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 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 02/03/04 - 09:50 AM:	#41
Unisonus wrote: I don't think Dennet explains consciousness at all. He may explain the process by which it's engendered, or maybe even the process that consciousness is- but he ignores the unique phenomenal aspect. It is true that consciousness entails various functions, and that these functions can be acted out by patterns in the brain- or writhing the circuits of machinery. But if we follow these patterns, the interactions of atoms and molecules on the most microscopic level- or zoom out and look at the entire process- we still do not get the unique "quality of consciousness." I have a materialist bent myself, but I wasn't satisfied by Dennet's book. It was entertaining, but not conclusive. He says repeatedly in the book that it is NOT conclusive- only a sketch of a scientific theory. Can you be a little more specific? I mean besides that you weren't convinced. What what exactly do you think the unique "quality of consciousness" is? What do you think it consists of? I think that chapter two is open for discussion. Please re-read it and open the discussion with specifics. So far all I've heard is charges of behaviorism, the strawman that he denies we have mental states and statements of "I don't believe it." Let's talk about what specifically in chapter two you all disagree with.
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 02/03/04 - 09:55 AM:	#42
Unisonus wrote: I have a materialist bent myself, but I wasn't satisfied by Dennet's book. It was entertaining, but not conclusive. I couldn't escape the feeling that Dennett was simply avoiding the central issue- which is obvious to anyone who aint a zombie. Maybe you have highlighted the real reason Dennett manages to infuriate so many people. It isn't so much that he has avoided the central issue (he is only the last in a long line of people to struggle with this particular issue) but more that he avoids the central issue whilst writing books called "Consciousness Explained" or "Freedom Evolves" i.e. he acts and speaks as if he is claiming some sort of final victory, which does rather invite people to come along and knock him down. NB : Probeman you also have a tendency to try to claim this "final victory" like you did in your "has science disproved non-materialism" thread. You do not just want to promote your own viewpoint. You are trying to squash the others too.
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 02/03/04 - 10:03 AM:	#43
geoff23 wrote: NB : Probeman you also have a tendency to try to claim this "final victory" like you did in your "has science disproved non-materialism" thread. You do not just want to promote your own viewpoint. You are trying to squash the others too. Welcome Geoff23, I apologize if anyone thinks I am attempting to squash other ideas. From my point of view, I begging for people's ideas and I'm only getting generalities. Please give me your specific ideas (or issues) with Dennett's chapter two. NB: I agree that Dennett's titles are over the top. But he repeatedly admits where the problems are and is only offering possible ideas on how we might explain them. He's basically only asking that we all try to consider ideas that may seem completely counter-intuitive at first. Let's discuss them.
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 02/03/04 - 10:08 AM:	#44
geoff23 wrote: like you did in your "has science disproved non-materialism" thread. Let's not re-write history. Please. In that thread I only asked what inferences we might draw from the apparent success of science by it's premise of only material processes at work in the universe. I never said science has "disproved" non-materialism, ever. In fact I think non-materialism can't be "disproved". That's why I phrased it in the manner that I did.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:08 AM:	#45
What what exactly do you think the unique "quality of consciousness" is? What do you think it consists of? I have no idea. And in fact, if even in theory we could identify that consciousness consists of some substance we would be asking ourselves, well can't this substance exist without invoking consciousness? In other words, we would be exactly where we are now; we would have an item (eg the brain) we know is invariably linked to consciousness, but still no way to unite the two. Now, we have examples of how one function can entail the other i.e. variables in one setting effect variables in another. My computer screen, for example, displays characters as I type. This is a quality unique to the screen. Yet those characters are engendered by events occurring in my computer's processor. And of course, there need not be letters floating around in the processor in order to have them effectively flashed unto my screen. My screen responds accordingly to stimulus from the processor. The problem with this analogy is, of course, that the screen is a substance. If we were to regard consciousness are a malleable substance (which is even silly to think of, being that substances are phenomenal objects- and how can you phenomenalize the act of phenomenalization?), we would be left with the dilemma described above. I don't know where to go with this issue. It's so confusing, we aren't even given the benefits of contradicting ourselves to know we are wrong when we take any particular stance. The subject borders on incomprehensibility. Perhaps one thing comprehension cannot do it comprehend itself.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 190
Total Posts: 4507

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:11 AM:	#46
probeman wrote: A better example that Dennett uses is that there used to be a strong intuitive belief that all substances had a property called "caloric" or heat that would flow from hotter objects to cooler objects. This substance seemed completely real and existing in fact to many scientists and philosophers until it was demonstrated slowly over many years through the science of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, that heat was an entirely different physical entity that it was not a substance at all and in fact was merely simple molecular vibrations. It may seem that our mental states actually exist in the sense that you are thinking of them but it could also be that our intuitions about these things are not correct. That is all Dennett is saying. I do not believe mental substances exist, but I do believe mental properties exist. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#2.2 Dennett, however, claims that neither mental substances nor mental properties exist. Probeman wrote: What I find really unfair about TecnoTut's claim that Dennett says mental states do not exist, is saying this coupled with his assertion earlier that Dennett is just a Behaviorist. when in fact in chapter two Dennett clearly states (p. 40) "2. No feigning anesthesia. It has been said of behaviorists that they feign anesthesia- they pretend they don't have to experiences we know darn well they share with us. If I wish to deny the existence of some controversial feature of consciousness, the burden falls on me to show that it is somehow illusory." Regardless of whether one calls him a behaviorist or not, at least he's admitting up front that he won't deny the apparent reality that we seem to have real mental states. That seems reasonable enough, doesn't it? Let's proceed then Then read the page I quoted where he admits that he is a behaviroist. Again, personal admissions can only show so much. What matters is his how his philosophy views mental states, and it clearly is a form of fictional instrumentalism.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:12 AM:	#47
Right now I'm of the opinion that there is no escape from this problem. Positing transcendental ectoplasm solves nothing. No materialist or duelist solution exists. And this is coming from a verificationist and a logical positivist of the highest order.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

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

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:44 AM:	#48
Unisonus wrote: No materialist or duelist solution exists. And this is coming from a verificationist and a logical positivist of the highest order. As Dennett says, a dualist solution is hardly a solution at all. It insulates itself from any possibility that there is a solution that science can reach. But to say that no materialist solution exists- what does that mean specifically? Do you agree that the brain produces the mind and that the mind is a product of the brain? If not materialistic (electrochemistry and neuron states) what is the mind composed of then?
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 190
Total Posts: 4507

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:48 AM:	#49
probeman wrote: Do you agree that the brain produces the mind and that the mind is a product of the brain? If not materialistic (electrochemistry and neuron states) what is the mind composed of then? The first question is different from the second one. The first asks whether physical or neuronal properties cause mental properties. It's not a controversial question and most people say "yes." The second more controversial question does not ask whether physical states cause mental states, it asks, rather, whether physical states are mental states.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

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

Posted 02/03/04 - 10:54 AM:	#50
Unisonus wrote: I have no idea. And in fact, if even in theory we could identify that consciousness consists of some substance we would be asking ourselves, well can't this substance exist without invoking consciousness? What did you think of the discussion of the party game called "psychoanalysis" discused in the first chapter? Isn't it possible that consciousness could be created through an algorithmic process in a remotely analogous way to the dupe in the party game who creates a dream without an actual "author"? I think these kinds of ideas are at least one way to avoid giving up on investigating the issue. I'm not saying this is your belief, but it is clear that some people are threatened by the very idea that their 'precious or unique' consciousness might be, even if only in principle, possibly explainable.
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 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.