Daniel Dennett lecture on Consciousness - Page 3

DougShrapnel · #21 08-27-2007, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
can you clarify what you mean by the C> just brain ? do you mean that consciousness is more than the physical reality of brain tissues and their workings?

[/ QUOTE ] Sure, I can try. I mean that person with a fully intact brain without the phenomenon that is typically termed consciousness would have different results than one with it. That the act of conscious thought has effects on the results.

hexag1 · #22 08-27-2007, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, I can try. I mean that person with a fully intact brain without the phenomenon that is typically termed consciousness would have different results than one with it. That the act of conscious thought has effects on the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dubious that this is even possible. It seems to me that person who has a fully intact brain must have consciousness in the normal sense, else his brain isn't intact to begin with. This idea of a person (or thing?) who has all the physical brainstuff for consciousness but still isn't conscious is called a Zombie by Dennett and other philosophers of mind. I find Dennett's debunking of this in "Sweet Dreams" very convincing. Admittedly I've only read Dennett, Pinker, Chomsky, and Minsky. What do you propose is missing in this hypothetical zombie that makes him unconscious??

DougShrapnel · #23 08-27-2007, 02:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, I can try. I mean that person with a fully intact brain without the phenomenon that is typically termed consciousness would have different results than one with it. That the act of conscious thought has effects on the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dubious that this is even possible. It seems to me that person who has a fully intact brain must have consciousness in the normal sense, else his brain isn't intact to begin with. This idea of a person (or thing?) who has all the physical brainstuff for consciousness but still isn't conscious is called a Zombie by Dennett and other philosophers of mind. I find Dennett's debunking of this in "Sweet Dreams" very convincing. Admittedly I've only read Dennett, Pinker, Chomsky, and Minsky. What do you propose is missing in this hypothetical zombie that makes him unconscious??

[/ QUOTE ]No that makes sense. I certainly proposed a hypothetical that begged the question. Good catch. So again what is the rational that brain and mind are equal again?

hexag1 · #24 08-27-2007, 02:46 AM

It depends on how you define brain and mind. If you say that the brain just includes the cells in a frozen state, the positions of them and all their subcomponents etc.. then its tough to equate the two. On the other hand, if you allow that saying 'brain' includes the brains emergent properties, then I think an equation can be made.

Maybe we can separate the two by saying that 'brain' is the physical setup, and confine 'mind' to the emergent properties of this setup. <<---- EDIT: when the setup is set in motion according to the laws of physics

DougShrapnel · #25 08-27-2007, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we can separate the two by saying that 'brain' is the physical setup, and confine 'mind' to the emergent properties of this setup. <<---- EDIT: when the setup is set in motion according to the laws of physics

[/ QUOTE ] TBH, I believe that's what I'm arguing for. Have I mistook the video, as saying something different, or have I been posted something to a different affect?

Peter666 · #26 08-27-2007, 02:54 AM

Kudos to Dennet for breaking up the "Cartesian theatre". It has taken scientists 350 years to debunk Descartes theory, and now they're back to the 700 year old debate of Hylomorphism which has its root in the 2300 year old theory of Aristotle.

hexag1 · #27 08-27-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
TBH, I believe that's what I'm arguing for. Have I mistook the video, as saying something different, or have I been posted something to a different affect?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure... I think that it needs to be clear that Dennett is arguing that:
1. dualism is false. this seems obvious, but it is apparently implied by the theories of several leading thinkers on consciousness.
2. that the idea that consciousness is an explicable phenomenon, beyond a solid scientific theory, is an illusion created by mistaken preconceptions rooted in dualistic thinking.
3. the very language of these preconceptions is part of the problem. the main example is David Chalmers 'THE Hard Problem' Chalmers says that you can explain sensory mechanisms, memory, imagination etc... but that there is always 'THE Hard Problem' to explain: "how do these sensory/experiential phenomena get raised to the level of consciousness? Chalmers seems to think that if you explain all the different subcategories of brain function and their emergent phenomena, you still have more to explain b/c of THE Hard Problem. But Dennett argues that THE Hard Problem is just a mental illusion, created by the terminology at hand.
Hence the comparison to THE Tuned Deck. THE Tuned Deck is in fact a bag of tricks, and the difficulty in figuring it out is that the magic trick investigators are stuck on THE, just like philosophers of mind are stuck on THE Hard problem of consciousness.

vhawk01 · #28 08-27-2007, 03:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Great Video, Dennet is the leading authority on Consciousness, and i really enjoy hearing his musings on the subject. However, I don't really understand how Dennett goes from optical illusions and magic tricks, to the mind is nothing more then the brain. Could someone explain that for me, and why it's important or why there is enough data available for him to speculate at this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I very strongly recommend Consciousness Explained. Its not even a very complicated discussion, its just such a fundamental paradigm shift that it takes a long time to even get the vernacular down, and to start thinking about it in the right way. I don't claim to fully understand the book after only one reading, but at the least, it gives a primer on what types of questions to be asking and what type of questions miss the point and are red herrings. Its a really good book.

vhawk01 · #29 08-27-2007, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Kudos to Dennet for breaking up the "Cartesian theatre". It has taken scientists 350 years to debunk Descartes theory, and now they're back to the 700 year old debate of Hylomorphism which has its root in the 2300 year old theory of Aristotle.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. And Og the caveman looked in a puddle about 125,000 years ago, lets not forget him. Halcyon!

hexag1 · #30 08-27-2007, 04:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Kudos to Dennet for breaking up the "Cartesian theatre". It has taken scientists 350 years to debunk Descartes theory, and now they're back to the 700 year old debate of Hylomorphism which has its root in the 2300 year old theory of Aristotle.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you trying to say? That an old and unsettled debate is laughable?
What philosophical progress are you espousing?