@GermanOperaSinger Check out V.S. Ramachandran, amazing neuro scientist, also we know that to experience anything in the sense you speak of we need minds, the only minds that we have ever seen are the results of brains - we see animals with brains that dont have the same "Experience" as us and thats due to the development of the brain - we know that a more complex and developed brain can give range to greater experience, also maybe try Betrand Russel or Sam Harris
@petestrat07 " If its not fact then its a dogmatic response to explain the unknown which is similar to the dogma of religion." Come on man, even you must realise this is inherently dishonest, Your saying the science of philosiphy has nothing to say about consciousness? not only that but you sort of implied that the only philosiphy is religous philosiphy. Going beyond philosiphy we have many scientific fields that study conciousness, like say, neuro science?
I recommend people here watch "The Primacy of Consciousness" by Peter Russell Seriously, Dan Dennet's views and opinions on what consciousness is fails to explain anything. Science cannot explain consciousness and there is a very good reason why this is so. They can't see it, touch it, weigh it, count it, measure it or analyse it yet he pretends to understand it. If its not fact then its a dogmatic response to explain the unknown which is similar to the dogma of religion.
who is the master that gives all the "bits of consciousness' meaning context continuity interpretation. How does it happen by individual bits alone. Do they simply interact with one another. what edits the bits. do all bits interact with all bits at all times. if they are not all assembled somewhere or somehow then how do we experience time, sequences of awareness.
I have tremendous respect for Dennett as one of the leading philosophers of mind. However, I feel his experiments still do not adequately tackle the 'hard problem'. They deal with perception and the senses. One can be deprived of all his senses, but simply by being aware that he is experiencing nothing, he is experiencing SOMETHING, and therefore conscious. Consciousness may not be a grand, elaborate phenomenon, but awareness itself hasn't been satisfactorily explained by Dennett or anyone else.
So a multitude of processes produce a single "illusory" sense. A concensus solution to interpret the flood of processed stimuli. Yet what is it that CHOOSES to act when a multitude of conflicting solutions present themselves?
A core process must exist. Else every time we were presented with equally detrimental challenges we'd never act -- granted some individuals lack this ability.
Well, technically, all I'm certain about is that there is a witness in ME - or rather that I AM the witness. In fact, my entire reality - IS the witness.
I ASSUME that everyone else is like me, because I see myself in an environment where everyone else acts like me, thinks like me, and asks the same questions about consciousness like me. For all I care, everyone apart from me could be a zombie, and I would have no way of telling that.
The thing is, I am certain that YOU have a consciousness, too (if you don't, you aren't reading this), and you're being intellectually dishonest by simply positing that no, there isn't, and you don't have one.
The thing about the "inner witness being comprised of little competing snippets none of which are conscious", is fallacious.
I may consist of several "witnesses", each of whom perceives a different part of the brain...
I actually find the materialist view of consciousness a being much more rich, sensible, interesting and satisfying than any dualist mystical mumbo-jumbo.
The fact that consciousness seems like magic but it's not is what makes it that much more amazing and intruiging.
I need to see the rest of this clip. This bit doesn't actually explain anything. He mentions that we don't actually perceive everything we think we're perceiving, but he just skips over the question about how it's possible that we can have even disparate perceptions. He just asserts (@ 1:53) that there is no "self" doing the perceiving, but that begs the very question. At best, this is an argument against certain kinds of epistemologies, but says nothing about the nature of mind, as such.
is this supposed to refute Chalmer's argument in some way? Because I don't really see how it does. I fail to see how this explains qualia, because everything Dennett says could be true, but it would still leave the problem of why my brain produces the experience of such a thing as color.
@SimKoning Brain just helps you to make distinctions between the color, it doesn't produce it. They are just ultimately different frequencies of light that our brains can distinguish. This distinction itself creates the illusion of color, remember that based on the frequency and intensity of light that is being captured by your retina, you brain decides; a person with color blindness cannot see colors because of lack of cells that help to make these distinctions, not because of brain damage.
@Achilles9924 I think you missed the point of this whole mind/body debate: you only described the functions of the brain, you are assuming that qualia such as color is only an "illusion", that has yet to be demonstrated; that is why it's called the *hard* problem consciousness and not, "well that's just the brain doing stuff", which is the easy problem.
@SimKoning To be more clear, we can sit here and talk all day long about how the brain works, but that would still leave us the problem of why we have qualitative experience, or qualia at all. Why should such a thing even exist in a material universe?
@SimKoning What is this qualitative experience you talk about? These ideas are very new to me so forgive me for being slightly ignorant about these issues. If any recommendations you have that I should go through that'd help me understand this I'd be grateful.
@Achilles9924 Just for starters, google qualia first, than the "hard problem". I going to give you a bit of a warning, thinking about it will make your head hurt ; )
@SimKoning Plus this is what I picture at the moment ( feel free to criticize and point out the problems ). Let's take an empty mind that can make distinctions between frequencies of 100 nm wavelength for a range of 400-700nm. That would mean 3 variables, so 3 different distinctions. For 7 colors 7 variables and 7 different distinctions, for a dozen or more, lots of variables, we cannot comprehend them properly hence the qualitative experience.
@Achilles9924 hey i'm new to this whole issue too, but I think that is again more of a brain question. let's put it this way: why can't our brain function without producing this rich inner reality? Our brain, as a strictly material organ, should be able to sense light, and identify frequency of light to some degree, without it manifesting as a color, as in green, red etc. Another example is why does pain *hurt*.
@SimKoning I'm not talking about the function of nerves, but the actual manifestation of those functions as *1st person* "experience". Why can't are brain function in the same way as any other machine without the manifestation of the conscious experience?
@SimKoning Yes, I get that you mean first person experience. Take maths for eg : We can say digits represent qualia ( not really ). We use 10 digits in our number system ( 0-9) but then as we arrange them in different orders we get infinite possibilities for numbers, patterns in sequence and furthermore the whole basis for mathematics. Is it not just a bunch of digits being re-arranged at the most basic level ?
I'm not sure really what you mean, but let me put it another way: if the brain is simply a biochemical machine (a wet computer), why does consciousness manifest at all, as in anything beyond the "mechanical" function of the brain? There is no easy answer to this problem. Some *possible* solutions: only the material aspect is real, and qualia is an illusion, only the qualia is real and the material world is an illusion (idealism) or both are real, and are different properties of substance.
@SimKoning I guess I'll think about this qualitative experience of good/bad/ugly for a while but I'm trying to come up with a rational and physical idea regarding it, after all , we all agree that certain things are always bad and others are always good but some just depend on the people themselves ( why?). It is a psychological question as much as it is a philosophical question.
Dennett theory about conciousness is not complete, he calls perception and inference as variables in defining the function conciousness. If that is the case take an example where the person has all five senses missing and also assume that his thought perception is also missing. In this case a person may miss his perceptional awareness but not experience of his self, this itself shows Dennett's theory is not complete.
The brain does operate based on quantum physics like everything else. But things get fuzzy on a macroscopic level. I don't see any inconsistencies with Dennetts's theory and QM. In any case, much of his work in collaboration with Douglas Hofstadter, which is well versed in quantum physics.
@qigong1001 Yes, but the information processing in the brain is (assumed to be) performed by much more macroscopic and mechanistic processes than quantum physics; namely elementary physics and chemistry. The strange properties of quantum physics, as far as I know, play on a much tinier scale and have very very little influence on your mind; if it has any at all!
@Waran We can measure neuronal activity that takes place on a macroscopic level. But that ignores the microstructures that make up those things. I also understand those in neuroscience don't like to talk about q.m. and rightfully so (for now). You don't really need it to begin understanding it. The problem is, that many presume that "information processing" is macroscopic only. When we start talking about "how fast" things happen or simultaneity of events, it would be unwise to ignore q.m.
By "simultaneity of event" I don't mean in an Einstein's world of relativity. I mean how chemical/physical reactions can be altered due to simultaneous position of electrons; subsequently affecting neuronal activity. I'm guessing we are a long ways from being able to analyze these.
I am sceptical about the notion that nature would be able to organize a q.m. structure capable of processing (large amounts of) information; I think there are q.m. processes at work aiding parts of chemical reactions, but these would not be an important computational substrate of the brain. At the moment, the network activity of the brain seems quite fit for this job, but we don't know what the future brings. Still, Dennett is right not to include q.m., because it has no place in NS yet.
@Waranoa I mostly agree with that. But the neural networks that exist in the brain are 100% a result of quantum nature. Things just don't exist without it. The question is, does it add anything more in the brain than other things in nature...
I would say, probably yes. In fact, if "computations" are done on a quantum level; this would make the brain more capable and not less. I've already mentioned increases in reaction rates. Also, see research on quantum computers which solve problems faster than non quantum counterparts.
No it's not; the only thing he states at 2:40-2:57 is that there's no logical exclusion in the phrase: 'an illusion of the brain, for the brain, by the brain'. How do you see a logical exclusion there?
Logic IS a mental construct, it is a space with quite clearly defined laws and characteristics where arguments are defined and tested. An illusion is the subjective impression of something which is more, or less, or something quite different, than what it seems to be to us. Which is not the case with his logic. His logic is sound. Also, unscientific only means that it's not focussed on creating novel experimental predictions; which is true. But it IS based on current scientific theory.
Lol am I the only one getting the impression that this means we aren't even real?
maybe it just redefines real.. very interesting phernomenon doubting your own existence.. at any rate this is perhaps the most compelling explanation ive heard.
'Reality' is a pickle. Taking a shortcut through philosophy, Kant put it niceley by proving that we, and our world, might be real; however there is no way to objectively and experimentally confirm it, or prove the contrary! 'are we real?' is not really an interesting question anymore. If we accept our human experience, we could ask what is necessary to have such an experience. Do you need a biological brain, or can an advanced computer also have a 'human' experience?
Also, you still told us what your problem with his point of view is, only that you disagree. Why is his logic 'an illusion', WHY is he unscientific according to you? What is your argument against his??
Anyone who calls Dr.Dennett a "lightweight" in the study of consciousness is not someone you should listen to. But, by now you have prob' realized this about BeatleED.
B.t.w. Dr.Dennett is right, consciousness is an illusion. Crazy that!
"if that seems to be self contradictory then reconsider because it doesn't have to be"
Dennett makes me laugh, if what he's says doesn't make sense then you just have to think about it long enough and it will and if it doesn't then your deluded or not smart enough. Got to love the guy though.
He means that it's not a logical exclusion. It is not an explanation but he rightfully point out that one does not make the other impossible. The brain has a lot of networks that model the outside world on the basis of sensory input, in order to predict future outcomes from actions, by combining this model with a representational set of goals. It is possible that consciousness is the virtual environment in which this interaction takes place, created by the brain, for it's functioning.
It's from the TV series "Closer to Truth." If you want to watch the full version just Google "Closer to Truth," click on the first link, and watch the episode entitled " "Why is consciousness so mysterious?"
So the very basis of all of our thoughts is based on delusion and some how he think his EGG has figured things out. That's just nuts,. You people that are in love with this guy, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris need to get a grip. A reality check is in order.
Well, I have read some of his material and I'm a graduate student in neuroscience myself, and I have the impression that overall he is very well informed. The main point he makes in this video is that consciousness is an emergent property of network activity in the brain and as far as I know this is a well established idea in (cognitive)neuroscience as well. There's much data that agrees with this view but there's room for discussion of course. What is your specific problem with his claims?
Well, to be fair, let's say that it is not a 'well established idea' but 'one of the more promising hypothesis/theorems about consciousness'. I share his view but this theory needs testing of course, we're talking about unfinished science. And, again, it's hard for me to defend any of his arguments in a small post like this if I don't know what you specifically disagree with.
I know what you mean. There is a Facebook group entitled "When I forget what I think, I check Daniel Dennett's writings." So, apparently we're not alone.
Consciousness IS a "bound unity" - no "illusion" about it. Any claim of knowledge by introspection as to how(!) brain activities relate to consciousness doesn't constitute "an illusion", but rather "an error and a failed knowledge claim". But that's a wholly different question. Calling consciousness's "bound unity" an illusion is conceptual error - akin to calling candy's sweetness an illusion because "there's no actual sweetness in the candy, only chemicals." If it tastes sweet, it IS sweet.
You are quite right. But the illusion of consciousnes is that there's not somewhere a blob of brain matter that contains consciousnes; the view that most people might have. Reality is more complicated, namely that consciousness can only arise through an interplay of different area's, different functions etc. and that it is an emergent property, not a structural one. I don't think that by calling it an 'illusion', Dennett is trying to deny consciousness :P
Waranoa - while agree with most of what you said (e.g emergent property but I would call it phenomenon), you seem to be ignoring his obvious psychological problems. He's delusional. Consciousness has yet to be defined yet alone explained the way he presents it. Really, I have seen all his interviews, along with Dawkin's and the lot..this guy is a light weight. Its like saying, I think, therefore, I think. I wont bore you with all the quantum level physics that would make his position impossible.
@BeatleEDs. Well, humor me with the quantum physics, because I love quantum physics. I doubt you know anything about them because, until now, you still have not presented a single counter argument to Dennett! If you feel you are comprimised by the comment space, you could consider PM'ing me. Saying he's delusional and that his arguments are quantum-mechanically impossible are statements but not arguments.
I am not a quantum phsycisist of course, but I will try my best :) I think I recall that a quatum behaves like a wave and can be described by a wave function, until it's location needs to be determined, either by measurement or interaction with other particles/quanta/objects and I think this is called the collapse of the wave function. Now, that's how I remembered it so I could be horribly wrong.
However, I never really saw the relevance of quantum physics in the theory of mind, because there's no functional part of the brain, as far as I am aware of, which is driven by mechanics on this small a scale. But maybe you could explain.
How does the brain create consciousness..? It has to have some sort of "raw-material", right..? Some raw awareness to transform into thoughts and senses..
Dennett would probably reply by saying that your question "Who/what does the brain work for...?" is misguided in that it assumes the existence of a Homunculus.
Dennett believes that there is no "who" in addition to the physical brain, and that such pre-scientific concepts should be abandoned and replaced by a more mature understanding of the neurophysiology involved with human cognition.
Perhaps this leaves out the way "brains" are also embodied, and the way bodies are also living people bringing forth meaningful worlds with one another? This isn't a "pre-scientific" understanding, this is the very basis of what it means to be human.
The "pre-scientific" concept I was referring to was the notion of a Homunculus; a concept that I'm pretty sure both of us reject as incoherent.
With that said, it seems we can still talk about "selves" located within a world and interacting with complex social networks of signification, without importing the Homunculus back into the discussion.
Sounds to me like Dan's consciousness has played a trick on him, convincing him that he understands it. Cool interview though Lenny, but I think that it happened in a church is incredibly ironic. It sounds like a faith-based argument. When you look at the underlying physics of the physiology the non-local nature and the super-symmetries contraindicate this analysis. Consciousness would not exist in a single brain.
I don't recognize the Homunculus as being part of my argument, and if there was such a thing, it would most likely just be another part of the brain..
I was refering to the awareness that the brain transforms into thoughts and impressions..
This is false. The Churchlands are famous for their eliminativism, Dennett doesn't think we should abandon our 'folk psychology', read what he says about 'the intententional stance'.
@GermanOperaSinger Check out V.S. Ramachandran, amazing neuro scientist, also we know that to experience anything in the sense you speak of we need minds, the only minds that we have ever seen are the results of brains - we see animals with brains that dont have the same "Experience" as us and thats due to the development of the brain - we know that a more complex and developed brain can give range to greater experience, also maybe try Betrand Russel or Sam Harris
shandcunt 1 month ago
@petestrat07 " If its not fact then its a dogmatic response to explain the unknown which is similar to the dogma of religion." Come on man, even you must realise this is inherently dishonest, Your saying the science of philosiphy has nothing to say about consciousness? not only that but you sort of implied that the only philosiphy is religous philosiphy. Going beyond philosiphy we have many scientific fields that study conciousness, like say, neuro science?
Come on bro, use your brain
shandcunt 1 month ago
Dennet is using consciousness to deny consciousness
HomuncuIus 2 months ago
Comment removed
HomuncuIus 3 months ago
I recommend people here watch "The Primacy of Consciousness" by Peter Russell Seriously, Dan Dennet's views and opinions on what consciousness is fails to explain anything. Science cannot explain consciousness and there is a very good reason why this is so. They can't see it, touch it, weigh it, count it, measure it or analyse it yet he pretends to understand it. If its not fact then its a dogmatic response to explain the unknown which is similar to the dogma of religion.
petestrat07 3 months ago
haha.. daniel dennett is in a church! but as per usual.. hes not facing the front.
dubstepagh 3 months ago
who is the master that gives all the "bits of consciousness' meaning context continuity interpretation. How does it happen by individual bits alone. Do they simply interact with one another. what edits the bits. do all bits interact with all bits at all times. if they are not all assembled somewhere or somehow then how do we experience time, sequences of awareness.
cunnidvd 4 months ago
Comment removed
cunnidvd 4 months ago
I have tremendous respect for Dennett as one of the leading philosophers of mind. However, I feel his experiments still do not adequately tackle the 'hard problem'. They deal with perception and the senses. One can be deprived of all his senses, but simply by being aware that he is experiencing nothing, he is experiencing SOMETHING, and therefore conscious. Consciousness may not be a grand, elaborate phenomenon, but awareness itself hasn't been satisfactorily explained by Dennett or anyone else.
GermanOperaSinger 5 months ago
Ha, they're sitting in a church. ironic.
leptismagna10 5 months ago
So a multitude of processes produce a single "illusory" sense. A concensus solution to interpret the flood of processed stimuli. Yet what is it that CHOOSES to act when a multitude of conflicting solutions present themselves?
A core process must exist. Else every time we were presented with equally detrimental challenges we'd never act -- granted some individuals lack this ability.
RvNYC 6 months ago
If you believe that consciousness is basically a bi-product of biology then you'll believe anything.
petestrat07 6 months ago
@petestrat07 what do you mean?
sorensofos 4 months ago
But there IS an inner witness. So, what now?
twooffour 10 months ago
@twooffour There IS? Wny? Because you say so?
zhimbo 10 months ago
@zhimbo
What an incredibly stupid comeback.
Well, technically, all I'm certain about is that there is a witness in ME - or rather that I AM the witness. In fact, my entire reality - IS the witness.
I ASSUME that everyone else is like me, because I see myself in an environment where everyone else acts like me, thinks like me, and asks the same questions about consciousness like me. For all I care, everyone apart from me could be a zombie, and I would have no way of telling that.
twooffour 10 months ago
@zhimbo
The thing is, I am certain that YOU have a consciousness, too (if you don't, you aren't reading this), and you're being intellectually dishonest by simply positing that no, there isn't, and you don't have one.
The thing about the "inner witness being comprised of little competing snippets none of which are conscious", is fallacious.
I may consist of several "witnesses", each of whom perceives a different part of the brain...
twooffour 10 months ago
@zhimbo
... and thinks they're the only one. Maybe each new moment in time, is a new me, just with the old memories.
It doesn't matter. They are still all mes.
twooffour 10 months ago
Is it wrong that I turn to YouTube for great philosophy?
heyandy889 11 months ago
I actually find the materialist view of consciousness a being much more rich, sensible, interesting and satisfying than any dualist mystical mumbo-jumbo.
The fact that consciousness seems like magic but it's not is what makes it that much more amazing and intruiging.
theocean1973 1 year ago 3
@theocean1973 Well said fellow sentient being, well said.
Kurzula5150 1 year ago
Daniel Dennett: Explaining things away since 1963.
Huesos138 1 year ago 7
I need to see the rest of this clip. This bit doesn't actually explain anything. He mentions that we don't actually perceive everything we think we're perceiving, but he just skips over the question about how it's possible that we can have even disparate perceptions. He just asserts (@ 1:53) that there is no "self" doing the perceiving, but that begs the very question. At best, this is an argument against certain kinds of epistemologies, but says nothing about the nature of mind, as such.
grandampersand 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
is this supposed to refute Chalmer's argument in some way? Because I don't really see how it does. I fail to see how this explains qualia, because everything Dennett says could be true, but it would still leave the problem of why my brain produces the experience of such a thing as color.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Brain just helps you to make distinctions between the color, it doesn't produce it. They are just ultimately different frequencies of light that our brains can distinguish. This distinction itself creates the illusion of color, remember that based on the frequency and intensity of light that is being captured by your retina, you brain decides; a person with color blindness cannot see colors because of lack of cells that help to make these distinctions, not because of brain damage.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Achilles9924 I think you missed the point of this whole mind/body debate: you only described the functions of the brain, you are assuming that qualia such as color is only an "illusion", that has yet to be demonstrated; that is why it's called the *hard* problem consciousness and not, "well that's just the brain doing stuff", which is the easy problem.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning To be more clear, we can sit here and talk all day long about how the brain works, but that would still leave us the problem of why we have qualitative experience, or qualia at all. Why should such a thing even exist in a material universe?
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning What is this qualitative experience you talk about? These ideas are very new to me so forgive me for being slightly ignorant about these issues. If any recommendations you have that I should go through that'd help me understand this I'd be grateful.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Achilles9924 Just for starters, google qualia first, than the "hard problem". I going to give you a bit of a warning, thinking about it will make your head hurt ; )
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning woops, I mean *then* the hard problem
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Plus this is what I picture at the moment ( feel free to criticize and point out the problems ). Let's take an empty mind that can make distinctions between frequencies of 100 nm wavelength for a range of 400-700nm. That would mean 3 variables, so 3 different distinctions. For 7 colors 7 variables and 7 different distinctions, for a dozen or more, lots of variables, we cannot comprehend them properly hence the qualitative experience.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@Achilles9924 hey i'm new to this whole issue too, but I think that is again more of a brain question. let's put it this way: why can't our brain function without producing this rich inner reality? Our brain, as a strictly material organ, should be able to sense light, and identify frequency of light to some degree, without it manifesting as a color, as in green, red etc. Another example is why does pain *hurt*.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning I'm not talking about the function of nerves, but the actual manifestation of those functions as *1st person* "experience". Why can't are brain function in the same way as any other machine without the manifestation of the conscious experience?
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning sorry "our" brain (I'm typing too fast)
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Yes, I get that you mean first person experience. Take maths for eg : We can say digits represent qualia ( not really ). We use 10 digits in our number system ( 0-9) but then as we arrange them in different orders we get infinite possibilities for numbers, patterns in sequence and furthermore the whole basis for mathematics. Is it not just a bunch of digits being re-arranged at the most basic level ?
Achilles9924 1 year ago
I'm not sure really what you mean, but let me put it another way: if the brain is simply a biochemical machine (a wet computer), why does consciousness manifest at all, as in anything beyond the "mechanical" function of the brain? There is no easy answer to this problem. Some *possible* solutions: only the material aspect is real, and qualia is an illusion, only the qualia is real and the material world is an illusion (idealism) or both are real, and are different properties of substance.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning I guess I'll think about this qualitative experience of good/bad/ugly for a while but I'm trying to come up with a rational and physical idea regarding it, after all , we all agree that certain things are always bad and others are always good but some just depend on the people themselves ( why?). It is a psychological question as much as it is a philosophical question.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
"it sounds contradictory"
because it IS
U2pist 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
How does neural synchrony, as proposed by neuroscientist Wolf Singer, fail to solve the binding problem?
1Void0Infinity1 1 year ago
Dennett: Yes! consciousness is an illusion OF the brain, FOR the brain, BY the brain...
Basically all you need to know...
Scofield0085 1 year ago
The driver is not the vehicle. If you've had an OBE you know this.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
Dennett theory about conciousness is not complete, he calls perception and inference as variables in defining the function conciousness. If that is the case take an example where the person has all five senses missing and also assume that his thought perception is also missing. In this case a person may miss his perceptional awareness but not experience of his self, this itself shows Dennett's theory is not complete.
pingala10 1 year ago
The brain does operate based on quantum physics like everything else. But things get fuzzy on a macroscopic level. I don't see any inconsistencies with Dennetts's theory and QM. In any case, much of his work in collaboration with Douglas Hofstadter, which is well versed in quantum physics.
qigong1001 2 years ago
@qigong1001 Yes, but the information processing in the brain is (assumed to be) performed by much more macroscopic and mechanistic processes than quantum physics; namely elementary physics and chemistry. The strange properties of quantum physics, as far as I know, play on a much tinier scale and have very very little influence on your mind; if it has any at all!
Waranoa 1 year ago
@Waran We can measure neuronal activity that takes place on a macroscopic level. But that ignores the microstructures that make up those things. I also understand those in neuroscience don't like to talk about q.m. and rightfully so (for now). You don't really need it to begin understanding it. The problem is, that many presume that "information processing" is macroscopic only. When we start talking about "how fast" things happen or simultaneity of events, it would be unwise to ignore q.m.
qigong1001 1 year ago
By "simultaneity of event" I don't mean in an Einstein's world of relativity. I mean how chemical/physical reactions can be altered due to simultaneous position of electrons; subsequently affecting neuronal activity. I'm guessing we are a long ways from being able to analyze these.
qigong1001 1 year ago
I am sceptical about the notion that nature would be able to organize a q.m. structure capable of processing (large amounts of) information; I think there are q.m. processes at work aiding parts of chemical reactions, but these would not be an important computational substrate of the brain. At the moment, the network activity of the brain seems quite fit for this job, but we don't know what the future brings. Still, Dennett is right not to include q.m., because it has no place in NS yet.
Waranoa 1 year ago
@Waranoa I mostly agree with that. But the neural networks that exist in the brain are 100% a result of quantum nature. Things just don't exist without it. The question is, does it add anything more in the brain than other things in nature...
qigong1001 1 year ago
I would say, probably yes. In fact, if "computations" are done on a quantum level; this would make the brain more capable and not less. I've already mentioned increases in reaction rates. Also, see research on quantum computers which solve problems faster than non quantum counterparts.
qigong1001 1 year ago
@Waranoa I'm not sure my post went thru to you ; its under "recent comments" under the video. Thanks.
qigong1001 1 year ago
2:40 this is the biggest bull shit argument I have heard. There are so many wholes in his point of view, that its hard to repeat.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
No it's not; the only thing he states at 2:40-2:57 is that there's no logical exclusion in the phrase: 'an illusion of the brain, for the brain, by the brain'. How do you see a logical exclusion there?
Waranoa 2 years ago
Then his logic is an illusion of the brain, for the brain, by the brain. Not to mention that his position is unscientific.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
Logic IS a mental construct, it is a space with quite clearly defined laws and characteristics where arguments are defined and tested. An illusion is the subjective impression of something which is more, or less, or something quite different, than what it seems to be to us. Which is not the case with his logic. His logic is sound. Also, unscientific only means that it's not focussed on creating novel experimental predictions; which is true. But it IS based on current scientific theory.
Waranoa 2 years ago 7
@Waranoa
Lol am I the only one getting the impression that this means we aren't even real?
maybe it just redefines real.. very interesting phernomenon doubting your own existence.. at any rate this is perhaps the most compelling explanation ive heard.
Roenazarrek 1 year ago
'Reality' is a pickle. Taking a shortcut through philosophy, Kant put it niceley by proving that we, and our world, might be real; however there is no way to objectively and experimentally confirm it, or prove the contrary! 'are we real?' is not really an interesting question anymore. If we accept our human experience, we could ask what is necessary to have such an experience. Do you need a biological brain, or can an advanced computer also have a 'human' experience?
Waranoa 1 year ago
Also, you still told us what your problem with his point of view is, only that you disagree. Why is his logic 'an illusion', WHY is he unscientific according to you? What is your argument against his??
Waranoa 2 years ago
Waranoa
Anyone who calls Dr.Dennett a "lightweight" in the study of consciousness is not someone you should listen to. But, by now you have prob' realized this about BeatleED.
B.t.w. Dr.Dennett is right, consciousness is an illusion. Crazy that!
4Dmetricology 1 year ago
"if that seems to be self contradictory then reconsider because it doesn't have to be"
Dennett makes me laugh, if what he's says doesn't make sense then you just have to think about it long enough and it will and if it doesn't then your deluded or not smart enough. Got to love the guy though.
scaryflakybiscuits 2 years ago
He means that it's not a logical exclusion. It is not an explanation but he rightfully point out that one does not make the other impossible. The brain has a lot of networks that model the outside world on the basis of sensory input, in order to predict future outcomes from actions, by combining this model with a representational set of goals. It is possible that consciousness is the virtual environment in which this interaction takes place, created by the brain, for it's functioning.
Waranoa 2 years ago
What video is this clip from?
WarOnYourMind 2 years ago
It's from the TV series "Closer to Truth." If you want to watch the full version just Google "Closer to Truth," click on the first link, and watch the episode entitled " "Why is consciousness so mysterious?"
LennyBound 2 years ago
@LennyBound
Thanks for the link tip!
stefanconradsson 2 years ago
Wow, this was really mind-expanding.
LatumWay 2 years ago
check out "The Material World is an illusion " !
perriclez 2 years ago
So the very basis of all of our thoughts is based on delusion and some how he think his EGG has figured things out. That's just nuts,. You people that are in love with this guy, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris need to get a grip. A reality check is in order.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
Wow, you seem to know a lot about his arguments.
Waranoa 2 years ago
Well, bull shit is easy to spot.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
what do you mean?
Waranoa 2 years ago
I mean that Dennet presents bullshit arguments. Come on man. this guy is a light weight....you dont agree. What do you think is his best argument?
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
Well, I have read some of his material and I'm a graduate student in neuroscience myself, and I have the impression that overall he is very well informed. The main point he makes in this video is that consciousness is an emergent property of network activity in the brain and as far as I know this is a well established idea in (cognitive)neuroscience as well. There's much data that agrees with this view but there's room for discussion of course. What is your specific problem with his claims?
Waranoa 2 years ago
Well, to be fair, let's say that it is not a 'well established idea' but 'one of the more promising hypothesis/theorems about consciousness'. I share his view but this theory needs testing of course, we're talking about unfinished science. And, again, it's hard for me to defend any of his arguments in a small post like this if I don't know what you specifically disagree with.
Waranoa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, this is interesting. Notice how the setting is like a Church pue.
This is funny, he offers no proof. Only BS as always.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
I have never actually found anything I've disagreed with dan on.
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I know what you mean. There is a Facebook group entitled "When I forget what I think, I check Daniel Dennett's writings." So, apparently we're not alone.
LennyBound 2 years ago 4
thanks for posting
rrnsss 2 years ago
Consciousness IS a "bound unity" - no "illusion" about it. Any claim of knowledge by introspection as to how(!) brain activities relate to consciousness doesn't constitute "an illusion", but rather "an error and a failed knowledge claim". But that's a wholly different question. Calling consciousness's "bound unity" an illusion is conceptual error - akin to calling candy's sweetness an illusion because "there's no actual sweetness in the candy, only chemicals." If it tastes sweet, it IS sweet.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
You are quite right. But the illusion of consciousnes is that there's not somewhere a blob of brain matter that contains consciousnes; the view that most people might have. Reality is more complicated, namely that consciousness can only arise through an interplay of different area's, different functions etc. and that it is an emergent property, not a structural one. I don't think that by calling it an 'illusion', Dennett is trying to deny consciousness :P
Waranoa 2 years ago
Waranoa - while agree with most of what you said (e.g emergent property but I would call it phenomenon), you seem to be ignoring his obvious psychological problems. He's delusional. Consciousness has yet to be defined yet alone explained the way he presents it. Really, I have seen all his interviews, along with Dawkin's and the lot..this guy is a light weight. Its like saying, I think, therefore, I think. I wont bore you with all the quantum level physics that would make his position impossible.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
@BeatleEDs. Well, humor me with the quantum physics, because I love quantum physics. I doubt you know anything about them because, until now, you still have not presented a single counter argument to Dennett! If you feel you are comprimised by the comment space, you could consider PM'ing me. Saying he's delusional and that his arguments are quantum-mechanically impossible are statements but not arguments.
Waranoa 2 years ago
Waranoa - sorry bub, I dont come on all the time. back to your comment....
His positions are paradoxical. You understand quantum physics? How does a wave become a particle?
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
I am not a quantum phsycisist of course, but I will try my best :) I think I recall that a quatum behaves like a wave and can be described by a wave function, until it's location needs to be determined, either by measurement or interaction with other particles/quanta/objects and I think this is called the collapse of the wave function. Now, that's how I remembered it so I could be horribly wrong.
Waranoa 2 years ago
However, I never really saw the relevance of quantum physics in the theory of mind, because there's no functional part of the brain, as far as I am aware of, which is driven by mechanics on this small a scale. But maybe you could explain.
Waranoa 2 years ago
Bollocks!
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Come on, drop the façade, Matt. We all know you're a closet eliminativist, just come out and admit it already. :-P
LennyBound 2 years ago
I just looked up what bollocks actually means, and it is quite rude. Sorry 'bout that!
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Poppycock! It was a fine comment.
LennyBound 2 years ago
David Chalmers viewpoint was better..
How does the brain create consciousness..? It has to have some sort of "raw-material", right..? Some raw awareness to transform into thoughts and senses..
Who/what does the brain work for..?
BuddhaHippie 2 years ago
Dennett would probably reply by saying that your question "Who/what does the brain work for...?" is misguided in that it assumes the existence of a Homunculus.
Dennett believes that there is no "who" in addition to the physical brain, and that such pre-scientific concepts should be abandoned and replaced by a more mature understanding of the neurophysiology involved with human cognition.
LennyBound 2 years ago
Perhaps this leaves out the way "brains" are also embodied, and the way bodies are also living people bringing forth meaningful worlds with one another? This isn't a "pre-scientific" understanding, this is the very basis of what it means to be human.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
The "pre-scientific" concept I was referring to was the notion of a Homunculus; a concept that I'm pretty sure both of us reject as incoherent.
With that said, it seems we can still talk about "selves" located within a world and interacting with complex social networks of signification, without importing the Homunculus back into the discussion.
LennyBound 2 years ago
Sounds to me like Dan's consciousness has played a trick on him, convincing him that he understands it. Cool interview though Lenny, but I think that it happened in a church is incredibly ironic. It sounds like a faith-based argument. When you look at the underlying physics of the physiology the non-local nature and the super-symmetries contraindicate this analysis. Consciousness would not exist in a single brain.
patternsinchaos 2 years ago
I don't recognize the Homunculus as being part of my argument, and if there was such a thing, it would most likely just be another part of the brain..
I was refering to the awareness that the brain transforms into thoughts and impressions..
BuddhaHippie 2 years ago
This is false. The Churchlands are famous for their eliminativism, Dennett doesn't think we should abandon our 'folk psychology', read what he says about 'the intententional stance'.
matn79 2 years ago
That may have been the absolute most perfect and eloquent description of consciousness I have ever heard
tcashin07 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
U2pist 1 year ago
@tcashin07
so, "the consciousness plays tricks on us"?
that rather rhymes with
obfuscation than
elucidation
.
(i was here to learn a thing
about that "binding problem"
and found myself betrayed)
U2pist 1 year ago