"Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that..." Where? There is no argumentation anywhere here. There's just a sequence of slideshows featuring optical illusions. How do optical illusions demonstrate we are mistaken about consciousness? Surely we're mistaken about 'the object' we're perceiving, not 'how we are perceiving it'. Am I missing something here?
I am also a philosopher, though nowhere near as well known as Dan Dennett. One of the first things we were taught as philosophy majors was Logic. We have it beaten into our heads, and rightfully so. I can spot a fallacy now, a mile away! But what I cannot do, however, is prove the primacy of logic. Why should the Logos be favored over Ethos or Pathos? Why should my truth tables be considered more 'weighty' than your 'feelings' (pathos)? Why should rhetoric be better than force? Dan can't say.
Philosophers may not be the best people to listen to when it comes to cognitive neuroscience...I think cognitive neuroscientosts can give much more in-depth explanations of our mental processes,without referring to them as "magic tricks"
Sorry but this wasn't a compelling arguement at all. Consciousness is an emergence of chemical activity in the brain. Though to say we don't know much about consciousness and show us optical illusions....is quite precisely..incoherent. You become more "conscious" as you gain a stronger and faster ability to process information(larger networks of neuronal pathways). It is known that our realities are infact symbolic representations made by our cognition...I guess you can call it magic...
I have a thought. If consciousness is merely an emergent property of the brain, if you cloned me, shouldn't I be able to see through the eyes of the clone and experience what the clone is experiencing? If the conscious experiencer is merely made by the brain, then an identical brain should mean that the experiencer feels like they've been reborn. But this doesn't happen. A separate experiencer is produced. Obviously there's something more than the physical brain at work.
"If consciousness is merely an emergent property of the brain" then the consciousness that emerged from the clone's mind is a property of the mind of that clone. Not of your mind. Both clone and you are individual experiencing entities. Your wanting that "Real" magic trick which is most likely not there. Damage a part of your mental hardware and your experience changes. Slowly pull a part a person's brain their metal experience wears down to near nothing until....
....it is conceivable they do not experience any more, eg when some one dies. Food for thought though check out this on youtube Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist This is where a persons connective tissue that connects both sides of the brain is cut. Half his brain it turns out is a theist the other atheist. Perhaps its two minds in one body? Does our brains/minds have some "Real" supernatural property now? I highly doubt it. Death = non experience
@jasmac04 Yeah I've seen the split brain vid and I've got questions on it. If the left and right brain is split into 2 individuals, is this 2 new individuals? Does one of them remember being the original, or do they both claim to be the original? Do they have control of one eye each? And my biggest question is, who has control of the mouth? How did they find out that one was atheist and one was theist? You want a REAL magic trick? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How did it all begin?
How did it all begin? Positing something supernatural does not solve anything. The act of science is to come to an answer for these questions with evidence. Supernatural or the notion of something more does not come into it, because these things are yet to be founded as reasonable conclusions. I don't really want to say trash them completely, i more want to say do not view the world through them because it is unjustified. Stick to what is shown to be the case....
@jasmac04 I'll end by positing that the supernatural can be viewed as something that is obviously natural, since by existing it must be natural, yet that which is beyond our current understanding or beyond our capability to comprehend from within our subjective experience. By this definition I will argue that the origin of everything can be described as supernatural. I'm betting they'll never find the answer to this question. Until they do, my money is safe. That's my opinion, you can have yours
@jasmac04 And to bring my point back around to something Dan Dennett says - that consciousness is merely a bag of tricks performed by the brain. Since science has (of yet) no answers for the origin of everything, and hence no answers for the origin of the "props" for this so-called magic trick, then it is incorrect to claim that this phenomenon is merely a bag of tricks. Until we know how these props came into existence, supernatural or not, we cannot claim to know everything about them.
But the point is that the default position would be to say that there is nothing more to consciousness. Since death = no brain activity = no experience. To say there is more to consciousness is to assert something that needs justification. Just as atheism is the default position when talking about god. Atheism is a statement of no belief in god while theism is a proposition that has the burden of proof, not atheism. And science does not claim to know everything about......
....everything. Well in fact science is completely indifferent about possibilities. That if consciousness is something more or that if god exists. That is what is so great about it, it ain't like us. Something more to consciousness is something supernatural that would seem to defy the laws within this universe. Conscious experience depends on hardware, this seems proven by these experiments. No Hardware = No conscious experience. Asserting something more is not natural.
N.B. I guess i was mistaken in saying that " there is nothing more" is the default position as my analogy pointed out to me. The default position then would be not claiming anything. Though it seems more evident that there is nothing more to consciousnesses and claiming something more than the natural idea that the mind is reliant on the brain, is a leap into a supernatural realm. Intuitively there may feel something more but intuition is not reliable.
@jasmac04 "Though it seems more evident that there is nothing more to consciousnesses.."
To a lot of people, including many scientists, it does not. Even if consciousness is a product of the brain, you simply cannot take for granted the existence of the materials that this hardware is constructed from, and the essential special properties those materials possess, down to the quantum level. The origin of all of the above may always remain beyond our capacity to comprehend.
"To a lot of people, including many scientists, it does not" You say scientists and i don't doubt that but i would not be surprised if they are the minority like theism in the science community. With life after death in mind Harris made a point where if someone is brain damaged and their personality and cognitive function is that of a sparrow before they die, are they like this after death? God, telepathy, Life after death cannot be argued against and they are in a strict....
...sense possible but these things are not yet known and as such, i think should be relegated to the back of the mind where they are not going to be used as a foundation for justifying further things, or used to build a belief in something that would otherwise be supernatural and nuts. That is my concern and it maybe yours as well.
@jasmac04 You're missing my point. I haven't mentioned God, telepathy or life after death, so your reply is addressing something I haven't even talked about. What I have alluded to are the very definite paradoxes that pertain to existence, ie. energy cannot be created or destroyed, quantum effects etc. These are things that may always be beyond our subjective capacity to understand, and can therefore be described as supernatural, at least to us in any case.
@jasmac04 All I'm saying is, it's wrong to make assertions when we don't have all the data. You simply cannot assert that there is nothing spooky going on with consciousness and that it's a bag of tricks performed by the brain, because I will ask you what made the brain, and what made the stuff that made the brain, etc. Keep following that line of questioning and you will reach a point where you have to admit that the answer will always be paradoxical to us and beyond our understanding.
@1simonmatthews "What MADE the brain?" That assumes that some sort of being made the brain. It's impossible, BTW, for you to know whether or not we can understand consciousness. So saying it will always seem like magic doesn't make it true. The fact that at some point explanations end does NOT mean that there's something supernatural going on.
@jbinker You've completely misinterpreted me. When I ask what made the brain, I don't mean who made the brain, I mean what is it made from, which may have been more clear if you had followed from the beginning. I never said it was impossible to understand consciousness, I said we are limited to our perception and some things may remain beyond our capability to comprehend. I said I believe consciousness, with its fundamental parts, lie in this category. I didn't say I knew.
@jbinker As for the supernatural, I'll explain again. There is no such thing as the supernatural, since if something exists then it must be natural. However, since our perception of reality is limited to our own subjectivity, we may never be able to perceive the true nature of the universe. Such things would seem to us as indistinguishable from the supernatural, even though they are not. So again, your last sentence demonstrates a complete misinterpretation of my point.
@jasmac04 To sum up: there is no such thing as the supernatural, since if something exists then it must be natural. However, since our perception of reality is limited to our own subjectivity, we may never be able to perceive the true nature of the universe. Ergo, some things may always be beyond our understanding. These things will always seem like magic to us, even though they are not, since they exist. I believe consciousness, with its fundamental constituent parts, lie in this category.
.... and as for the split brain thing. I used that to help demonstrate the minds reliance on biological hardware, to then demonstrate our experience is likely to be only natural not supernatural. And assuming something more would be just wishful thinking. I feel that you maybe be asserting an argument from ignorance, that is "if we do not know and cannot say, then it must be something supernatural or something more" which is an illogical step.
@jasmac04 To be honest, I find this same old argument BS, because scientists will never admit to the supernatural, instead they call it the unknown, yet they don't mind using the word in arguments, in a mocking way I might add. The definition of supernatural is a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. For a start, if something exists then it cannot be supernatural by its own definition since by existing it is a part of nature. To say something is supernatural is paradoxical.
@jasmac04 However, another page defines supernatural as "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Using this definition then there are several examples of the supernatural in existence. The measurement problem and quantum entanglement (oh and also how it all began!) are both beyond current scientific understanding and therefore supernatural by the above definition. I'm sure however that scientists would deem them "the unknown".
@1simonmatthews Look into Lawrence Krauss' work in quantum physics. He has research that suggests that energy can arise from nothing.
If you're not that scientifically literate, then you should pick up his book coming out next year, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012). It will explain his research in layman's terms.
I highly recommend looking into one or the either.
@sexyloser Yes I've seen Lawrence Krauss' lecture on A Universe From Nothing. It's a theory that leaves many questions unanswered for me, though that may just be because I didn't understand it fully. However, I think I will look further into his work. Thanks :-)
Yep...he's proposing what has been known for a long time, mainly focusing on visual perception. We already know that we in fact at any given time see very little, it's our brains that do the heavy duty work of creating reality as it is day to day. Philosophers never explain things, it's not "their field"
@GCthegreat1ify "Yep...he's proposing what has been known for a long time, mainly focusing on visual perception."
To be fair, he has also been proposing it for a long time, and in great detail. Producing a range of testable hypotheses that have subsequently been tested by experimental scientists.
"Philosophers never explain things, it's not "their field" "
Most philosophers of science, are highly capable scientists and publish/review in cutting edge science journals.
@GCthegreat1ify What they usually don't do is experiments. They are "theoretical scientists" if you will, with vastly more focus on argumentation theory and logic than most practical scientists. To combine such expertise can be incredibly powerful at times, similar to how pure mathematicians can often be a huge asset to experimental scientists.
The picture of consciousness at 3:39 does not depict consciousness. A computer can be programmed to perform this "stream of consciousness" - to go from one thing to another related thing and to another etc. - but the computer is not conscious, it is not aware of anything, it is only electrical flow in an electronic circuit.
The impression I get is that Dan Dennett thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else. Ok Dan, if consciousness is a "magic trick", explain how the "props" for this magic trick even exist in the first place. I want you to explain every little detail of how it all exists and thus how this "magic trick" is made possible. If you can't do that, then you can't say that consciousness is a "real magic trick" because you don't even know where the hell the props came from in the first place. Ha!
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I think it's interesting that he describes consciousness as a bunch of tricks. So consciousness is a bunch of tricks, and these tricks are performed by the brain, and the brain evolved from the universe, which tells me that the universe evolved in such a way as to trick itself. This concurs with my idea that the universe is doing something to make its own existence more interesting. It's trying to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Basically, it's bored.
@1simonmatthews You've been tricked by your mind. You have used the empathy your brain has given you to interact with other humans on the universe. The universe does not have feelings
@MRLfromhell We're part of the universe. Our minds are part of the universe. We're not individual little things inside the universe - that's part of the trick that the universe is playing. At the base of everything (all matter) is an invisible force called energy, which is a single thing that permeates the universe. It IS the universe. It's the brain (consciousness) that creates the 3D illusion we perceive, but it's the universe that assembled the brain, and it's all just energy. The universe.
@MRLfromhell Nah, it helps you see the truth. Seriously though, science has shown that if you look inside the atom, then inside the nucleus, then keep going, past the quarks and whatever else, there is just energy. What is energy? Can you see it? No. It doesn't look like anything. And it's this energy that is at the base of everything. Our brains are made from that energy, and they have developed in such a way as to interpret the universe the way they do. Our brains came from that energy. Fact.
Science doesn't understand the true nature of matter. It has found many fundamental particles, but matter and energy are two clearly distinct phenomena. Matter can be converted into energy, and energy into matter, but one is not the other. While it may be true to say all matter came from energy, it's misrepresenting the state of our understanding of reality to say "Matter is just energy".
@Keinlicht Ok, I wouldn't argue with what you say, but I think calling me a liar is a little wrong, I was only trying to speak what I thought to be the truth, going by the information I have picked up from watching other videos. I may have misinterpreted information, but that doesn't make me a liar. I keep trying to learn. That's all I can do.
@1simonmatthews Ok, maybe calling you a liar (while technically correct) was a bit aggressive. Either way it seems you ought to familiarize yourself more with the nature of reality. I'd reccomend ozmoroid's excellent video series on relativity as a start, if you're interested.
@Keinlicht Actually, for your information, a lie wouldn't be technically correct, because I lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive, which is not what I was doing. I may have been giving incorrect information, but it was done so with the assumption (correct or otherwise) that I was telling the truth. Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with the semantics of the English language before you preach what is and what isn't technically correct ;-)
"science has shown that if you look inside the atom, then inside the nucleus, then keep going, past the quarks and whatever else, there is just energy" This is a positive assertion of fact, you are attempting to persuade the other person based on your lacking understanding of matter. You knowingly posited more than you could say you knew for sure, as if you could. That's dishonest one way or another.
@Keinlicht No, you're wrong. A lie is when you deliberately try to decieve another - look it up. I genuinelly thought I was telling the truth. There is a BIG difference between a lie and a mistake. I was unconscious of the possibility that I may be presenting incorrect information. You were wrong, accept it. That doesn't make you a liar, unless you are conscious of the fact that your are giving incorrect information about the meaning of the word "lie". Give up on this one mate, I know I'm right.
"At the base of everything (all matter) is an invisible force called energy" You accept that you are wrong to say that, and that you didn't know enough to have said that. So then you were knowingly inventing knowledge that you didn't have. I think "liar" is semantically accurate.
@Keinlicht No, no, no, and no! You really need to learn the real meaning of the word "lie". You are wrong. Get over it, you argumentative person! Just because someone says something that turns out to be incorrect doesn't mean they are a liar. You have a warped view of the meaning. I thought the information I was giving was accurate. I'm assuming it isn't accurate now only on your word. Drop it, you're wrong.
@Keinlicht If someone teaches you the 5 times table but teaches it to you incorrectly, you will believe that you know the 5 times table, even though you don't. If you then go on to say to someone, "This is the 5 times table," and someone says back to you, "No, that's not the 5 times table," that does not mean you have been lying about the 5 times table. I'm telling you now, you were WRONG. You can accept that you were wrong, or not accept that you were wrong. Either way, you were wrong. FACT.
@1simonmatthews Look I don't care what you think about this, its not the same when you know the person teaching you maths doesn't quite know what hes talking about.
That it was dishonest is without question, for me. i don't care to discuss it any further.
@Keinlicht Hahaha you can't accept you were wrong. You can't even be honest to yourself, so don't preach to me about honesty. Keep lying to yourself mate. I thought the videos I was watching were fact. It's an absolute waste of time trying to talk to people like you, so have a nice day. Lol
@CarmelTreweeke That's a fair point, what then would you say is conscious though? Because our visual perceptions are things which we are 'conscious' of, so shouldn't it in some way warrant being classed as a part of consciousness?
I dont see what the point of his presentation was. He showed some optical illusions and that is suppose to be prove something about consciousness? I dont get it. I will tell you what consciousness is. it is the zero point field vortex spiraling into another dimension. it is your interface through a singularity to this material world.
I also have to dispute his claim that our eyes aren't receiving much information. I believe it's the exact opposite, our eyes are indescriminately taking in more information than our brain processes, and our brain has an involuntary filtering process that descriminates on what information is worthy of sending to the conscious part of the brain.
I have trouble seeing where the issue arises about consciousness, because what he's showing is that the brain's sensory interpretation is flawed, and often in a way that is beneficial for observational convention. Consciousness is utilizing flawed senses, but that says more about our limited ability to perceive the real world vs reality, and less to do with the source or a clear understanding of what consciousness actually is.
Our senses are not flawed, that how they must work.
the trick is that most important part of our brain is "tokenizer" the system which converts everything into logical objects and actions. So if you look into plane you do not see array of pixels, you see single object.
until it is same object details does not matter. upon detailed examination you may spilt that object into array of connected objects, but you cant spilt image into array of pixels like computer does.
@soldatheero, you somewhat miss the point. How does what come into existence? Consciousness is merely an abstraction so we can talk to each other without our the conversations spanning eons, to understand from where it came from and how we must first define what it is. Obvservation is not consciousness but it is not an insignificant part of what it means to be conscious. Observation, awareness, reasoning, decision making, emotion, to name just a few aspects.
@cornsnoggle What that people cant accept that consciousness a product of the brain dogmatically because the scientific community and people like Dennette say so?? Hah jokes on you bud
Your brain didn't take the suggestion you did, you assumed there was more detail because of your past experience, what is your point? This video was so boring im not going to pretend I watched it all but I doubt there was anything of meaning in it. He says others are stubborn on their views of conscuousness and claims to demystify consciousness but his explainatiosn do no such thing, he almost completely misses the point. NOT how does consciousness operate, HOW does it come into existence!
illusions dont say anything about our consciousness, only our ability to perceive....optical, indeed, sensory cells DO NOT make up our consciousness!!!
@trufiend138 and that same consciousness that lives in the eye, lives i the skins, the nose, so on - it lives in the mind, too, and is aware of thoughts...
i wasn't saying consciousness was "optical," if you like that word for some reason...
try those pics drunk i seemed to pick them up way faster than the posted times. Also dont look at things your expecting to move. People looking at the plane when it was the background in the second to last is what took so long. Were looking at props, wings, elevation,landing gear, while scientists are moving shadows. Shadows are something your brain assumes are stationary on stationary objects. the sun doesn't move incredibly fast. And we really do see a lot less than we thing in peripherals.
@Wedneswere I do not believe that i completely understand the premise of intellect and perception being objects. My understanding is that they are both derived from the imagination, a complex mental process. Consciousness seems to me as the means of translating what is projected by our imagination, seemingly the polar opposite mental process. Not stating that your comment is falsifiable, i think it is a rather interesting objective perception. Just requesting further clarification.
@3209486 Consciousness is NOT a mental process. What is so hard to understand about that? You have consciousness right in your head as you speak - you ARE consciousness, and nothing else. Everything else is the object of consciousness. If it helps, insert the word "awareness" in place of "consciousness". Do you see what I am saying?
The intellect manipulated concepts - these concepts are derived from the imagination, i would say: so it appears we agree here, yes?
@Wedneswere I see no need to display arrogance. I am certain you are not a neurologist, so i fail to see the need to imply authority over knowledge. I simply asked you to clarify a specif concept while stating a present understanding to give you my perspective so you could properly address it, which i still feel you have yet to do. Your explanation implies the idea of consciousness being a mental process, unless you are speaking of dualism. Awareness does not help either...
@3209486 Well, i was frustrated, that is all. But you are pulling a power play by bringing up neurology into the matter. No one needs to be a neurologist here. We are talking about consciousness. You have it. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be a sentient being. If a being were not conscious, then it would be incapable of suffering, or of experiencing joy - whatever happened to it would be irrelevant from an ethical standpoint. Do you see what I mean?
@Wedneswere There was a time when humans knew how to do things without knowing they knew how to do things. I like to think that true consciousness was sparked by the ability to harness of fire that ultimately led to the development of culture through the stone age. Just my wild little idea though. I think it is a pretty silly idea to think that the first of the human species suddenly understood he knew how to do things. It had to be developed somehow. Meaning it is a mental process.
@3209486 it seems as though when we use the word "consciousness" we are speaking of two different things. what does learning how to do something have to do with consciousness? is an ignorant person not consciousness??? - does s/he not feel pain or pleasure? is there not such a thing as awareness? does being aware of a certain thing mean true awareness, whereas being aware of something else mean "untrue" awareness? knowing and knowledge are not consciousness. they are mental processes.
@Wedneswere I am not stating that learning is consciousness, but the capacity to learn is what allowed consciousness as we know it. I do not believe consciousness is as simple as an on or off switch. In our primitive state we were conscious animals who acted on instincts and behaviors. This had to change somehow to being animals whose innate, behavioral actions where influenced by the perception that we have the ability to do more than what we know, such as create weapons and cook food.
@3209486 ...let me see here. First of all, I *AM* saying consciousness is as simple as an on/off switch. Second: I would say consciousness is pre-verbal. Third: I actually would not put nonhuman animals beneath human animals: in a way, humans are mentally ill animals - our intellects and verbal abilities are based on these tiny hallucinations and delusions we call concepts/words. See my website linguexperience. c om for more on my philsophy.
@Wedneswere First, i made no mention of non humanoids, but i do agree with your third point. I also agree with the second point you made. But your first point is what i cannot grasp, i simply do no believe something as complex as consciousness is as simple as on or off. I just cannot believe that the first of the human species possessed the same level of consciousness that we do today.
@3209486 well, i definitely mention non humanoids because their consciousness is a great concern of mine, and i am concerned with comparing theirs with that of the humans. but what i would say is that conscious itself cannot be complex, though what is in it might be. if consciousness contains an intellect, i.e, if there is an intellect and one is conscious of it, then that can be misinterpreted as complexity on consciousness' part.
@Wedneswere Then you would be very interested in the accounts of children being raised by animals. I think that we can gain a lot of understanding from studying such situations. The children are obviously conscious, but they maintain the intellect and behaviorism's of the animals that raised them. They never become conscious enough on their own to realize that they themselves are humans even when it is presented to them, it has to be taught. There is much to learn, we must take those steps.
@Wedneswere Read it again, you are not proposing the proper questions to my statements and i am not going to waste my time to spell out everything i say.
But that No is not absolute. I entertain possibilities of some forms of the supernatural being nonfiction. But I generally try to avoid supernatural explanations, and as a form of epistemological protocol I distrust them somewhat automatically.
@3209486 PS: I now feel that our fervor has died down and that we are beginning to form a good base for dialogue. It has ben my opinion in our discussion so far that we have been speaking from two different contexts of discourse, i.e, our terms and ways of speaking were set along the lines of two different sets of lexicons - as though each of us were speaking with two different English dictionaries under our belts. Our dialogue was a battle of definitions...
@Wedneswere Yes, the ultimate flaw built into our complex language. I have made the argument many times that many words that are used in scientific discussion are outdated because the meaning of said words has been distorted relentlessly by scientific advancement. Just another tale-tell sign of the slow adjustment process we as a species have applied to every aspect of ourselves and society.
@Wedneswere PPS: QUESTION: When you asked me if I regard consciousness as transcendent from the "material concept" (by which I believe you mean what I would call "matter"), were you asking the same question (but in a different guise) as when you asked me if I am a dualist? And, when you asked me if I believe in the supernatural, were you asking me the same question in a third form?
@3209486 Yes, you could say that. I could say here I am taking the stance of dualism - though I am not. But let us say I were, then I would put concepts and physical objects in the same category as Object in the sense of what there is to be conscious of. Consciousness is completely passive, a complete "given," - it cannot be thought about. Try to think abut it, and what you have done in the process is made a concept. Is that consciousness?
@Wedneswere I think this is well explained by science as a tag name for something we do not currently understand because of the limited intellectual capacity presented by what we just simply do not know. If there weren't things we do not know then there would be no point in scientific expansion. To claim you understand consciousness by explaining that you cannot explain it is completely redundant. In time we will come to understand consciousness for what it is.
@3209486 that is not my argument. and who is this "we" you are talking about? "we" could never understand consciousness - it is not a matter for a committee to vote on. my argument is simply to close your eyes. that is the gist of it.
strip away all concepts, any conceptions of mental processes, any notions of objects - go through a process of discarding everything in you mind - and what remains??? THAT is what i speak of...
@Wedneswere "we" is referring to the current state of the human species. I see you obviously do not feel you belong in that category, although i do not understand why. At one point "we" could never understand that the world was round or that pain is caused by our nervous system, but it came in time. Closing your eyes does not represent consciousness, it represents blindness. A fitting metaphor for your stance i would say. It seems like you are applying spirituality to consciousness. am i wrong?
@3209486 those are ad hominem attacks. that means a big buzzer went off and your seat was swiped from underneath you and you fell into a pool of cold water...
but i explained my over and over again to you.
there is no "we" in knowledge because there is no "we" brain. if no individual knew anything, then you could not even bring yourself to speak of a "we" knowing.
but i speak of EMPIRICISM. not knowing something based on what others tell you. your own experience is your laboratory.
@Wedneswere You do not need a "we" brain to provide "we" knowledge. What makes "we" knowledge possible is the absolute overload of information that we ALL have access to. Deciding to attain that knowledge is the individual aspect. If no individual knew anything, then we wouldn't be having this current discussion. But we do know things, so we can exchange beliefs. Knowledge is a burden, but we have come to far as a species to just stop now.
@3209486 the reason i chose to talk about your use of "we" is in the spirit of my argument of how to get to know consciousness, which is one of EXTREME empiricism. It's like looking in the mirror - only you can do it.
@Wedneswere That is your perception. If that works for you then fine. It does not fit with anything i have been taught as far as your claims to consciousness not being a mental process. Your attempts to clarify your stance have failed, for obvious reasons. I also do not understand your implication of empiricism when the only means of providing that aspect is using a sensory tool.
@3209486 the sensory tool is consciousness itself. that would be EXTREME PREVERBAL EMPIRICISM. and my claim has only been to encourage you to do the same. my claim is not in my words but in the experience.
trying to talk about consciousness is like trying to talk about seeing. you can talk about what is seen, but what about seeing itself? it exists, even if what is seen is a hallucination. and it exists even if it is as small as a pinpoint or big as the expanse of the whole sky.
@Wedneswere Consciousness is the perceptual interaction between the mind and nature provided by the sensory tools of the body that is translated by the mind. Seeing itself is clearly understood. What an idiotic question. Would we not have eye surgeons and specialist if we didn't understand seeing itself? I suggest you not stick to the metaphors as a means to explain your stance.
@3209486 SIgh... You make it difficult with your insults and pompousness. But I will try to continue...
I mentioned the eye because the eye has sight in itself - just like the brain has consciousness in itself. What is this consciousness? Imagine if you weren't conscious. What would that feel like? Answer: there would be no feeling - you would be dead, even if your body were alive and you were talking, moving, acting alive...
@Wedneswere Funny how your not to keen to insult reception considering that is the way you decided to carry on this conversation. Regardless. The eye itself does not have sight in itself, do you even understand how the eye works in correlation with the brain? If there weren't consciousness you would still feel, talk, and walk. You just wouldn't have the ability to recall these feeling, actions, and emotions through short and long term memory. Without memory, consciousness does not work...
@3209486 No, that is not how I began this conversation. All I did was say - not to you in particular - was that what Dan Dennet was talking about was not consciousness. He is not the dictator or the demiurge , therefore I can disagree with him. And the "consciousness" you are referring to is still not the same one I am referring to.
The metaphor of the eye was a metaphor, as you yourself labelled it. Therefore it is not meant to be taken literally.
@3209486 I agree that you could still feel, talk and walk, so on when conscious. That is why just because sight is present, does not mean consciousness is: for example, a webcam does not channel consciousness.
When you speak of consciousness, you speak of something analogous to sight as opposed to seeing, or, for that matter, walking in itself as opposed to individual incidents of walking.
@3209486 PS: I am a particularist/nominalist up until we get to consciousness - it is with consciousness alone that I am a universalist. If it can be proven that there are no universals, then I would maintain that consciousness does not exist - analogous to how, as you would have it, that the eye does not have sight in itself.
BTW, I do not believe the mind has consciousness, but that the mind is another sense like the eye. So the scalpel would have to dig deeper than the brain to find it.
@Wedneswere Yes but i still feel the most relevant topic here is memory. If there was nothing to recall, could consciousness exist? The interaction between consciousness and mental processes seems to justify labeling consciousness itself as a mental process unless you believe there is a possibility that consciousness is transcendent. But even then there must be natural laws governing how our minds interact with something that is transcendent, ultimately meaning we're aware of consciousness.
@Wedneswere Yes, I see what you are saying. What my question is, is when someone is not sleep and not dreaming, and there is thus nothing to remember, is there consciousness? I would say yes - but I am wary of using the term "transcendent". The closest I shall come to that would be to say consciousness is the only universal, and in regards to everything else I am a particularist.
I believe the brain channels consciousness, not creates it. Memory makes more to be conscious of.
@Wedneswere TYPE-O: I said "is not sleep and not dreaming" - I meant to say "is asleep and not dreaming"
I believe that there can be VEGETATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS - i.e, consciousness without intellect or memory or, for that matter, any limitations, either. Huge and vacant, empty, marvelous - infinite potential... But our intellects strangle it, so to speak (although it is not always a bad thing ;) )...
@Wedneswere - Certainly there is, as in brain damaged individuals. Experience without evaluation or recognition. But two healthy individuals can experience the exact same thing and have totally different, even opposing evaluations too. It's whatever works for the individual. Consciousness is subjective, always. There are those who think that humanity is not really sane. That consciousness must develop further, for any kind of measurable and clear honesty to be commonplace. Unhuman currently.
@JohnnyRock2000 Would you agree that there are two types of consciousness - or, I should rather say, two definitions to the word "consciousness", two which perhaps don't have to do with one another and it is thus sad that the same word is used... One definition is synonymous with the word "perception", and the other is synonymous with the word "awareness". The latter is a sort of "Ground of Being" or preverbal, the former intellectual or postverbal...
@Wedneswere Yes -perception and awareness.Experience and then experience personified. And then more. Experience personified and evaluated. It's the evaluation that is the moving target.Good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant. A dozen or more evaluation cagegories and zillions of sub categories. It makes us human, but unpredictable. One man's glory is another man's sin, in the end. Conclusions are a must of the mind, but certainly where insanity creeps in. Not always capital "I" insanity, but always there.
@JohnnyRock2000 The mind always wants to get its virtual hands around something, i.e, to form a conclusion - and, if you ask me, that springs from the same urge as wanting things to last forever, to live forever... One has the tendency to petrify the living/moving world - and, in this way, paradoxically, one kills reality in order to make it live forever...
I watched this stoned...I found those things on average 2-4 seconds...though some of those illusions like the cube tripped my mind out kind of made me go spacey and out of my body for a millisecond then i continued to watch...well demonstrated lecture
How wonderful it would be if people actually talked about the video instead of have junior high school attacks counterattacks against each other. It seems like that kind of nonsense is about 90% of the comments. How refreshing it is to see an insightful post by Wedneswere ... I agree, I think he has confused perception with consciousness. I remember reading his Consciousness Explained (wasn't) but remember nothing in it, except some humunculus talk. Better to read W. James on consciousness.
Dan Dennett is not talking about consciousness here, though that is what he claims to be doing. He is talking about PERCEPTION. He says nothing about consciousness. He confused the two.
@Wedneswere I totally agree. The really interesting question is not how the brain annalyses sensory input or recalls memories etc etc, that is the machine at work, the really interesting questions, at least to me, is why si there some principle in the brain that is aware that it is aware and how does that awareness come about ? Meditation in most of its forms is a practical attempt to answer that for the individual. But that is a qualitative, experiential answer not a logical explanation sadly.
@alivation Yes, exactly! The Big Mystery is that there is such a thing as Consciousness/Awareness to begin with... I don't think Dan Dennet realizes that if you are aware of something that is not there, that that, too, is awareness. And that the intellect can be totally absent, and there still is awareness... And he never addresses the excellent point you made, i.e, that awareness is aware of itself... which is INCREDIBLE.
@alivation I myself wonder if consciousnessness/awareness is itself a DIMENSION... Just like for something to exist, say, a box, you need height, length, width, and time, you also need AWARENESS. But i digress here. This is just an idea I am entertaining - I am not trying to degrade the discussion into some pro-Idealism debate... But I believe in contemporary physics - quantum mechanics??? - this idea may be out there - do you know if it is??? it would have to do with the Heisenberg Principle.
@Wedneswere Yes I have been wondering something similar from a chemistry/quantum mechanics angle ... is consciousness inherent in any feedback loop no matter how simple. The more complex and self regulating the feedback mechanism perhaps the more aware of it's awareness it becomes. I have no idea really. But life is basically a self regulating self sustaining chemical feedback mechanism. Anyway, the interesting thing is that by focusing on your awareness you can change your brain structure..
@Wedneswere.. and you are able to see more clearly the difference between brain processes like sight, sound and thought and the actual awareness, which you correctly state can exist free from thought and sensory processing. I suspect we will eventually figure it out through neuroscience and AI but Dan Dennet's approach won't get us there although it is a small piece of the puzzle I suppose.
@alivation I don't understand how his "approach" has anything to do with consciousness - and I say this with all due respect. I simply mean he does not refer to consciousness or awareness - so where, then, is there any approach towards understanding consciousness?
of course, all i know of dennet is this video. does he ever define consciousness? what does the word mean to him? not that it needs to be debated - it is the simplest idea: just close your eyes and look at looking...
@Wedneswere I agree with you. But I suppose since "we"(not sure what that "we" really is) are conscious of the results of the processing of sensory inputs, it is an obvious place to start for most people. But it is like discussing how a movie is projected onto a cinema screen without any reference to the fact that a movie has no meaning unless there is someone to watch it.
Perception is a sort of algorithm whereas consciousness is a sort of dimension that presupposes all thought... thought/thoughts/thinking is observed by consciousness. Vonsciousness, too, is observed by consciousness - otherwise there would be no way of knowig consciousness - since it is not an OBJECT, but the SUBJECT ITSELF...
Conscousness is not art of the World, though. It is not objective.
@Wedneswere "...does he ever define consciousness?" oh btw, I just emailed him and asked him is he has and for a reference or a link to it. Will be interesting to see if I get a reply. Must be a bus chap so am not pinning my hopes on it !
I don't understand why philosophy is so hated in academic circles. It seems to be based more on stereotypes and misconceptions about the field than anything else, as if they have mistaken the pseudo-intellectuals for the real ones. How can so many brilliant thinkers hold such a closed-minded view about an entire field? I ask this out of genuine curiosity.
@caffeininja your question is incoherent to me. I am not being vindictive. I want to answer your question, but I can't seem to differentiate the subjects and objects of your sentences. But I'll try to give you an answer from what think you are asking. I think philosophy gets a bad reputation because it doesn't conform to set standards of what a discipline is supposed to be. Philosophers are not as afraid to ask good questions that are not easily answered and this may seem hard to people.
@sunsplash1980 My bad. I guess I didn't type that very clearly. It just seems like when people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet poke fun at philosophy, they don't actually know what they are talking about. Kind of like how creationists don't know what science means. It's a strawman.
"Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that..." Where? There is no argumentation anywhere here. There's just a sequence of slideshows featuring optical illusions. How do optical illusions demonstrate we are mistaken about consciousness? Surely we're mistaken about 'the object' we're perceiving, not 'how we are perceiving it'. Am I missing something here?
snapfax08 1 day ago
I debated Dr. Dennett (Harvard, 2002) and he won. But now he wouldn't, I'm pretty sure.
JosephHuntington 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@JosephHuntington Well aren't you just special?
TheBiAtheist 1 week ago
I am also a philosopher, though nowhere near as well known as Dan Dennett. One of the first things we were taught as philosophy majors was Logic. We have it beaten into our heads, and rightfully so. I can spot a fallacy now, a mile away! But what I cannot do, however, is prove the primacy of logic. Why should the Logos be favored over Ethos or Pathos? Why should my truth tables be considered more 'weighty' than your 'feelings' (pathos)? Why should rhetoric be better than force? Dan can't say.
EnnoiaBlog 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
honestly is his guy really saying anything in the first half of the video? Please just get to the point
wamtm 1 month ago
Nice ... i love it.
MrPEDOCTOR 2 months ago
Sometimes I wonder if Daniel Dennett is schizo, or if he wants people to become schizos
GCthegreat1ify 3 months ago
scientists*
GCthegreat1ify 3 months ago
Philosophers may not be the best people to listen to when it comes to cognitive neuroscience...I think cognitive neuroscientosts can give much more in-depth explanations of our mental processes,without referring to them as "magic tricks"
GCthegreat1ify 3 months ago
Sorry but this wasn't a compelling arguement at all. Consciousness is an emergence of chemical activity in the brain. Though to say we don't know much about consciousness and show us optical illusions....is quite precisely..incoherent. You become more "conscious" as you gain a stronger and faster ability to process information(larger networks of neuronal pathways). It is known that our realities are infact symbolic representations made by our cognition...I guess you can call it magic...
GCthegreat1ify 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This proves god exists!
Cd3 3 months ago
I have a thought. If consciousness is merely an emergent property of the brain, if you cloned me, shouldn't I be able to see through the eyes of the clone and experience what the clone is experiencing? If the conscious experiencer is merely made by the brain, then an identical brain should mean that the experiencer feels like they've been reborn. But this doesn't happen. A separate experiencer is produced. Obviously there's something more than the physical brain at work.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
"If consciousness is merely an emergent property of the brain" then the consciousness that emerged from the clone's mind is a property of the mind of that clone. Not of your mind. Both clone and you are individual experiencing entities. Your wanting that "Real" magic trick which is most likely not there. Damage a part of your mental hardware and your experience changes. Slowly pull a part a person's brain their metal experience wears down to near nothing until....
jasmac04 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
....it is conceivable they do not experience any more, eg when some one dies. Food for thought though check out this on youtube Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist This is where a persons connective tissue that connects both sides of the brain is cut. Half his brain it turns out is a theist the other atheist. Perhaps its two minds in one body? Does our brains/minds have some "Real" supernatural property now? I highly doubt it. Death = non experience
jasmac04 3 months ago
@jasmac04 Yeah I've seen the split brain vid and I've got questions on it. If the left and right brain is split into 2 individuals, is this 2 new individuals? Does one of them remember being the original, or do they both claim to be the original? Do they have control of one eye each? And my biggest question is, who has control of the mouth? How did they find out that one was atheist and one was theist? You want a REAL magic trick? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How did it all begin?
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
How did it all begin? Positing something supernatural does not solve anything. The act of science is to come to an answer for these questions with evidence. Supernatural or the notion of something more does not come into it, because these things are yet to be founded as reasonable conclusions. I don't really want to say trash them completely, i more want to say do not view the world through them because it is unjustified. Stick to what is shown to be the case....
jasmac04 3 months ago
@jasmac04 I'll end by positing that the supernatural can be viewed as something that is obviously natural, since by existing it must be natural, yet that which is beyond our current understanding or beyond our capability to comprehend from within our subjective experience. By this definition I will argue that the origin of everything can be described as supernatural. I'm betting they'll never find the answer to this question. Until they do, my money is safe. That's my opinion, you can have yours
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@jasmac04 And to bring my point back around to something Dan Dennett says - that consciousness is merely a bag of tricks performed by the brain. Since science has (of yet) no answers for the origin of everything, and hence no answers for the origin of the "props" for this so-called magic trick, then it is incorrect to claim that this phenomenon is merely a bag of tricks. Until we know how these props came into existence, supernatural or not, we cannot claim to know everything about them.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
But the point is that the default position would be to say that there is nothing more to consciousness. Since death = no brain activity = no experience. To say there is more to consciousness is to assert something that needs justification. Just as atheism is the default position when talking about god. Atheism is a statement of no belief in god while theism is a proposition that has the burden of proof, not atheism. And science does not claim to know everything about......
jasmac04 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
....everything. Well in fact science is completely indifferent about possibilities. That if consciousness is something more or that if god exists. That is what is so great about it, it ain't like us. Something more to consciousness is something supernatural that would seem to defy the laws within this universe. Conscious experience depends on hardware, this seems proven by these experiments. No Hardware = No conscious experience. Asserting something more is not natural.
jasmac04 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
N.B. I guess i was mistaken in saying that " there is nothing more" is the default position as my analogy pointed out to me. The default position then would be not claiming anything. Though it seems more evident that there is nothing more to consciousnesses and claiming something more than the natural idea that the mind is reliant on the brain, is a leap into a supernatural realm. Intuitively there may feel something more but intuition is not reliable.
jasmac04 3 months ago
@jasmac04 "Though it seems more evident that there is nothing more to consciousnesses.."
To a lot of people, including many scientists, it does not. Even if consciousness is a product of the brain, you simply cannot take for granted the existence of the materials that this hardware is constructed from, and the essential special properties those materials possess, down to the quantum level. The origin of all of the above may always remain beyond our capacity to comprehend.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
"To a lot of people, including many scientists, it does not" You say scientists and i don't doubt that but i would not be surprised if they are the minority like theism in the science community. With life after death in mind Harris made a point where if someone is brain damaged and their personality and cognitive function is that of a sparrow before they die, are they like this after death? God, telepathy, Life after death cannot be argued against and they are in a strict....
jasmac04 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
...sense possible but these things are not yet known and as such, i think should be relegated to the back of the mind where they are not going to be used as a foundation for justifying further things, or used to build a belief in something that would otherwise be supernatural and nuts. That is my concern and it maybe yours as well.
jasmac04 3 months ago
@jasmac04 You're missing my point. I haven't mentioned God, telepathy or life after death, so your reply is addressing something I haven't even talked about. What I have alluded to are the very definite paradoxes that pertain to existence, ie. energy cannot be created or destroyed, quantum effects etc. These are things that may always be beyond our subjective capacity to understand, and can therefore be described as supernatural, at least to us in any case.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@jasmac04 All I'm saying is, it's wrong to make assertions when we don't have all the data. You simply cannot assert that there is nothing spooky going on with consciousness and that it's a bag of tricks performed by the brain, because I will ask you what made the brain, and what made the stuff that made the brain, etc. Keep following that line of questioning and you will reach a point where you have to admit that the answer will always be paradoxical to us and beyond our understanding.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews "What MADE the brain?" That assumes that some sort of being made the brain. It's impossible, BTW, for you to know whether or not we can understand consciousness. So saying it will always seem like magic doesn't make it true. The fact that at some point explanations end does NOT mean that there's something supernatural going on.
jbinker 3 months ago in playlist Dan Dennett
@jbinker You've completely misinterpreted me. When I ask what made the brain, I don't mean who made the brain, I mean what is it made from, which may have been more clear if you had followed from the beginning. I never said it was impossible to understand consciousness, I said we are limited to our perception and some things may remain beyond our capability to comprehend. I said I believe consciousness, with its fundamental parts, lie in this category. I didn't say I knew.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@jbinker As for the supernatural, I'll explain again. There is no such thing as the supernatural, since if something exists then it must be natural. However, since our perception of reality is limited to our own subjectivity, we may never be able to perceive the true nature of the universe. Such things would seem to us as indistinguishable from the supernatural, even though they are not. So again, your last sentence demonstrates a complete misinterpretation of my point.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@jasmac04 To sum up: there is no such thing as the supernatural, since if something exists then it must be natural. However, since our perception of reality is limited to our own subjectivity, we may never be able to perceive the true nature of the universe. Ergo, some things may always be beyond our understanding. These things will always seem like magic to us, even though they are not, since they exist. I believe consciousness, with its fundamental constituent parts, lie in this category.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
Hahaha true I think that is pretty much it. Do the best we can with the best we have and be as honest about it as possible.
jasmac04 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews
.... and as for the split brain thing. I used that to help demonstrate the minds reliance on biological hardware, to then demonstrate our experience is likely to be only natural not supernatural. And assuming something more would be just wishful thinking. I feel that you maybe be asserting an argument from ignorance, that is "if we do not know and cannot say, then it must be something supernatural or something more" which is an illogical step.
jasmac04 3 months ago
@jasmac04 To be honest, I find this same old argument BS, because scientists will never admit to the supernatural, instead they call it the unknown, yet they don't mind using the word in arguments, in a mocking way I might add. The definition of supernatural is a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. For a start, if something exists then it cannot be supernatural by its own definition since by existing it is a part of nature. To say something is supernatural is paradoxical.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@jasmac04 However, another page defines supernatural as "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Using this definition then there are several examples of the supernatural in existence. The measurement problem and quantum entanglement (oh and also how it all began!) are both beyond current scientific understanding and therefore supernatural by the above definition. I'm sure however that scientists would deem them "the unknown".
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
@1simonmatthews Look into Lawrence Krauss' work in quantum physics. He has research that suggests that energy can arise from nothing.
If you're not that scientifically literate, then you should pick up his book coming out next year, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012). It will explain his research in layman's terms.
I highly recommend looking into one or the either.
sexyloser 2 months ago
@sexyloser Yes I've seen Lawrence Krauss' lecture on A Universe From Nothing. It's a theory that leaves many questions unanswered for me, though that may just be because I didn't understand it fully. However, I think I will look further into his work. Thanks :-)
1simonmatthews 2 months ago
I bet I can explain consciousness.
I'll try it here: Consciousness is the nature experiencing itself.
Done, now let's fix poverty and unfairness.
CntthnkO15 3 months ago
This guy didn't say anything. Waste of time.
HueyTheDoctor87 3 months ago
@HueyTheDoctor87
Yep...he's proposing what has been known for a long time, mainly focusing on visual perception. We already know that we in fact at any given time see very little, it's our brains that do the heavy duty work of creating reality as it is day to day. Philosophers never explain things, it's not "their field"
GCthegreat1ify 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GCthegreat1ify "Yep...he's proposing what has been known for a long time, mainly focusing on visual perception."
To be fair, he has also been proposing it for a long time, and in great detail. Producing a range of testable hypotheses that have subsequently been tested by experimental scientists.
"Philosophers never explain things, it's not "their field" "
Most philosophers of science, are highly capable scientists and publish/review in cutting edge science journals.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@GCthegreat1ify What they usually don't do is experiments. They are "theoretical scientists" if you will, with vastly more focus on argumentation theory and logic than most practical scientists. To combine such expertise can be incredibly powerful at times, similar to how pure mathematicians can often be a huge asset to experimental scientists.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
The sudden increase in volume when the TED logo appears nearly knocked my balls off jesus.
SubjectE 3 months ago in playlist The Absolute Best TED talks 16
He's only catching the surface. Maybe he didn't want to alienate the audience...but still what a silly presentation to give such an august gathering
crudhousefull 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
The picture of consciousness at 3:39 does not depict consciousness. A computer can be programmed to perform this "stream of consciousness" - to go from one thing to another related thing and to another etc. - but the computer is not conscious, it is not aware of anything, it is only electrical flow in an electronic circuit.
1simonmatthews 4 months ago
The impression I get is that Dan Dennett thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else. Ok Dan, if consciousness is a "magic trick", explain how the "props" for this magic trick even exist in the first place. I want you to explain every little detail of how it all exists and thus how this "magic trick" is made possible. If you can't do that, then you can't say that consciousness is a "real magic trick" because you don't even know where the hell the props came from in the first place. Ha!
1simonmatthews 4 months ago
What he basically did, was show you a few things you didn't know about how the brain works, and then say, see, we know how consciousness works!
hasenj 4 months ago
Look up "hard problem of consciousness". He explains the brain, not qualia.
(no i haven't watch the whole video yet, but I've seen him talk about consciousness before)
hasenj 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
bullshit
nishadmm1 4 months ago
Am I the only one who noticed that the colors at the end were inverted before he pointed it out?
finalfantasy8VIII 4 months ago
@finalfantasy8VIII yes.
cortesuprema 4 months ago
i THOUGHT CONSCIOUSNESS WAS PART OF THE BRAIN WHICH SOME HAVE AND SOME DON'T. SEE PRESENT DAY SOCIETY.
charlottepenna 5 months ago
@charlottepenna everyones conscious at some lever, and chooses which level to be conscious about
Kaeralho 5 months ago
Comment removed
1642poltergeist 6 months ago
slightly disappointed by this talk but still very interesting.
but still, i fucking love TED! it inspired me in so many ways and as a result i have grown so much.
CircusOfBedlam 6 months ago
I think it's interesting that he describes consciousness as a bunch of tricks. So consciousness is a bunch of tricks, and these tricks are performed by the brain, and the brain evolved from the universe, which tells me that the universe evolved in such a way as to trick itself. This concurs with my idea that the universe is doing something to make its own existence more interesting. It's trying to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. Basically, it's bored.
1simonmatthews 7 months ago
@1simonmatthews You've been tricked by your mind. You have used the empathy your brain has given you to interact with other humans on the universe. The universe does not have feelings
MRLfromhell 6 months ago
@MRLfromhell We're part of the universe. Our minds are part of the universe. We're not individual little things inside the universe - that's part of the trick that the universe is playing. At the base of everything (all matter) is an invisible force called energy, which is a single thing that permeates the universe. It IS the universe. It's the brain (consciousness) that creates the 3D illusion we perceive, but it's the universe that assembled the brain, and it's all just energy. The universe.
1simonmatthews 6 months ago
@1simonmatthews you should take a break from the acid dude
MRLfromhell 6 months ago
@MRLfromhell Nah, it helps you see the truth. Seriously though, science has shown that if you look inside the atom, then inside the nucleus, then keep going, past the quarks and whatever else, there is just energy. What is energy? Can you see it? No. It doesn't look like anything. And it's this energy that is at the base of everything. Our brains are made from that energy, and they have developed in such a way as to interpret the universe the way they do. Our brains came from that energy. Fact.
1simonmatthews 6 months ago
@1simonmatthews That's not true at all. You're a liar.
Science doesn't understand the true nature of matter. It has found many fundamental particles, but matter and energy are two clearly distinct phenomena. Matter can be converted into energy, and energy into matter, but one is not the other. While it may be true to say all matter came from energy, it's misrepresenting the state of our understanding of reality to say "Matter is just energy".
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht Ok, I wouldn't argue with what you say, but I think calling me a liar is a little wrong, I was only trying to speak what I thought to be the truth, going by the information I have picked up from watching other videos. I may have misinterpreted information, but that doesn't make me a liar. I keep trying to learn. That's all I can do.
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews Ok, maybe calling you a liar (while technically correct) was a bit aggressive. Either way it seems you ought to familiarize yourself more with the nature of reality. I'd reccomend ozmoroid's excellent video series on relativity as a start, if you're interested.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht Actually, for your information, a lie wouldn't be technically correct, because I lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive, which is not what I was doing. I may have been giving incorrect information, but it was done so with the assumption (correct or otherwise) that I was telling the truth. Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with the semantics of the English language before you preach what is and what isn't technically correct ;-)
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews
"science has shown that if you look inside the atom, then inside the nucleus, then keep going, past the quarks and whatever else, there is just energy" This is a positive assertion of fact, you are attempting to persuade the other person based on your lacking understanding of matter. You knowingly posited more than you could say you knew for sure, as if you could. That's dishonest one way or another.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht No, you're wrong. A lie is when you deliberately try to decieve another - look it up. I genuinelly thought I was telling the truth. There is a BIG difference between a lie and a mistake. I was unconscious of the possibility that I may be presenting incorrect information. You were wrong, accept it. That doesn't make you a liar, unless you are conscious of the fact that your are giving incorrect information about the meaning of the word "lie". Give up on this one mate, I know I'm right.
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@Keinlicht "because a lie is a deliberate attempt..." I meant to say, before you pick up on that typo lol ;-)
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews
"At the base of everything (all matter) is an invisible force called energy" You accept that you are wrong to say that, and that you didn't know enough to have said that. So then you were knowingly inventing knowledge that you didn't have. I think "liar" is semantically accurate.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht No, no, no, and no! You really need to learn the real meaning of the word "lie". You are wrong. Get over it, you argumentative person! Just because someone says something that turns out to be incorrect doesn't mean they are a liar. You have a warped view of the meaning. I thought the information I was giving was accurate. I'm assuming it isn't accurate now only on your word. Drop it, you're wrong.
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews Presenting ignorance as fact is lying. I'll just agree to disagree with you, since its obvious neither of us is going to give up.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht If someone teaches you the 5 times table but teaches it to you incorrectly, you will believe that you know the 5 times table, even though you don't. If you then go on to say to someone, "This is the 5 times table," and someone says back to you, "No, that's not the 5 times table," that does not mean you have been lying about the 5 times table. I'm telling you now, you were WRONG. You can accept that you were wrong, or not accept that you were wrong. Either way, you were wrong. FACT.
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews Look I don't care what you think about this, its not the same when you know the person teaching you maths doesn't quite know what hes talking about.
That it was dishonest is without question, for me. i don't care to discuss it any further.
Keinlicht 5 months ago
@Keinlicht Hahaha you can't accept you were wrong. You can't even be honest to yourself, so don't preach to me about honesty. Keep lying to yourself mate. I thought the videos I was watching were fact. It's an absolute waste of time trying to talk to people like you, so have a nice day. Lol
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
@1simonmatthews Gods in hiding! YES? And @MRLfromhell : The universe is all feelings.
3877michael 5 months ago
I disagree that visual perception and/or cognitive processes = consciousness
CarmelTreweeke 8 months ago
@CarmelTreweeke That's a fair point, what then would you say is conscious though? Because our visual perceptions are things which we are 'conscious' of, so shouldn't it in some way warrant being classed as a part of consciousness?
CryMyInkTears 6 months ago
I dont see what the point of his presentation was. He showed some optical illusions and that is suppose to be prove something about consciousness? I dont get it. I will tell you what consciousness is. it is the zero point field vortex spiraling into another dimension. it is your interface through a singularity to this material world.
godseyeview 8 months ago
@godseyeview could u possibly break it down for me
SteadeeB 8 months ago
@godseyeview Where is the singularity and where do we go afterwards my dear Lord?
iliveon 7 months ago
I am only interested in the "truth" whatever it turns out to be!
szmako 8 months ago
I also have to dispute his claim that our eyes aren't receiving much information. I believe it's the exact opposite, our eyes are indescriminately taking in more information than our brain processes, and our brain has an involuntary filtering process that descriminates on what information is worthy of sending to the conscious part of the brain.
mrbenderson005 9 months ago
@mrbenderson005
I think he meant to say, that our eyes are relatively weak, comparing to modern cameras.
We have only about one mega pixel resolution(only that much fibbers in optical nerve). what is not much more that modern Barbie camera.
deltaxcd 8 months ago
I have trouble seeing where the issue arises about consciousness, because what he's showing is that the brain's sensory interpretation is flawed, and often in a way that is beneficial for observational convention. Consciousness is utilizing flawed senses, but that says more about our limited ability to perceive the real world vs reality, and less to do with the source or a clear understanding of what consciousness actually is.
mrbenderson005 9 months ago
@mrbenderson005
Our senses are not flawed, that how they must work.
the trick is that most important part of our brain is "tokenizer" the system which converts everything into logical objects and actions. So if you look into plane you do not see array of pixels, you see single object.
until it is same object details does not matter. upon detailed examination you may spilt that object into array of connected objects, but you cant spilt image into array of pixels like computer does.
deltaxcd 8 months ago
Interesting.
madder66mortem 9 months ago
@soldatheero, you somewhat miss the point. How does what come into existence? Consciousness is merely an abstraction so we can talk to each other without our the conversations spanning eons, to understand from where it came from and how we must first define what it is. Obvservation is not consciousness but it is not an insignificant part of what it means to be conscious. Observation, awareness, reasoning, decision making, emotion, to name just a few aspects.
stubertbear 9 months ago
I love Prof. Dennett's talks.
reinforcedpenisstem 9 months ago
@cornsnoggle What that people cant accept that consciousness a product of the brain dogmatically because the scientific community and people like Dennette say so?? Hah jokes on you bud
soldatheero 10 months ago
Your brain didn't take the suggestion you did, you assumed there was more detail because of your past experience, what is your point? This video was so boring im not going to pretend I watched it all but I doubt there was anything of meaning in it. He says others are stubborn on their views of conscuousness and claims to demystify consciousness but his explainatiosn do no such thing, he almost completely misses the point. NOT how does consciousness operate, HOW does it come into existence!
soldatheero 10 months ago
You just proved his point. Fail.
cornsnoggle 10 months ago
@soldatheero
I agree with you He really failed to explain anything just gave facts.
even it it is not that hard to explain.
deltaxcd 8 months ago
I know one should never argue about definitions with a philosopher, but, wasn't he talking about perception, not consciousness?
The I that says I am, is not the I that thinks. If you get my drift...
Jardarny 10 months ago
illusions dont say anything about our consciousness, only our ability to perceive....optical, indeed, sensory cells DO NOT make up our consciousness!!!
trufiend138 11 months ago
@trufiend138 but when one is conscious of illusions, even when not knowing they are illusions, one is still nonetheless CONSCIOUS of them...
EVERYTHING fits into consciousness....
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@trufiend138 and that same consciousness that lives in the eye, lives i the skins, the nose, so on - it lives in the mind, too, and is aware of thoughts...
i wasn't saying consciousness was "optical," if you like that word for some reason...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
try those pics drunk i seemed to pick them up way faster than the posted times. Also dont look at things your expecting to move. People looking at the plane when it was the background in the second to last is what took so long. Were looking at props, wings, elevation,landing gear, while scientists are moving shadows. Shadows are something your brain assumes are stationary on stationary objects. the sun doesn't move incredibly fast. And we really do see a lot less than we thing in peripherals.
TheObermiller 11 months ago
(1) conciousness = subject; everything else = object...
(2) whatever the objects are, consciousness is still in every way still consciousness...
(3) the world is all the objects, consciousness is apart from the world...
(4) the intellect and perception are objects...
(5) there is nothing to say about consciousness...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere PS: and there is nothing to even THINK about consciousness...
do you catch my drift???
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I do not believe that i completely understand the premise of intellect and perception being objects. My understanding is that they are both derived from the imagination, a complex mental process. Consciousness seems to me as the means of translating what is projected by our imagination, seemingly the polar opposite mental process. Not stating that your comment is falsifiable, i think it is a rather interesting objective perception. Just requesting further clarification.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 Consciousness is NOT a mental process. What is so hard to understand about that? You have consciousness right in your head as you speak - you ARE consciousness, and nothing else. Everything else is the object of consciousness. If it helps, insert the word "awareness" in place of "consciousness". Do you see what I am saying?
The intellect manipulated concepts - these concepts are derived from the imagination, i would say: so it appears we agree here, yes?
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I see no need to display arrogance. I am certain you are not a neurologist, so i fail to see the need to imply authority over knowledge. I simply asked you to clarify a specif concept while stating a present understanding to give you my perspective so you could properly address it, which i still feel you have yet to do. Your explanation implies the idea of consciousness being a mental process, unless you are speaking of dualism. Awareness does not help either...
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 Well, i was frustrated, that is all. But you are pulling a power play by bringing up neurology into the matter. No one needs to be a neurologist here. We are talking about consciousness. You have it. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be a sentient being. If a being were not conscious, then it would be incapable of suffering, or of experiencing joy - whatever happened to it would be irrelevant from an ethical standpoint. Do you see what I mean?
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere There was a time when humans knew how to do things without knowing they knew how to do things. I like to think that true consciousness was sparked by the ability to harness of fire that ultimately led to the development of culture through the stone age. Just my wild little idea though. I think it is a pretty silly idea to think that the first of the human species suddenly understood he knew how to do things. It had to be developed somehow. Meaning it is a mental process.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 it seems as though when we use the word "consciousness" we are speaking of two different things. what does learning how to do something have to do with consciousness? is an ignorant person not consciousness??? - does s/he not feel pain or pleasure? is there not such a thing as awareness? does being aware of a certain thing mean true awareness, whereas being aware of something else mean "untrue" awareness? knowing and knowledge are not consciousness. they are mental processes.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I am not stating that learning is consciousness, but the capacity to learn is what allowed consciousness as we know it. I do not believe consciousness is as simple as an on or off switch. In our primitive state we were conscious animals who acted on instincts and behaviors. This had to change somehow to being animals whose innate, behavioral actions where influenced by the perception that we have the ability to do more than what we know, such as create weapons and cook food.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 ...let me see here. First of all, I *AM* saying consciousness is as simple as an on/off switch. Second: I would say consciousness is pre-verbal. Third: I actually would not put nonhuman animals beneath human animals: in a way, humans are mentally ill animals - our intellects and verbal abilities are based on these tiny hallucinations and delusions we call concepts/words. See my website linguexperience. c om for more on my philsophy.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere First, i made no mention of non humanoids, but i do agree with your third point. I also agree with the second point you made. But your first point is what i cannot grasp, i simply do no believe something as complex as consciousness is as simple as on or off. I just cannot believe that the first of the human species possessed the same level of consciousness that we do today.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 well, i definitely mention non humanoids because their consciousness is a great concern of mine, and i am concerned with comparing theirs with that of the humans. but what i would say is that conscious itself cannot be complex, though what is in it might be. if consciousness contains an intellect, i.e, if there is an intellect and one is conscious of it, then that can be misinterpreted as complexity on consciousness' part.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Then you would be very interested in the accounts of children being raised by animals. I think that we can gain a lot of understanding from studying such situations. The children are obviously conscious, but they maintain the intellect and behaviorism's of the animals that raised them. They never become conscious enough on their own to realize that they themselves are humans even when it is presented to them, it has to be taught. There is much to learn, we must take those steps.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 you are not talking about consciousness.
animals are conscious. i know this because they have brains.
and what makes you think that how a being identifies itself (e.g, as human or not, or whathaveyou) has anything to do with consciousness?
if you lost your identity, would you have lost your consciousness?
if you are conscious of a lie, are you somehow not conscious?
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Read it again, you are not proposing the proper questions to my statements and i am not going to waste my time to spell out everything i say.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 i can only repeat: you are not talking about consciousness.
and my questions are are the proper ones to ask. what makes you say they are not?
my stance is one of EXTREME PREVERBAL EMPIRICISM.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Okay, we can take this route. I will start it off properly. Do you believe consciousness transcends the materialist concept?
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 Matter is object, consciousness is subject...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere So you believe in the supernatural? The question is not facetious in case you are wondering.
3209486 10 months ago
@3209486 No.
But that No is not absolute. I entertain possibilities of some forms of the supernatural being nonfiction. But I generally try to avoid supernatural explanations, and as a form of epistemological protocol I distrust them somewhat automatically.
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere Okay i respect that, so let me narrow the question. Do you believe consciousness is supernatural?
3209486 10 months ago
@3209486 PS: I now feel that our fervor has died down and that we are beginning to form a good base for dialogue. It has ben my opinion in our discussion so far that we have been speaking from two different contexts of discourse, i.e, our terms and ways of speaking were set along the lines of two different sets of lexicons - as though each of us were speaking with two different English dictionaries under our belts. Our dialogue was a battle of definitions...
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere Yes, the ultimate flaw built into our complex language. I have made the argument many times that many words that are used in scientific discussion are outdated because the meaning of said words has been distorted relentlessly by scientific advancement. Just another tale-tell sign of the slow adjustment process we as a species have applied to every aspect of ourselves and society.
3209486 10 months ago
@Wedneswere PPS: QUESTION: When you asked me if I regard consciousness as transcendent from the "material concept" (by which I believe you mean what I would call "matter"), were you asking the same question (but in a different guise) as when you asked me if I am a dualist? And, when you asked me if I believe in the supernatural, were you asking me the same question in a third form?
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@3209486 IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS WHAT TRANSLATES WHAT IS PROJECTED BY ONE'S IMAGINATION, THAN WHAT IS AWARE OF THE IMAGINATION IN THE FIRST PLACE???
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere The consciousness? Hence the polar mental process concept.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 Yes, you could say that. I could say here I am taking the stance of dualism - though I am not. But let us say I were, then I would put concepts and physical objects in the same category as Object in the sense of what there is to be conscious of. Consciousness is completely passive, a complete "given," - it cannot be thought about. Try to think abut it, and what you have done in the process is made a concept. Is that consciousness?
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I think this is well explained by science as a tag name for something we do not currently understand because of the limited intellectual capacity presented by what we just simply do not know. If there weren't things we do not know then there would be no point in scientific expansion. To claim you understand consciousness by explaining that you cannot explain it is completely redundant. In time we will come to understand consciousness for what it is.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 that is not my argument. and who is this "we" you are talking about? "we" could never understand consciousness - it is not a matter for a committee to vote on. my argument is simply to close your eyes. that is the gist of it.
strip away all concepts, any conceptions of mental processes, any notions of objects - go through a process of discarding everything in you mind - and what remains??? THAT is what i speak of...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere "we" is referring to the current state of the human species. I see you obviously do not feel you belong in that category, although i do not understand why. At one point "we" could never understand that the world was round or that pain is caused by our nervous system, but it came in time. Closing your eyes does not represent consciousness, it represents blindness. A fitting metaphor for your stance i would say. It seems like you are applying spirituality to consciousness. am i wrong?
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 those are ad hominem attacks. that means a big buzzer went off and your seat was swiped from underneath you and you fell into a pool of cold water...
but i explained my over and over again to you.
there is no "we" in knowledge because there is no "we" brain. if no individual knew anything, then you could not even bring yourself to speak of a "we" knowing.
but i speak of EMPIRICISM. not knowing something based on what others tell you. your own experience is your laboratory.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere You do not need a "we" brain to provide "we" knowledge. What makes "we" knowledge possible is the absolute overload of information that we ALL have access to. Deciding to attain that knowledge is the individual aspect. If no individual knew anything, then we wouldn't be having this current discussion. But we do know things, so we can exchange beliefs. Knowledge is a burden, but we have come to far as a species to just stop now.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 the reason i chose to talk about your use of "we" is in the spirit of my argument of how to get to know consciousness, which is one of EXTREME empiricism. It's like looking in the mirror - only you can do it.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere That is your perception. If that works for you then fine. It does not fit with anything i have been taught as far as your claims to consciousness not being a mental process. Your attempts to clarify your stance have failed, for obvious reasons. I also do not understand your implication of empiricism when the only means of providing that aspect is using a sensory tool.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 the sensory tool is consciousness itself. that would be EXTREME PREVERBAL EMPIRICISM. and my claim has only been to encourage you to do the same. my claim is not in my words but in the experience.
trying to talk about consciousness is like trying to talk about seeing. you can talk about what is seen, but what about seeing itself? it exists, even if what is seen is a hallucination. and it exists even if it is as small as a pinpoint or big as the expanse of the whole sky.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Consciousness is the perceptual interaction between the mind and nature provided by the sensory tools of the body that is translated by the mind. Seeing itself is clearly understood. What an idiotic question. Would we not have eye surgeons and specialist if we didn't understand seeing itself? I suggest you not stick to the metaphors as a means to explain your stance.
3209486 11 months ago
@3209486 SIgh... You make it difficult with your insults and pompousness. But I will try to continue...
I mentioned the eye because the eye has sight in itself - just like the brain has consciousness in itself. What is this consciousness? Imagine if you weren't conscious. What would that feel like? Answer: there would be no feeling - you would be dead, even if your body were alive and you were talking, moving, acting alive...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Funny how your not to keen to insult reception considering that is the way you decided to carry on this conversation. Regardless. The eye itself does not have sight in itself, do you even understand how the eye works in correlation with the brain? If there weren't consciousness you would still feel, talk, and walk. You just wouldn't have the ability to recall these feeling, actions, and emotions through short and long term memory. Without memory, consciousness does not work...
3209486 10 months ago
@3209486 No, that is not how I began this conversation. All I did was say - not to you in particular - was that what Dan Dennet was talking about was not consciousness. He is not the dictator or the demiurge , therefore I can disagree with him. And the "consciousness" you are referring to is still not the same one I am referring to.
The metaphor of the eye was a metaphor, as you yourself labelled it. Therefore it is not meant to be taken literally.
The brain may manifest consciousne
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@3209486 I agree that you could still feel, talk and walk, so on when conscious. That is why just because sight is present, does not mean consciousness is: for example, a webcam does not channel consciousness.
When you speak of consciousness, you speak of something analogous to sight as opposed to seeing, or, for that matter, walking in itself as opposed to individual incidents of walking.
Are you a universalist or a particularist?
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@3209486 PS: I am a particularist/nominalist up until we get to consciousness - it is with consciousness alone that I am a universalist. If it can be proven that there are no universals, then I would maintain that consciousness does not exist - analogous to how, as you would have it, that the eye does not have sight in itself.
BTW, I do not believe the mind has consciousness, but that the mind is another sense like the eye. So the scalpel would have to dig deeper than the brain to find it.
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere Yes but i still feel the most relevant topic here is memory. If there was nothing to recall, could consciousness exist? The interaction between consciousness and mental processes seems to justify labeling consciousness itself as a mental process unless you believe there is a possibility that consciousness is transcendent. But even then there must be natural laws governing how our minds interact with something that is transcendent, ultimately meaning we're aware of consciousness.
3209486 10 months ago
@Wedneswere Yes, I see what you are saying. What my question is, is when someone is not sleep and not dreaming, and there is thus nothing to remember, is there consciousness? I would say yes - but I am wary of using the term "transcendent". The closest I shall come to that would be to say consciousness is the only universal, and in regards to everything else I am a particularist.
I believe the brain channels consciousness, not creates it. Memory makes more to be conscious of.
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere TYPE-O: I said "is not sleep and not dreaming" - I meant to say "is asleep and not dreaming"
I believe that there can be VEGETATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS - i.e, consciousness without intellect or memory or, for that matter, any limitations, either. Huge and vacant, empty, marvelous - infinite potential... But our intellects strangle it, so to speak (although it is not always a bad thing ;) )...
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere - Certainly there is, as in brain damaged individuals. Experience without evaluation or recognition. But two healthy individuals can experience the exact same thing and have totally different, even opposing evaluations too. It's whatever works for the individual. Consciousness is subjective, always. There are those who think that humanity is not really sane. That consciousness must develop further, for any kind of measurable and clear honesty to be commonplace. Unhuman currently.
JohnnyRock2000 10 months ago
@JohnnyRock2000 Would you agree that there are two types of consciousness - or, I should rather say, two definitions to the word "consciousness", two which perhaps don't have to do with one another and it is thus sad that the same word is used... One definition is synonymous with the word "perception", and the other is synonymous with the word "awareness". The latter is a sort of "Ground of Being" or preverbal, the former intellectual or postverbal...
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere Yes -perception and awareness.Experience and then experience personified. And then more. Experience personified and evaluated. It's the evaluation that is the moving target.Good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant. A dozen or more evaluation cagegories and zillions of sub categories. It makes us human, but unpredictable. One man's glory is another man's sin, in the end. Conclusions are a must of the mind, but certainly where insanity creeps in. Not always capital "I" insanity, but always there.
JohnnyRock2000 10 months ago 2
@JohnnyRock2000 The mind always wants to get its virtual hands around something, i.e, to form a conclusion - and, if you ask me, that springs from the same urge as wanting things to last forever, to live forever... One has the tendency to petrify the living/moving world - and, in this way, paradoxically, one kills reality in order to make it live forever...
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@Wedneswere PS: Or I could say: I believe the brain is an antenna.
Wedneswere 10 months ago
@groundless then you know what Dennett's definition of consciousness is???
Wedneswere 11 months ago
I watched this stoned...I found those things on average 2-4 seconds...though some of those illusions like the cube tripped my mind out kind of made me go spacey and out of my body for a millisecond then i continued to watch...well demonstrated lecture
afro20man 11 months ago
@afro20man If you were stoned, you probably had no sense of time.
wtffender08 11 months ago
How wonderful it would be if people actually talked about the video instead of have junior high school attacks counterattacks against each other. It seems like that kind of nonsense is about 90% of the comments. How refreshing it is to see an insightful post by Wedneswere ... I agree, I think he has confused perception with consciousness. I remember reading his Consciousness Explained (wasn't) but remember nothing in it, except some humunculus talk. Better to read W. James on consciousness.
drtompat 11 months ago
Dan Dennett is not talking about consciousness here, though that is what he claims to be doing. He is talking about PERCEPTION. He says nothing about consciousness. He confused the two.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I totally agree. The really interesting question is not how the brain annalyses sensory input or recalls memories etc etc, that is the machine at work, the really interesting questions, at least to me, is why si there some principle in the brain that is aware that it is aware and how does that awareness come about ? Meditation in most of its forms is a practical attempt to answer that for the individual. But that is a qualitative, experiential answer not a logical explanation sadly.
alivation 11 months ago
@alivation Yes, exactly! The Big Mystery is that there is such a thing as Consciousness/Awareness to begin with... I don't think Dan Dennet realizes that if you are aware of something that is not there, that that, too, is awareness. And that the intellect can be totally absent, and there still is awareness... And he never addresses the excellent point you made, i.e, that awareness is aware of itself... which is INCREDIBLE.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@alivation I myself wonder if consciousnessness/awareness is itself a DIMENSION... Just like for something to exist, say, a box, you need height, length, width, and time, you also need AWARENESS. But i digress here. This is just an idea I am entertaining - I am not trying to degrade the discussion into some pro-Idealism debate... But I believe in contemporary physics - quantum mechanics??? - this idea may be out there - do you know if it is??? it would have to do with the Heisenberg Principle.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere Yes I have been wondering something similar from a chemistry/quantum mechanics angle ... is consciousness inherent in any feedback loop no matter how simple. The more complex and self regulating the feedback mechanism perhaps the more aware of it's awareness it becomes. I have no idea really. But life is basically a self regulating self sustaining chemical feedback mechanism. Anyway, the interesting thing is that by focusing on your awareness you can change your brain structure..
alivation 11 months ago
@alivation do you mean focusing on your awareness in the sense of meditation?
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere.. and you are able to see more clearly the difference between brain processes like sight, sound and thought and the actual awareness, which you correctly state can exist free from thought and sensory processing. I suspect we will eventually figure it out through neuroscience and AI but Dan Dennet's approach won't get us there although it is a small piece of the puzzle I suppose.
alivation 11 months ago
@alivation I don't understand how his "approach" has anything to do with consciousness - and I say this with all due respect. I simply mean he does not refer to consciousness or awareness - so where, then, is there any approach towards understanding consciousness?
of course, all i know of dennet is this video. does he ever define consciousness? what does the word mean to him? not that it needs to be debated - it is the simplest idea: just close your eyes and look at looking...
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere I agree with you. But I suppose since "we"(not sure what that "we" really is) are conscious of the results of the processing of sensory inputs, it is an obvious place to start for most people. But it is like discussing how a movie is projected onto a cinema screen without any reference to the fact that a movie has no meaning unless there is someone to watch it.
alivation 11 months ago
@alivation No.
Perception is a sort of algorithm whereas consciousness is a sort of dimension that presupposes all thought... thought/thoughts/thinking is observed by consciousness. Vonsciousness, too, is observed by consciousness - otherwise there would be no way of knowig consciousness - since it is not an OBJECT, but the SUBJECT ITSELF...
Conscousness is not art of the World, though. It is not objective.
Wedneswere 11 months ago
@Wedneswere "...does he ever define consciousness?" oh btw, I just emailed him and asked him is he has and for a reference or a link to it. Will be interesting to see if I get a reply. Must be a bus chap so am not pinning my hopes on it !
alivation 11 months ago
Comment removed
sunsplash1980 1 year ago
I don't understand why philosophy is so hated in academic circles. It seems to be based more on stereotypes and misconceptions about the field than anything else, as if they have mistaken the pseudo-intellectuals for the real ones. How can so many brilliant thinkers hold such a closed-minded view about an entire field? I ask this out of genuine curiosity.
caffeininja 1 year ago
@caffeininja your question is incoherent to me. I am not being vindictive. I want to answer your question, but I can't seem to differentiate the subjects and objects of your sentences. But I'll try to give you an answer from what think you are asking. I think philosophy gets a bad reputation because it doesn't conform to set standards of what a discipline is supposed to be. Philosophers are not as afraid to ask good questions that are not easily answered and this may seem hard to people.
sunsplash1980 11 months ago
@sunsplash1980 My bad. I guess I didn't type that very clearly. It just seems like when people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet poke fun at philosophy, they don't actually know what they are talking about. Kind of like how creationists don't know what science means. It's a strawman.
caffeininja 11 months ago
Daniel Dennet is a p-zombie! watch?v=ags_M3ILszo
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
hmz Guys I really feel lonesome right now anyone wanna chitchat
taniajui 1 year ago
There is a point beyond which any and all further conceptual elaboration is superfluous. EVERYTHING ....is unpredicated.
Nice talking to you...
pyannaguy 1 year ago