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 Last

Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 02/03/04 - 01:01 PM:	#61
If I understand you- I don't agree. The party game listeners aren't acting as conscious agents. They are providing essentially mechanistic (random but not contradictory) responses based on the last letter of the question asked. A story is a conceptual item. It is not a sequence of sounds. If the final result of a party game is a story, that means that the final result is a conceptual item shared, more or less, by all those who participated in the game. Dennett fails to make the distinction between the sequence of sounds and the story- just as he fails to make the distinction between the sequence of brain processes and the phenomenal aspect of consciousness. Just like it is o.k. to say that the sequence of sounds causes the story to come into being, it is o.k. to say that the sequence of brain patterns cause consciousness into being. Of course, that has problems of its own, namely, that causes are either changes in another substance, changes in the substance that provides the cause, or parts of the original substance that provides the cause. We can determine none of the things being present when we speak of consciousness.
"...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

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1532

Posted 02/03/04 - 01:14 PM:	#62
Do you agree that those are actually properties of the process that is your perception of that object? Normally, results are not properties of the processes that engender them. Cars are not properties of the conveyer belts. Cookies are not properties of the baker. The letters on the screen are not properties of your computer's processor. Mental images are not properties of brain processes...I think. I'm sure you can take that approach, with some sort of animism. You can argue that consciousness is a component of all matter and when you have some together...abracadabra! But I find that hard to swallow.
"...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 - 01:25 PM:	#63
Unisonus wrote: A story is a conceptual item. It is not a sequence of sounds. If the final result of a party game is a story, that means that the final result is a conceptual item shared, more or less, by all those who participated in the game. Dennett fails to make the distinction between the sequence of sounds and the story- just as he fails to make the distinction between the sequence of brain processes and the phenomenal aspect of consciousness. Ok, first of all, the party game is not an explanation of consciousness as he states clearly and I have said (the question poser still needs to be explained). But I have to say you are missing the point completely about this. The party story exists ONLY in the mind of the question-poser. That's why the game is funny. Don't you see that? In fact because it is a hallucination or a dream we're actually talking about, the story in the question-poser's mind doesn't even have to be based on reality or logic or anything else. Just a question-poser and a random series of responses. One thing that is clear from cognitive sciences and right-brain left-brain separation studies is that the mind will create any story it can to try and explain the perception, *even when conscious or not*. In classic experiments, a split brain patient has a picture of a chicken claw flashed to the left brain and a picture of a snow scene flashed to the right hemisphere. An array of pictures is placed in front of the subject and the person asked to pick the appropriate picture. The person picked the shovel with the left hand and the chicken with the right. When asked why he selected as he did, he explained the chicken claw goes with the chicken and the shovel is needed to clean out the chicken shed. Another example- when the word laugh is flashed to the right hemisphere the patient laughs. When asked why he says "You guys come up and ask us how we are every month. What a way to make a living". Third example- The word Pink is flashed to the right hemisphere and the word bottle to the left hemisphere. A set of bottles of different color and shape are placed before the subject and he is asked to point to one bottle. He selects the pink bottle and when asked why he says pink is a nice color.
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 - 01:33 PM:	#64
Unisonus wrote: Normally, results are not properties of the processes that engender them. Cars are not properties of the conveyer belts. Cookies are not properties of the baker. The letters on the screen are not properties of your computer's processor. Mental images are not properties of brain processes...I think. I'm sure you can take that approach, with some sort of animism. You can argue that consciousness is a component of all matter and when you have some together...abracadabra! But I find that hard to swallow. What one might argue is that "awareness" is a property of all organisms and at some level of complexity and feedback, consciousness (or self-awareness) becomes more developed. Actually a baker that did not have the property of making cookies, wouldn't be much of a baker, in my book!
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: 1532

Posted 02/03/04 - 01:38 PM:	#65
What one might argue is that "awareness" is a property of all organisms and at some level of complexity and feedback, consciousness (or self-awareness) becomes more developed. And I would agree. Actually a baker that did not have the property of making cookies, wouldn't be much of a baker, in my book! The property of making cookies and having cookies be a property of the maker are two different things. Let me re-read the chapter before I answer your other post. I read it a year ago so I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about.
"...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 - 01:45 PM:	#66
Unisonus wrote: Let me re-read the chapter before I answer your other post. I read it a year ago so I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about. If you have time, please read both chapters one and two. They are pretty short. It's in chapter two that it starts getting interesting, but the party game excercise in chapter one is excellent preparation for what follows.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/03/04 - 02:09 PM:	#67
DM wrote: you may very well be correct that mental events are not physical processes, but the point of my post was to try to get you to explain why you think this must be the case. As I pointed out, just saying that the properties of the image in your mind are not the same as properties of some brain process does not cut it. How do you know they are not? What, other than intuition, do you have to back this up? They're different because they have different properties a.k.a. Leibniz's Law. DM wrote: Who said I was arguing against the existence of mental properties? What I am saying is that since our mental processes are brain processes, those mental properties are properties of a physical process. If I say Clark Kent is Superman, then I am also saying they have the same properties. If I say mental events are brain events, then I am also saying they have the same properties. But since they don't, then they're not the same thing. DM wrote: How are the properties different? For example, let's say you are looking at something blue. I would say that the property of blueness that the image in your mind has, is actually a property of the physical process of perception occurring in your brain. Why is this contradictory? It is contradictory because my brain process is not blue. DM wrote: There is no contradiction here, unless you assume some sort of Cartesian dualism, where the image in your mind is believed to have some sort of existence independent of what your brain is doing. You may believe this is the case, but can you really claim that the alternative I have suggested is not possible? You're right. It is dualistic, viz. property dualism. probeman wrote: What one might argue is that "awareness" is a property of all organisms and at some level of complexity and feedback, consciousness (or self-awareness) becomes more developed. Hence the term "emergent properties."
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 - 02:22 PM:	#68
TecnoTut wrote: It is contradictory because my brain process is not blue. But the property of blueness in your brain is being generated by the color blue (wavelength of light). No contradiction.
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 - 02:29 PM:	#69
TecnoTut wrote: If I say Clark Kent is Superman, then I am also saying they have the same properties. If I say mental events are brain events, then I am also saying they have the same properties. But since they don't, then they're not the same thing. Actually I would agree that Clark Kent is indeed Superman, but they sure don't have the same properties do they? I mean just look at the dorky glasses that Clark Kent wears!
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/03/04 - 02:29 PM:	#70
probeman wrote: But the property of blueness in your brain is being generated by the color blue (wavelength of light). No contradiction. My brain is blue? Where? How? probeman wrote: Actually I would agree that Clark Kent is indeed Superman, but they sure don't have the same properties do they? I mean just look at the dorky glasses that Clark Kent wears! Superman is wearing them too because Superman is Clark Kent. l
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)

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.