Daniel Dennett lecture on Consciousness

[hexag1]

My last upload seems to have been a hit so heres some more:

Daniel Dennett - The Magic of Consciousness
A lecture from the same series as the Darwin lecture that I posted earlier. Here he talks about consciousness, covering the same stuff from his awesome books "Consciousness Explained" and "Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness"

PLEASE LEAVE ME SOME COMMENTS ON GOOGLE VIDEO!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68678469239623

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
My last upload seems to have been a hit so heres some more:

Daniel Dennett - The Magic of Consciousness
A lecture from the same series as the Darwin lecture that I posted earlier. Here he talks about consciousness, covering the same stuff from his awesome books "Consciousness Explained" and "Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness"

PLEASE LEAVE ME SOME COMMENTS ON GOOGLE VIDEO!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68678469239623

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Crap, now let me guess, we'll have to pay $19.95 to get the rest of the video where he reveals the magic behind consciousness.

[SNOWBALL]

I liked this, but where is the rest? I think you performed an indian rope trick on us

[hexag1]

oh [censored] the video got cut off. ill have to re up.

[m_the0ry]

I could not get the video to work, but I do know that Daniel Dennett has a lot of great ideas about consciousness. Aaron Sloman paraphrased my belief on the subject best (as far as I can find).

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, do not think defining consciousness is important at all, and I believe that it diverts attention from important and difficult problems. The whole idea is based on a fundamental misconception that just because there is a noun 'consciousness' there is some 'thing' like magnetism or electricity or pressure or temperature, and that it's worth looking for correlates of that thing. Or on the misconception that it is worth trying to prove that certain mechanisms can or cannot produce 'it,' or trying to find out how 'it' evolved, or trying to find out which animals have 'it,' or trying to decide at which moment 'it' starts when a fetus develops, or at which moment 'it' stops when brain death occurs, etc. There will not be one thing to be correlated but a very large collection of very different things.

[...]

People are too impatient. They want a three-line definition of consciousness and a five-line proof that a computational system can or cannot have consciousness. And they want it today. They don't want to do the hard work of unraveling complex and muddled concepts that we already have, and exploring new variants that could emerge from precisely specified architectures for behaving systems."

[/ QUOTE ]

Quotes collected by M. Minsky

[hexag1]

its working now so......

Try it now.

[Borodog]

Oh noes! The brain is computing? Dennett must be a moran. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[hexag1]

Bump?
seems like this one was a dud. Must be b/c the video was broken at first. would it be too much to start new thread?

[m_the0ry]

There's no reason for it to be a dud, other than the massive picture which stretches out the whole thread and makes it look atrocious at any reasonable resolution.

But still, I know there are quite a few epiphenomenalists on this forum who will argue with much vigor that 'consciousness is something science can never explain'. I've debated with them before and they were quite convinced of their own position. Where they are now... well, maybe they were convinced by Dennett's speaking.

[Borodog]

What's with the picture anyway?