those kinds of concerns? There may be some "materialistic" philosophers that might want to discuss these issues even in a philosophy forum.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/04/04 - 10:50 AM:	#103
geoff23 wrote: Well, I don't agree. I think it may limit the ability of science to meddle in metaphysics, but then I think that science had no business meddling in metaphysics in the first place (and I don't think science does this - maybe some people do so in the name of a defence of science). It does not prevent the scientific study of the contents of consciousness - for example the links between human nature and evolution, or the correspondencies between human learning and machine learning. I think the objection is a bit of a mirage - it does not 'insulate oneself from scientific investigation' - rather it clarifies what sort of investigation can truly said be to scientific, and what sort can't. Ok, but you seem to be saying that science has no business trying to explain consciousness because you are defining it as non-material and therefore outside the bounds of materialistic science. But I think that there are a few philosophers (besides Dennett) that wouldn't mind a physical explanation of consciousness- if it were even possible. Maybe this idea of science investigating consciousness bothers you- but I think you should be up front about admitting that. Your concerns are worthy of discussion, as opposed to simply declaring the discussion out of bounds for science.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

other-wise
Quirky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 23, 2003
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 02/04/04 - 10:54 AM:	#104
Originally posted by other-wise: A yellow sign with a black squiggly line on it is not a winding road; a winding road is what the squiggly line represents to me. A sign no one can read represents nothing; information that is coded must be decoded. So exactly to who or what are the neurons and chemicals representing? Aren’t you also implicitly assuming the Cartesian Theater? Probeman’s response: It's not different for any animal (conscious or unconscious). It does't have to be a metal sign- that's just a human notation for warning, just like dead bodies might be a warning to an animal that something is dangerous about this vicinity. The animal uses it's senses to detect that there is a "winding road" or say obstruction out there, and it's brain (probably unconsciously) uses that information to avoid the obstruction. Aren’t you now assuming that animals have a Cartesian Theater? I’m hard pressed to think of anything less overtly dangerous to an animal than a dead body. But if it represents danger; if the dead body encodes the message “potentially dangerous vicinity”, then who or what is reading the message? (BTW, I agree that it certainly seems as if some information processing is done unconsciously, humans included. But it just as certainly seems that at least some information processing does involve consciousness)

Faustus
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Minneapolis, Mn
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 390

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:08 AM:	#105
Actually, I think that other-wise has an excellent point, especially since it’s so Dennett-like. Unfortunately, if my hazy memory serves correctly, Consciousness Explain doesn’t deal with the representation issue directly. But his section on the multiple drafts theory might provide an opening, which I will try to take if I remember later on.

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:11 AM:	#106
other-wise wrote: Aren’t you now assuming that animals have a Cartesian Theater? No, I'm assuming that NO animals have it. other-wise wrote: I’m hard pressed to think of anything less overtly dangerous to an animal than a dead body. But if it represents danger; if the dead body encodes the message “potentially dangerous vicinity”, then who or what is reading the message? (BTW, I agree that it certainly seems as if some information processing is done unconsciously, humans included. But it just as certainly seems that at least some information processing does involve consciousness) Actually I'm surprised you're hard pressed. Predators- perhaps? One important basis in explaining rituals involving handling the dead are based on contagion avoidance.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:14 AM:	#107
probeman wrote: Yes, but this is a discussion about a scientific understanding of consciousness. Metaphysics may someday explain consciousness- but right now we're interested in your questions and ideas about Dennett's scientific explanation of consciousness- particularly the ideas from chapter 2 summarized by Faustus earlier. Probeman, I was responding to a specific comment by Death Monkey, and my response was directly relevant to that comment. Geoff.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:17 AM:	#108
probeman wrote: Geoff23, I suggest that get to a possible real problem you might have with this discussion and post your concerns about whether it's even desirable to make a scientific explanation of consciousness. Should this mystery REMAIN a mystery? If so, why should it? I don't think there is any "should" about it. Certainly what we do or do not "desire" is completely irrelevant. It IS a mystery. We are discussing why it is a mystery and whether Dennetts approach to solving the mystery is philsophically valid.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:21 AM:	#109
probeman wrote: Ok, but you seem to be saying that science has no business trying to explain consciousness because you are defining it as non-material and therefore outside the bounds of materialistic science. But I think that there are a few philosophers (besides Dennett) that wouldn't mind a physical explanation of consciousness- if it were even possible. Again you are refering to "what might be desirable". I am not interested in that. I am interested in evaluating what is put before me and trying to determine if it makes sense. I do not want to put any carts before any horses, that is all. Maybe this idea of science investigating consciousness bothers you- but I think you should be up front about admitting that. "bothers" me? Again, what does or does not "bother me" is not important here. Your concerns are worthy of discussion, as opposed to simply declaring the discussion out of bounds for science. I haven't "simply declared" anything.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/04/04 - 11:27 AM:	#110
geoff23 wrote: I don't think there is any "should" about it. Certainly what we do or do not "desire" is completely irrelevant. It IS a mystery. We are discussing why it is a mystery and whether Dennetts approach to solving the mystery is philsophically valid. The motion of the planets and stars used to be a mystery- should philosophy have gotten to decide if that mystery was philosophically valid? I think that both science and philosophy need to weigh in on the question of consciousness- why do you seem to want only philosophy's opinion on the issue? There's another question- I suspect that not all philosophers would agree with you that consciousness is a Mystery (with a capital M) that cannot, in principle, be investigated by science. Some others, seem to be rather open minded about the possibility. Why are you SO SURE? If you don't have evidence, at least tell us, specifically, what is your argument?
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.