Funny - in most documentaries on experiments done on the brain,
MORE conscious and non-conscious brain activity is usually revealed that we had been unaware of before, rather than less. Yet, Dennett makes the opposite point.
The hard problem relates to how we perceive (or the illusion of perception, if you wish). While a thermometer may register heat, it cannot perceive 'hotness' , the way we experience it. It's not simply a matter of explaining the biological factors involved in registering that something is hot, it's rather......the manner in which we become aware of some subjective representation of hotness, which needs to be studied.
We may one day explain how consciousness emerges, but you cannot explain why that consciousness is you or me. Why is your consciousness yours specifically?
@HomuncuIus Because the ultimate purpose of consciousness is the survival of the individual body. The mind has to produce a "self" that is separate from the rest of the world in order to perform this function.
Dennet's experiments are flawed, he's trying to define consciousness objectively. He's making a category error. Consciousness is an entirely new problem, it's subjective not objective.
I know that I am conscious. If consciousness was an illusion like Dennet is claiming, then what exactly is reality? What am I exactly being obscured from if consciousness IS the first element of reality?
That inexplicable uniqueness, which I believe is either property dualism or substance dualism; is what the soul is.
"If consciousness was an illusion like Dennet is claiming, then what exactly is reality?"
He never claimed consciousness is an illusion. It's just limited. For example, we can see visible light waves. It's not an illusion. Visible light waves exist and we can see them. But, we are limited in that we can't see microwaves, gamma rays, etc..
Then I am not sure what he's trying to call 'an illusion'. What we can see or do not depends on our senses, if we cannot see microwaves it's our eyes that are not adapted to seeing microwaves. That doesn't reduce consciousness in any form, For example a blind man cannot see at all, that doesn't make him any less aware of his own thoughts.
No you can't explain why my consciousness is specifically me and not you or anything else. Why should those atoms produce a unique me and not you? Think hard about that one. Dennet doesn't explain anything, he tries to reduce consciousness which itself is a case of irreducible strong emergence.
"you can't explain why my consciousness is specifically me and not you or anything else. Why should those atoms produce a unique me and not you? Think hard about that one."
I did think about it..but not hard, lol..It's simple man. Your brain is constructed by a different configuration of atoms than my brain, so, since your brain is different, you and your subjective conscious experience is different. The same way your bones are structured uniquely, so are mine.
Just because that's what you say does not make it so. You're making a MASSIVE metaphysical assumption. Start with what you can observe and understand factually.
For example, can you explain scientifically what this 'life force' is? Is there any observable evidence for it?
People struggle playing "Spot the Difference" games therefore consciousness has now been "beaten back down to size".
Wow, Dan! That really got to the core of the mystery that is consciousness.
Dan should use this method or approach to beat his material world down to size and then see what he is left with. Only then he might learn something about the nature of reality which conflicts with his current views.
His guesswork deserves little more respect than the dogmatic fundamental views of the re
I agree with cmpresents, scientists don't have any idea as to how consciousness works. A subjective opinion is all that this video is, and it's quite a "deflated" one at that. The robots are the neuronal processes that make up consciousness, though to explain consciousness always ends up being concluded as an opinion rather than any truth. Bottom line if you have no leads as to what something is, you can state that it is something. Why obscure your own reality with opinions and not truths?
@GCthegreat1ify I think it's a huge call to say that science will never be able to answer questions on consciousness. One thing I can say with almost complete certainty, is that we will probably never be able to explain the subjective experience that someone else has, but this doesn't mean there aren't 'objective' things to find out about consciousness. I believe, one day, advances in neuroscience will undo brain damage or allow you to experience things like a complete submersive virtual reality
Consciousness (and free will) has been debunked by science. Period. Brain scans have been done on people where scientists can predict what answer a person will give, well before they're even aware that they've reached a consensus, 95% of the time- and they're working to improve that. Dennett's answer does apply to humans, you're just not up-to-date on the science.
@7j8i9m: You're mistaken. Determinism is just one of several ways to interpret the results of those experiments. Rather than the deterministic view that the measured brain activity is the cause of the decision, the non-deterministic view that the brain activity is instead the measure of the brain responding to the decision is still perfectly viable.
@7j8i9m: A second alternative, for experiments that involve very simple choices, are that those choices do not really involve conscious decision at all. When you put your hand on a hot stove you recoil. It is not a consciously driven decision. It’s mental activity. This can extend to more complicated acts. If I were to tell you to flip your right hand back and forth at random time intervals you can almost observe as the action happens without you.
@7j8i9m: Such a simple behavior, such as a flipping of the hand could easily be reduced to mental activity, but that does not mean that consciousness itself can be reduced to mental activity.
@S1N6UL4R1TY By simply confusing 1) the refusal that something poses a problem with 2) the refusal that selfsame something itself exists, you're not getting him, as isn't Homunculus. Mr Dennett surely doesn't deny the existence of qualitative experience (qualia) as such, but their problematic status. For him, there's just no 'hard problem', and thus no explanatory gap, at least not in the sense of something that could never, and not even in principle be explained purely physically.
Picture this....you're dead. That's all you have to really visualize and grasp to realise you should make the most out of everything that is and view it all with spectacular beauty (especially yourselves) I respect every amazing person that has ever lived on the face of the Earth BECAUSE they made great meanings of their lives. No one really knows how consciousness works anyways so who the fuck cares. Become legends people.
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 agree, i dont think dennett really tells us anything about consciousness at all. most of his 'philosophy' isn't really philosophy, he just explains the science of consciousness, - which is good no doubt - but thats a scientists job, a philosopher is supposed atleast try and answer the questions science can't (due to its methodological restrictions) and explain its broad metaphysical implications, dennett does nothing of the sort, he is no philosopher.
@cp3shadow Daniel Dennett is the best kind of philosopher that exists. He is a teacher of science. He is the medium between science and the public. The philosopher who sits in their office and comes up with thought experiments is dead. The true future of the philosopher is one of two roles. The referee who watches the researchers like Karl Popper or the messenger who facilitates communication like Dennett or Steven Pinker (though Pinker is a scientist as well) or Douglas Hofstadter.
@cmpresents He is deflating the perception of it as this incredible thing. In reality, it is very flawed and people are fooled into thinking they are aware of much more than they actually are.
@Kruezoraxe That is nonsense, we are aware of more than Dennett imagines. He's talking about physical awareness, sensing, which really has nothing to do with being conscious.
@cmpresents Dennett is not imagining. His statements are based in research. We are not aware of most of the stimuli we perceive. That is a well observed empirical fact.
@Kruezoraxe Bull, he's a philosopher and he has no clue as to what is consciousness. He says consciousness is made up of little robots, give me a break, is that research. Dennett is making it on the fly. So don't be telling me about research. Everything Dennett knows about perception, I know and more than him and I'm not a teacher of science. Just by thinking alone I know what I know. I have known things before they have been writen in Scientific America mag. Dennet is a wanabe.
@cmpresents You are ridiculous. Introspection is a foolish method to understand the inner workings of the brain/mind. Dennett is a philosopher who communicates scientific research to the public and he does so wonderfully.
You say you know more than him just by thinking. That fallacious reasoning is everything that is wrong about the public's knowledge of science. Not to mention beautiful irony in the fact that his entire point is that we aren't as aware as we think we are
@cmpresents Lastly, if your grammar is any indication of your knowledge, you're not making a good case for yourself as an intellectual authority. You might want to tighten that up a little. That's just a suggestion for future discussions.
@Kruezoraxe But how can you say that, when there is no scientist alive that knows what consciousness is. Science is clueless when it comes to consciousness, even scientist admit, so what are you saying. Why don't read and educate yourself before talking so much nonsense. Do you know what clueless means, science is clueless, this means that Dennet is clueless. So anything he says regarding consciousness is just his imagination, it's not science.
@cmpresents "clueless", this is incorrect. They do not have a full understanding, but there is a lot they do know. Clueless might be accurate as regards most people, believing its their heart, their soul or whatever. If any institution has any idea its science. So if you want to listen to anybodies thoughts on the matter it should be someone who has spent time studying it, in other words, a scientist
@mehico33 I'm done talking to you. Go and read and watch some videos on consciousness and see what scientist have to say about the subject, then you'll know that I'm 100% correct. They are clueless, there are zero theories for consciousness.
@cmpresents "Im done talking to you" But you only stared! lol.
Theres no need to go anywhere, the video you are commenting on contains "clues" and proves you 100% wrong. You are either a defeatest moron or a deceptive zealot.
I never said there were theories, only that if anyone is fit to comment it is a scientist, not a religious person, not a moron/you.
@Kruezoraxe How does attention, working memory, and perception agree with Dennett. They are related to the 'easy problem' of consciousness, which Dennett has confused with the 'hard problem'.
@Kruezoraxe It's great and wonderful that Dennett has (pardon the phrase) "expanded my consciousness" with these visual experiments. No doubt something similar works for the other senses. But, I don't see how he goes from that to the implication that consciousness is purely "mechanized".
It may very well be "mechanized", but I don't see the limitation of what we think we perceive to be evidence of that.
all these people need a lesson in quantum mechanics and the nature and non-localized nature of all particles....then take into account the collapse of super position and it role in electromagnetic transfer of information. Leonard Suskin would tell them that every particle interaction that plays a role in consciousness or otherwise shares that information with the surface of the expanding universe...every thought you have is knowable from outside...there is a reason for this
I think David Chalmers gives the clearest refutation of the Dennett viewpoint (although he was not directly addressing Dennett. Look for him on Youtube.
No matter how detailed we become in understanding neural mechanisms, data structures, algorithms, etc., they don't touch the problem of why we have subjective experience. Mechanisms only explain functional behavior. It seems we have to postulate that a proto-consciousness is an independent property of matter.
Right. If Dennett were explaining how a very sophisticated robot worked; how that robot did what it did; what tricks it used to achieve it's end, his speech would be relevant. But really, nothing that he says has anything to do with explaining consciousness.
If you try to explain consciousness as a bunch of tricks, and if it is a subjective experience that is had by only one individual, then who, according to Dennett, is being tricked. Are the tricks being tricked?
His argument that we see less than we think has no relevance to the issue of consciousness itself . It is obvious to each of us that we have inner experience, i.e. consciousness, in many modes (visual, auditory, thinking, imagining, smelling, etc.) Any defect in our sense of sight (which he is so concerned with), does not alter the fact that we HAVE sight, and most importantly, we EXPERIENCE sight.
i really am starting to despise this guy. his only purpose seems to be to run around, yelling "you're not special! you are in fact simple!"which is not true. we don't understand how MEMORY works, nor exactly how something like an anxiety disorder operates in the mind...i question his eagerness to claim our minds simple and mechanical structures. HOW those chemical, electrical, 'mechanical' motions inside the brain translate into EXPERIENCE is not understood at all.
LOL this guy is such a noob if he thinks that 'change blindness' deflates consciousness. And yea I know who he is, so don't try that appeal to authority bs on me.
@xknowledgeisfreex Exactly right. First, Dennet's topic always seems to be the mystery of consciousness, i.e., why are we conscious? This riddle is what he seems to be setting out to answer when he announces he's going to "explain" consciousness. However, what he explains (to some extent) is the NATURE of consciousness, not the cause of its existence. His explanation concerns the WHAT, not the the WHY. He hopes that by the end, the audience will have forgotten what they initially wanted to know.
@coolasacoldsummer "Actually heres something to ponder how does one see color in dreams and memories?"
This is not a problem that helps Dennett at all. It shows that qualia is not dependent of the physical. But regardless of the coorelation or lack of coorelation for qualia, the very fact that you have qualia and the very fact that you cannot explain the experience of a qualia like red in terms of neurons firing is a problem that Dennett is hiding from.
Isn't it funny that Dennett has this idea that he wants to "beat consciousness down to size". Sounds like a man with an agenda rather than someone trying to get at the truth. But it doesn't matter how far he beats it down to size, he still is 100% incapable of explaining even the most simple element of consciousness - namely, what do neurons firing have to do with a direct consious experience, like the experience of red. How can a group of neurons firing be red?
@vsaluki Beating any phenomenon down to size is another way of saying that a proper account of the pehnomenon in question needs to be established. Which is exactly what Dennet went on to say. I dont know why that metaphor upset you so much. Perhaps you're the one with an agenda?
"he still is 100% incapable of explaining even the most simple element of consciousness"
Oooh. An argument from ignorance! Go read a cardboard primary school book titled something easy like "Science"
@spacecowboy95 "Beating any phenomenon down to size is another way of saying that a proper account of the pehnomenon in question needs to be established."
No, the "size" of the phenomena is irrelevant when your theory doesn't cover it regardless of how large or small it is. In that case it's simply a cover up for what Dennett can't explain.
@spacecowboy95 Beating phenomenon down to size, he just means you have to realize the limitations on your mind and you cannot measure consciousness with a bias.
All in all this is a really stupid presentation. He completely avoids the real problem of consciousness. He cannot explain how the firing of a bunch of neurons could be the color red. Furthermore, he cannot even imagine how the firing of neurons could be the color red. Go ahead Dennet, open somebody's head and show them a red card. See if you can find a bunch of neurons turning red. This is not about representation. Something has to really be red. And it's not firing neurons.
@vsaluki Color is nothing more than a reflection of light. What color you may think is red is actually not red at all. Nothing is really red, or green, or blue, or any other color. A piece of red clothing actually contains all other color BUT red and, since red is separated from the color spectrum (not in the color spectrum of the shirt), the human eye is able to identify it. Its like refracting light through a piece of glass and being able to see rainbows. But Google gives a better explanation.
@suprgrl12 Unfortunately, everything that you said is not relevant to the issue of consiousness. Nor is it anything that I didn't already know. The issue is that we experience red - and how can the experience of red be explained in terms of neurons firing? There is no way. And you cannot simply say that certain neurons firing "represent" red - because we are not talking about a sybolic coorelation, we are talking about a direct experience - an end point - red.
I'm a software engineer. Software is neither mysterious or magical. It is also not conscious. Nor is a computer with running software conscious. No matter how many tricks you make the computer do - and even if you make it behave exactly like a human - it will still not be conscious. That is what Dennett doesn't understand. Tricks are not consciousness.
@vsaluki Im a software engineer with a MsC in AI and bioninspired systems. I think you miss completely the analogy, you miss also in what Dennet say and more important you have just commited a very deep error in reasoning, because by defining yourself as "conscious" you actually have no insight of how that (even if is one phenomena) works, but somehow you know with absolute certainty how it doesnt work.
Then he goes on to talk about the quantity of things that we are consious of and how it is less than we think. Again, how is this relevant to his theory that it is physical.
Then he talks about people thinking that consciousness is taking in the whole world. What world Dennett. Is there a shred of evidence for the world that is not conciousness itself. Show me that evidence.
Again, the idiot rants on about what he thinks people want to believe. This has nothing to do with proving or disproving his own theories. The moron seems to think that if he can show an emotional motivation for not believing him that it is the same as proving he is correct.
Most are illusional. Everything starts with the subconscious a lot of which most people ignore. So unless one can get through the subconscious the consciousness is unknown.
Either way we make our own reality and choose to believe what we want. This is however, isnt consciousness.
Subjects under hypnosis have demonstrated substantially more recall in situations sometimes. Is it possible that he is not taking the mind's prioritization and categorization functions in to full consideration when striking at our "excessively bloated" opinion of our own consciousness?
@zhimbo "It's_just_not_there" seems to be an explicit rejection of consciousness, but... I'd be happy to agree that he doesn't deny the existence of consciousness, since it would be an utterly ridiculous position! :)
I'm aware of the definition of incoherent and your statement about our ideas on consciousness not being 'completely fleshed out' fits perfectly.
You see the old mantra that the science evangelists keep trotting out, about how we haven't explained it all yet but give us a bit more time and we'll get there, just doesn't wash. Anything that you think might deny science its great TADAA! moment you get aggressive and petulant about. In order to explain consciousness science will need to 'recalibrate'
This man is a philosopher not a scientist and Steven Hawking in his new book debunks these fraudsters for what they are. Its like psychology made up nonsense by humans, a perception of reality, this man is the Devils theologian. You can either see everything as a miracle or nothing. To take consciousness back to a illusion is nihilism, how can he not find it mysterious that out of one single piece of energy after the big bang consciousness was formed.
Hey physicalists, I'm still waiting for that glorious future where computers will replace the workforce and no one will have to work again. Well Computers are now running on the order of 10^11 floating point operations per second yet they can't deliver pizzas. What's the holdup? After all, consciousness and cognition is all just physical laws in action. Is there something magic about biomolecules that you can make a functioning brain from them but not from semiconductors and metals?
Ya see. You gottta get away from thinking that less is more and start thinking that more is less. So I more or less think that I know a whole lot less the more I know.
this guy makes very big fundemental mistake, he fails to destinguish what science does and does not know about consciousness and he himself makes up a speculation about consciousness the same way all the other bullshiter do. he may say less bullshit, but I think theres some bullshit in what he speculates
@cheeseit126 Say what? Dennett has no more idea about the nature of subjective consciousness than anyone else. The change blindness example is a red herring and is to do with awareness which has an oblique relationship with consciousness. What he's expounding here is his belief about how things are, no more than that.
@fishybishbash to say that just because we don't understand our consciousness doesn't mean it is unexplainable by through natural processes
there is no "magic" to our brains; that is a belief stemming from our narcissistic sense of self-importance... we are not yet ready to come to terms with the reality of our existence; our weaknesses, our sameness, our predictability etc.
my comment was directed at his analysis of our current perceptions/beleifs
@cheeseit126 We're not even close to defining the nature of consciousness. I understand the mindset that Dennett is championing, debunking the myths etc but its just a point of view. He hasn't defined consciousness. He's just saying how he thinks things work. Thats fine. Doesn't mean he's right - far from it. Its not a fucking outboard motor we're talking about here.
@fishybishbash The very idea that consciousness, whatever it is, is not subject to any rules whatsoever is inherently incoherent. Ergo, whatever it is, it must follow some set of limitations.
@unhealthytruthseeker The Salient point is that we have NO IDEA what those 'rules' or 'limitations' are that you're convinced subjective consciousness has. Science as its current state of understanding is falling way short
of any kind of definition on this matter Moreover, it's crucial to our understanding of existence because without consciousness there is no science. Funny that the very thing that our understanding depends on is something that we have no clue as to its essence or origin.
@fishybishbash I wouldn't say we have absolutely no idea, just that the idea isn't completely fleshed out yet. Nonetheless, it's not so much that our understanding of everything depends on our understanding of consciousness (Clearly not, since we can do physics without once mentioning thought or belief), rather, it is that our ability to understand necessitates the existence of a consciousness capable of understanding to begin with.
@unhealthytruthseeker Now that truly IS incoherent. First off, make no mistake, we ABSOLUTELY no idea about the mechanism whereby subjective consciousness is experienced the way it is and the fact that we have developed our understanding of neurophysiolgy has no bearing on that fact. Secondly, we're going to HAVE to define this aspect if want to further our understanding of the nature of things. Science, as it's current level of understanding, cannot. These are the 'Flaws of Physics'.
@unhealthytruthseeker Your comments. The statement that we have some kind of idea of how subjective consciousness comes about does not cohere with the facts.
@fishybishbash That's not what "incoherent" means. "Incoherent" refers to something being self-refuting, logically impossible, or otherwise poorly defined/formulated.
Besides, we'll never produce any explanation of consciousness that will ever satisfy you "hard problem" types because you've all specifically tautologically defined the problem so that it is unsolvable. By circularly defining the problem and nature of consciousness, you ensure no natural explanation will ever work.
Well, the things about the hard problem is that it IS unfalsifiable, and if you don't agree, we can use the the true Zombie fallacy on you and be correct :D
Saying that we have more or less information really has noting to do with being aware of the information we do have. So the entire talk is just a bit of slight of hand to cover the fact that there is no naturalist theory of being aware as opposed to processing the data we are aware of. We can explain in increasing detail how we process data, but no progress on awareness is on the horizon.
"The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe." - Larry Dossey, MD
Dennet constructed a straw man and wrapped it up in an ad hominem. He should know better. I don't "want" conscious experience to be nonphysical because of a desire to feel special. It's the reverse: I am special, and I'm looking for an explanation for that. Just because a brain can have a pattern that represents a bushy grey beard doesn't mean that there has to be a consciousness experiencing that brain pattern. Do we think a consciousness experiences every ripple in a pond, or computer circuit?
Pam Reynolds soul living after death is the best evidence of life after death. Just one of many examples of corroborated testimony of the existence of the soul. Why-I'm-not-afraid-to-die-evidence-of-the-soul, Wayne Wirs
Very weak thinking there Dennet. So, ppl don't like the idea of mechanical explanations of consciousness? This has NOTHING to do with the question of what consciousness is. What ppl like or don't like has no relation to what exists. So, the field of consciousness is smaller than we think. This makes the prob go away? Not.
@zosimos111 i think the point he was making is that people don't want their consciousness to be explained because they enjoy thinking that they take in more than they do. But the fact that the conscious is obviously limited- something that most people do, in fact, reject- means that consciousness can be explained, and is more mechanical than it is magical (as most people like to think it is).
I love Dennett but I disagree that our minds are "boringly finite". Yes our mind is a product of brain activity, but he's forcing an either/or on the listener. You can accept the materialist concept of the mind but that doesn't make what happens in our minds boring *or* finite (at least until we're dead!). Even accepting that consciousness isn't a holy mystery leaves plenty of things to discover in ourselves that is relevant to our lives.
He focuses on contingent experiential properties, instance ineffability, privacy, direct apprehension and intrinsic. In his particular attack on the third of these claims (sometimes added too with claim: we can't be wrong about our own experience) can be shown false by his Coffee drinkers or by optical illusion examples.
Still; given all the physical facts there is still something additional - the experiential fact of what it is like to be the subject.
He focuses on contingent experiential properties, instance ineffability, privacy, direct apprehension and intrinsic. In his particular attack on the third of these claims (sometimes added too with claim: we can't be wrong about our own experience) can be shown false by his Coffee drinkers or by optical illusion examples.
Still; given all the physical facts there is still something additional - the experiential fact of what it is like to be the subject.
He is such a good mediator, particularly to the layman. He doesn't use the complex 'jargon' that other similar thinking philosophers and neuroscientists use to explain consciousness, though as one becomes more acquainted with the topic, that very 'jargon' becomes the cream in the coffee.
I've always had the feeling that Dennett is not quite right about the mind, but what I like very much is that he is obstinately reluctant to postulate ANYTHING beyond what can be scientifically justified at the time. As more evidence comes in we will know better, but to explain things with vague and themselves unexplained ideas before then is not that different from what William Paley did, and we're not looking kindly on that in hindsight. ^_^ Dennett works with what we have, and nothing else.
This doesn't say anything about having an inner subjective experience. Even if your only conscious of 5% of what is going on around you, your still having an inner subjective experience. I didn't hear anything that deflated that.
"... there isn't something magical about the mind that is just neurons doing their ... electromechanical things" - this guy is making me sick with his know-it-all attitude, for him everything is *just* this and *just* that... we are "just" very very complex "robots"? maybe... but the "just" is just wrong in this context. mr. dennet, *you* are just another brick in the wall.
@toofruitfull You're absolutely wrong about Dennett having a Know it all attitude. This man is completely open about what he does and doesn't know- he is a professional philosopher, after all. This is a television program that is presenting a complex concept to people who have no expertise on the matter. He's presenting the material in a manner that is easy to understand for an audience that isn't steeped in the latest journals of neuroscientists and philosophers. You're just being a dick.
We are part of the greater whole, we're small pieces of the universe made of the same stuff, atoms/ quarks, as everything else is so when we are self-aware the universe is self-aware. Our self-awareness = the universe being self-aware.
I would say consciousness is of a whole different and larger matter. The little, perhaps somewhat non-significant test he shows us, has more to do with observatory awareness. He misuses the term consciousness. Just because he can fool one or maybe two of our senses does not mean shit. The conclusions he makes are far beyond his reach. But yet, me thinking grasping my mind is far beyond his reach, that is his whole point. So I guess it comes down to faith.
You have to understand death to be born. Live is breathed into the dead rational view. The religionist with the "breathing" view will eventually die. The "dead" will be resurrected, and they will be resurrected on earth to learn the secrets of life.
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang, the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
@mrfpercival "And the universe becomes self aware"???? Explain how you see that please. I mean the universe is vast and statistically there must be life in many different corners so to speak and in different stages of evolution. We are not the universe. Our eyes see what they can see but we do not create what is there with our mind. It is not because i'm in a big building that the building becomes aware.
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
But keep in mind that everyone experiences a different reality. No ones experience is the same.
What you experience in your own mind becomes your reality. So who is anyone to say that what you are experiencing is wrong? If you could experience some one else's mind for two minutes, you would find out immediately that reality is different for everyone. For myself that's what I think consciousness is. Being conscious that this experience is our own and ours only.
@IndeedmyFriend No, we are all in the same reality. The very idea of "my" reality or "your" reality is incoherent. What we experience is different PERCEPTIONS of the same reality, rather than experiencing different realities.
That's all nice Mr. Dennett but when are you gonna say anything about actual consciousness. What does the accuracy of perceptions have anything to do with consciousness existing or not. Unless your definition of consciousness is something i for the life of me cant figure out. I cant help but think Dennett is arguing with himself over a certain idea he has of the general publics perception of consciousness(again what that is i dont know).
While I enjoy his work, I would say that this video completely ignores the hard problem of consciousness. Dennet says people motivated by this problem lack epistemic humility & that they want their consciousness to be infinite and irreduced. He goes on to explain one of the issues around the soft problem. This is a red herring and ad hominem attack.
Who lacks epistemic humility? the ones claiming science explains all and that there is no problem... or those who see a limit to objective kno
@Cathy, We cannot ignore certain aspects of consciousness and then claim to have understood it. This is like saying that we can explain the concept of a car in terms of wheels spinning. Authors should explicitly state what aspect they claim to have understood. I find it strange with the explanation that when I open my eyes an entire universe that I see around supposedly nicely fits into my head. Either my head is as big as the universe or there is something wrong with the explanation.
Part 3: The bottom-line is that the "mind" or "consciousness" is not explained. What makes matters worse is that the word "consciousness" has different meanings when used in different contexts. What we need to do is to look beyond light-falling-and-neurons-firing and see what happens after that. What follows after that is an experience. We need to find out where that arises from and who the experiencer is. It would be better if authors stop making sweeping statements to make a buck or two.
@utubex03: OK...so what sort of an explanation of the experience will satisfy you?
In my opinion: since consciousness exists as a natural process, then it should be possible [in principle] for us to find out something about how the system works. We should use as many tools and ideas as we can at it. The Hard Problem framing may turn out to be unfruitful as an approach and as an attitude to this issue.
Part 2: Regardless of how the apparatus of the brain is constructed, there is the experience of the senses. Whether you are seeing a spot or an entire frame, there is the experience of it. Now what is this experience? Who is the experiencer? If you say me, then where is this "me"? Is it a robotic cell? A group of cells? The entire brain? Does damage to the brain dissolve this "me"/awareness? This doesn't make sense. The awareness behind any experience always stays. That is consciousness.
Part 1: You are seeing something intently and suddenly you see something move on the corner of your eye. According to Dennett then you should not have been able to detect that movement. You may have to focus to get clarity.. but to say that you "don't" sense anything but a little spot at a time doesn't make sense. Maybe we can't FOCUS on more than one spot at one time. There is clearly a difference between seeing and focusing.
@humanistbanana Well he can show that Chalmers "easy problem" can be explained in biological terms. Some combination of quantum physics and neutral monism (informationalism or something) will likely be needed to solve the "hard problem."
I'm missing logic. I guess because he has such a short time to explain, but why does the fact that our consciousness is not very good mean that our conscious isn't there?
He can explain the external behavior of a mind down to biology, but he can't boil down the phenomenal component of it down with biology. It would be a category error to do so -unless of course you want to argue that external reality has a phenomenal dimension as well but then you are a neutral monist and not a materialist.
Well, it seems to me that he is trying to do more than that: not so much explain consciousness, but rather explain it away. Big difference. Philosophers such as Searle believe that consciousness is an undeniable part of human experience and also a biological phenomenon caused by neural activity in the brain. Dennett, on the other hand wants to say that consciousness is an illusion. No good argument for this latter claim is presented in this clip.
Dennett doesn't deny that consciousness exists. But that the pedestal some people have placed it on and reified it is ridiculous. And none dare tamper with it.
He has shown that when people claim they are completely aware, that they are not by simple objective test.
So he deflated consciousness down from divinity etc. to its proper size that can be subjected to rigorous scientific examination.
It can then be reduced to its parts and mechanism.
Is this clip supposed to furnish an argument that we are not conscious? If so, it is a pretty weak attempt. Saying that we are conscious of less than we think we are conscious of doesn't imply that we are not nonetheless conscious. Also, the fact that most people want to believe in this supposedly magical thing called consciousness has no bearing on whether consciouness exists.
Dennett has a way of stating trivial facts, operating on them with a slight of hand which hides many logical leaps to most people, and then implying or even explicitly drawing very large conclusions. If he did it in French, Leiter would be calling him a charlatan too.
First we would have to investigate how it works, if it's real... and develope a cognitive model for how it works and decide whether it conflicts or not with current state of affairs in cognitive science... quite possibly it's not...
Maybe these ppl store the data differently, but not necesarily its integrated... it may be integrated during memory retrieval.
This is my new favorite quote. I'm taking this with me everywhere. It's going in my yearbook, onto the front of my novel, upon my tombstone, everywhere.
"Did it make you feel good when you heard that quote? Was that feeling there?
kwalk30"
"Who died and made you asshole general of the united nations?
wilfredthebold"
@wilfredthebold When someone asks you a question you either can't or don't want to answer, do you respond with another question with an embedded ad hominem attack? Hard to admit that the quote you so love is wrong...
Funny - in most documentaries on experiments done on the brain,
MORE conscious and non-conscious brain activity is usually revealed that we had been unaware of before, rather than less. Yet, Dennett makes the opposite point.
mphello 4 days ago
I am not one of those persons who wants to believe (or feels the need to believe)
that my consciousness is "beyond measure". I am perfectly happy believing my consciousness is finite.
mphello 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want this video on my OT-306 unit.
francissanfo717 1 week ago
"A, B, A, B, A, B..." I immediately noticed the sidewalk in the foreground being replaced with grass, and vice versa.
Hanahleia 2 weeks ago
Your video is a favorite on PortVila
pasqualebrow1230 3 weeks ago
The hard problem relates to how we perceive (or the illusion of perception, if you wish). While a thermometer may register heat, it cannot perceive 'hotness' , the way we experience it. It's not simply a matter of explaining the biological factors involved in registering that something is hot, it's rather......the manner in which we become aware of some subjective representation of hotness, which needs to be studied.
zadeh79 1 month ago
'It's just not there', and 'the brain is just doing it's electro-mechanical stuff'. what a dogged zombie.
zadeh79 1 month ago
We may one day explain how consciousness emerges, but you cannot explain why that consciousness is you or me. Why is your consciousness yours specifically?
HomuncuIus 1 month ago
@HomuncuIus "Why is your consciousness yours specifically?" I've been thinking the same thing and struggling to put it into words!! Thanks!
hasenj 1 month ago
@HomuncuIus Because the ultimate purpose of consciousness is the survival of the individual body. The mind has to produce a "self" that is separate from the rest of the world in order to perform this function.
Vincentaneous 2 weeks ago
Dennet's experiments are flawed, he's trying to define consciousness objectively. He's making a category error. Consciousness is an entirely new problem, it's subjective not objective.
HomuncuIus 2 months ago
Comment removed
HomuncuIus 2 months ago
I know that I am conscious. If consciousness was an illusion like Dennet is claiming, then what exactly is reality? What am I exactly being obscured from if consciousness IS the first element of reality?
That inexplicable uniqueness, which I believe is either property dualism or substance dualism; is what the soul is.
HomuncuIus 2 months ago
@HomuncuIus
"If consciousness was an illusion like Dennet is claiming, then what exactly is reality?"
He never claimed consciousness is an illusion. It's just limited. For example, we can see visible light waves. It's not an illusion. Visible light waves exist and we can see them. But, we are limited in that we can't see microwaves, gamma rays, etc..
itzahazylife 1 month ago
Comment removed
HomuncuIus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then I am not sure what he's trying to call 'an illusion'. What we can see or do not depends on our senses, if we cannot see microwaves it's our eyes that are not adapted to seeing microwaves. That doesn't reduce consciousness in any form, For example a blind man cannot see at all, that doesn't make him any less aware of his own thoughts.
HomuncuIus 1 month ago
No you can't explain why my consciousness is specifically me and not you or anything else. Why should those atoms produce a unique me and not you? Think hard about that one. Dennet doesn't explain anything, he tries to reduce consciousness which itself is a case of irreducible strong emergence.
HomuncuIus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HomuncuIus
"you can't explain why my consciousness is specifically me and not you or anything else. Why should those atoms produce a unique me and not you? Think hard about that one."
I did think about it..but not hard, lol..It's simple man. Your brain is constructed by a different configuration of atoms than my brain, so, since your brain is different, you and your subjective conscious experience is different. The same way your bones are structured uniquely, so are mine.
itzahazylife 1 month ago
@Trailer1220
Just because that's what you say does not make it so. You're making a MASSIVE metaphysical assumption. Start with what you can observe and understand factually.
For example, can you explain scientifically what this 'life force' is? Is there any observable evidence for it?
chrisroor 2 months ago
People struggle playing "Spot the Difference" games therefore consciousness has now been "beaten back down to size".
Wow, Dan! That really got to the core of the mystery that is consciousness.
Dan should use this method or approach to beat his material world down to size and then see what he is left with. Only then he might learn something about the nature of reality which conflicts with his current views.
His guesswork deserves little more respect than the dogmatic fundamental views of the re
petestrat07 2 months ago
This man has seriously underestimated the power of his mind!!!
Ultimately his loss and his alone. :/
The brain and its neurons are just the hard-wiring, hollow syntax existing devoid of meaning after death.
The life-force traveling across this fabric is the true content of consciousness.
The giver of semantic quality, the source of all experience and meaning in the universe. The will, the ego, our essential nature... the soul...
We need to study what the life force is and how it behaves!
Trailer1220 2 months ago 3
@Trailer1220
There is no life force....we are not discussing the nature of the soul go read plato if you want to deal with that.
this man is dealing with something that actually exists and not debating the existence of something we can't prove is there
xealiot 2 months ago
He should drop some Lysergic acid n smoke some DMT, ExPaNd ur Consciousness bro!
ssssaintmarcus 2 months ago
I agree with cmpresents, scientists don't have any idea as to how consciousness works. A subjective opinion is all that this video is, and it's quite a "deflated" one at that. The robots are the neuronal processes that make up consciousness, though to explain consciousness always ends up being concluded as an opinion rather than any truth. Bottom line if you have no leads as to what something is, you can state that it is something. Why obscure your own reality with opinions and not truths?
GCthegreat1ify 3 months ago
@GCthegreat1ify I think it's a huge call to say that science will never be able to answer questions on consciousness. One thing I can say with almost complete certainty, is that we will probably never be able to explain the subjective experience that someone else has, but this doesn't mean there aren't 'objective' things to find out about consciousness. I believe, one day, advances in neuroscience will undo brain damage or allow you to experience things like a complete submersive virtual reality
schr4nz 3 months ago
Consciousness (and free will) has been debunked by science. Period. Brain scans have been done on people where scientists can predict what answer a person will give, well before they're even aware that they've reached a consensus, 95% of the time- and they're working to improve that. Dennett's answer does apply to humans, you're just not up-to-date on the science.
7j8i9m 3 months ago
@7j8i9m: You're mistaken. Determinism is just one of several ways to interpret the results of those experiments. Rather than the deterministic view that the measured brain activity is the cause of the decision, the non-deterministic view that the brain activity is instead the measure of the brain responding to the decision is still perfectly viable.
AnduinX 2 months ago
Comment removed
AnduinX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7j8i9m: A second alternative, for experiments that involve very simple choices, are that those choices do not really involve conscious decision at all. When you put your hand on a hot stove you recoil. It is not a consciously driven decision. It’s mental activity. This can extend to more complicated acts. If I were to tell you to flip your right hand back and forth at random time intervals you can almost observe as the action happens without you.
AnduinX 2 months ago
@7j8i9m: Such a simple behavior, such as a flipping of the hand could easily be reduced to mental activity, but that does not mean that consciousness itself can be reduced to mental activity.
AnduinX 2 months ago
someone give this man a very high dose of DMT. We'll see if "it's just not there!" anymore...
S1N6UL4R1TY 4 months ago 10
@S1N6UL4R1TY By simply confusing 1) the refusal that something poses a problem with 2) the refusal that selfsame something itself exists, you're not getting him, as isn't Homunculus. Mr Dennett surely doesn't deny the existence of qualitative experience (qualia) as such, but their problematic status. For him, there's just no 'hard problem', and thus no explanatory gap, at least not in the sense of something that could never, and not even in principle be explained purely physically.
Kaschelott 1 month ago
Picture this....you're dead. That's all you have to really visualize and grasp to realise you should make the most out of everything that is and view it all with spectacular beauty (especially yourselves) I respect every amazing person that has ever lived on the face of the Earth BECAUSE they made great meanings of their lives. No one really knows how consciousness works anyways so who the fuck cares. Become legends people.
GCthegreat1ify 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
Daniel Dennett is a philosophical zombie
HomuncuIus 4 months ago 17
I agree, i dont think dennett really tells us anything about consciousness at all. most of his 'philosophy' isn't really philosophy, he just explains the science of consciousness, - which is good no doubt - but thats a scientists job, a philosopher is supposed atleast try and answer the questions science can't (due to its methodological restrictions) and explain its broad metaphysical implications, dennett does nothing of the sort, he is no philosopher.
cp3shadow 4 months ago
@cp3shadow Daniel Dennett is the best kind of philosopher that exists. He is a teacher of science. He is the medium between science and the public. The philosopher who sits in their office and comes up with thought experiments is dead. The true future of the philosopher is one of two roles. The referee who watches the researchers like Karl Popper or the messenger who facilitates communication like Dennett or Steven Pinker (though Pinker is a scientist as well) or Douglas Hofstadter.
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
Dennett just doesn't get it. HOw is he deflating consciousness.
cmpresents 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmpresents
"Dennett just doesn't get it. HOw is he deflating consciousness."
Cmpresents just doesn't get it. Dennett has never said he is deflating consciousness.
smallblueclouds 4 months ago
@cmpresents He is deflating the perception of it as this incredible thing. In reality, it is very flawed and people are fooled into thinking they are aware of much more than they actually are.
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
@Kruezoraxe That is nonsense, we are aware of more than Dennett imagines. He's talking about physical awareness, sensing, which really has nothing to do with being conscious.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents Dennett is not imagining. His statements are based in research. We are not aware of most of the stimuli we perceive. That is a well observed empirical fact.
What do you think consciousness is?
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
@Kruezoraxe Bull, he's a philosopher and he has no clue as to what is consciousness. He says consciousness is made up of little robots, give me a break, is that research. Dennett is making it on the fly. So don't be telling me about research. Everything Dennett knows about perception, I know and more than him and I'm not a teacher of science. Just by thinking alone I know what I know. I have known things before they have been writen in Scientific America mag. Dennet is a wanabe.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents You are ridiculous. Introspection is a foolish method to understand the inner workings of the brain/mind. Dennett is a philosopher who communicates scientific research to the public and he does so wonderfully.
You say you know more than him just by thinking. That fallacious reasoning is everything that is wrong about the public's knowledge of science. Not to mention beautiful irony in the fact that his entire point is that we aren't as aware as we think we are
Read Michael Posner
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
@cmpresents Lastly, if your grammar is any indication of your knowledge, you're not making a good case for yourself as an intellectual authority. You might want to tighten that up a little. That's just a suggestion for future discussions.
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
@Kruezoraxe My grammar has nothing to do with my knowledge. Don't waste ur time responding.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents Maybe. But your complete lack of response to my arguments does. If you would like to respond, here they are:
Introspection is faulty and biased
Attention, working memory, and perception research all agree with Dennett
Dennett never claims to be a scientist. He is merely putting their evidence together for the general public
Dennett backs up his claims with scientific evidence.
If you can come up with specific evidence as to a specific concept he is wrong about, please let me know.
Kruezoraxe 3 months ago
@Kruezoraxe But how can you say that, when there is no scientist alive that knows what consciousness is. Science is clueless when it comes to consciousness, even scientist admit, so what are you saying. Why don't read and educate yourself before talking so much nonsense. Do you know what clueless means, science is clueless, this means that Dennet is clueless. So anything he says regarding consciousness is just his imagination, it's not science.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents "clueless", this is incorrect. They do not have a full understanding, but there is a lot they do know. Clueless might be accurate as regards most people, believing its their heart, their soul or whatever. If any institution has any idea its science. So if you want to listen to anybodies thoughts on the matter it should be someone who has spent time studying it, in other words, a scientist
mehico33 3 months ago
@mehico33 I'm done talking to you. Go and read and watch some videos on consciousness and see what scientist have to say about the subject, then you'll know that I'm 100% correct. They are clueless, there are zero theories for consciousness.
cmpresents 3 months ago
@cmpresents "Im done talking to you" But you only stared! lol.
Theres no need to go anywhere, the video you are commenting on contains "clues" and proves you 100% wrong. You are either a defeatest moron or a deceptive zealot.
I never said there were theories, only that if anyone is fit to comment it is a scientist, not a religious person, not a moron/you.
mehico33 3 months ago
@Kruezoraxe How does attention, working memory, and perception agree with Dennett. They are related to the 'easy problem' of consciousness, which Dennett has confused with the 'hard problem'.
zadeh79 1 month ago
@Kruezoraxe It's great and wonderful that Dennett has (pardon the phrase) "expanded my consciousness" with these visual experiments. No doubt something similar works for the other senses. But, I don't see how he goes from that to the implication that consciousness is purely "mechanized".
It may very well be "mechanized", but I don't see the limitation of what we think we perceive to be evidence of that.
mphello 4 days ago
all these people need a lesson in quantum mechanics and the nature and non-localized nature of all particles....then take into account the collapse of super position and it role in electromagnetic transfer of information. Leonard Suskin would tell them that every particle interaction that plays a role in consciousness or otherwise shares that information with the surface of the expanding universe...every thought you have is knowable from outside...there is a reason for this
PurickRottweiler 5 months ago
I think David Chalmers gives the clearest refutation of the Dennett viewpoint (although he was not directly addressing Dennett. Look for him on Youtube.
No matter how detailed we become in understanding neural mechanisms, data structures, algorithms, etc., they don't touch the problem of why we have subjective experience. Mechanisms only explain functional behavior. It seems we have to postulate that a proto-consciousness is an independent property of matter.
copernicus633 6 months ago
@copernicus633
Right. If Dennett were explaining how a very sophisticated robot worked; how that robot did what it did; what tricks it used to achieve it's end, his speech would be relevant. But really, nothing that he says has anything to do with explaining consciousness.
vsaluki 6 months ago
@copernicus633
If you try to explain consciousness as a bunch of tricks, and if it is a subjective experience that is had by only one individual, then who, according to Dennett, is being tricked. Are the tricks being tricked?
vsaluki 6 months ago
His argument that we see less than we think has no relevance to the issue of consciousness itself . It is obvious to each of us that we have inner experience, i.e. consciousness, in many modes (visual, auditory, thinking, imagining, smelling, etc.) Any defect in our sense of sight (which he is so concerned with), does not alter the fact that we HAVE sight, and most importantly, we EXPERIENCE sight.
copernicus633 6 months ago
@copernicus633
exactly.
i really am starting to despise this guy. his only purpose seems to be to run around, yelling "you're not special! you are in fact simple!"which is not true. we don't understand how MEMORY works, nor exactly how something like an anxiety disorder operates in the mind...i question his eagerness to claim our minds simple and mechanical structures. HOW those chemical, electrical, 'mechanical' motions inside the brain translate into EXPERIENCE is not understood at all.
Tartersauce101 6 months ago
Comment removed
petestrat07 6 months ago
Our own eyes cannot see themselves directally .like that our own consciousness cannot fully understand itself.
raviJadhav250 7 months ago
LOL this guy is such a noob if he thinks that 'change blindness' deflates consciousness. And yea I know who he is, so don't try that appeal to authority bs on me.
M3PanoS 7 months ago
Something IS there, when i see a colour and if it's just an illusion, then it is the illusion that IS there and that needs to be explained.
xknowledgeisfreex 7 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Exactly right. First, Dennet's topic always seems to be the mystery of consciousness, i.e., why are we conscious? This riddle is what he seems to be setting out to answer when he announces he's going to "explain" consciousness. However, what he explains (to some extent) is the NATURE of consciousness, not the cause of its existence. His explanation concerns the WHAT, not the the WHY. He hopes that by the end, the audience will have forgotten what they initially wanted to know.
Drealmful 7 months ago
@coolasacoldsummer "Actually heres something to ponder how does one see color in dreams and memories?"
This is not a problem that helps Dennett at all. It shows that qualia is not dependent of the physical. But regardless of the coorelation or lack of coorelation for qualia, the very fact that you have qualia and the very fact that you cannot explain the experience of a qualia like red in terms of neurons firing is a problem that Dennett is hiding from.
vsaluki 8 months ago
Isn't it funny that Dennett has this idea that he wants to "beat consciousness down to size". Sounds like a man with an agenda rather than someone trying to get at the truth. But it doesn't matter how far he beats it down to size, he still is 100% incapable of explaining even the most simple element of consciousness - namely, what do neurons firing have to do with a direct consious experience, like the experience of red. How can a group of neurons firing be red?
vsaluki 8 months ago
@vsaluki Beating any phenomenon down to size is another way of saying that a proper account of the pehnomenon in question needs to be established. Which is exactly what Dennet went on to say. I dont know why that metaphor upset you so much. Perhaps you're the one with an agenda?
"he still is 100% incapable of explaining even the most simple element of consciousness"
Oooh. An argument from ignorance! Go read a cardboard primary school book titled something easy like "Science"
spacecowboy95 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spacecowboy95 "Beating any phenomenon down to size is another way of saying that a proper account of the pehnomenon in question needs to be established."
No, the "size" of the phenomena is irrelevant when your theory doesn't cover it regardless of how large or small it is. In that case it's simply a cover up for what Dennett can't explain.
"Oooh. An argument from ignorance! "
No, I don't use your methods.
vsaluki 8 months ago
@spacecowboy95 Beating phenomenon down to size, he just means you have to realize the limitations on your mind and you cannot measure consciousness with a bias.
jayviper 7 months ago
All in all this is a really stupid presentation. He completely avoids the real problem of consciousness. He cannot explain how the firing of a bunch of neurons could be the color red. Furthermore, he cannot even imagine how the firing of neurons could be the color red. Go ahead Dennet, open somebody's head and show them a red card. See if you can find a bunch of neurons turning red. This is not about representation. Something has to really be red. And it's not firing neurons.
vsaluki 8 months ago
@vsaluki Color is nothing more than a reflection of light. What color you may think is red is actually not red at all. Nothing is really red, or green, or blue, or any other color. A piece of red clothing actually contains all other color BUT red and, since red is separated from the color spectrum (not in the color spectrum of the shirt), the human eye is able to identify it. Its like refracting light through a piece of glass and being able to see rainbows. But Google gives a better explanation.
suprgrl12 8 months ago
@suprgrl12 Unfortunately, everything that you said is not relevant to the issue of consiousness. Nor is it anything that I didn't already know. The issue is that we experience red - and how can the experience of red be explained in terms of neurons firing? There is no way. And you cannot simply say that certain neurons firing "represent" red - because we are not talking about a sybolic coorelation, we are talking about a direct experience - an end point - red.
vsaluki 8 months ago
@vsaluki what does it feel to be windows, evidently windows is not pentium. Windows is misterius magic stuff.
DemokritosAbdera 7 months ago
@DemokritosAbdera
I'm a software engineer. Software is neither mysterious or magical. It is also not conscious. Nor is a computer with running software conscious. No matter how many tricks you make the computer do - and even if you make it behave exactly like a human - it will still not be conscious. That is what Dennett doesn't understand. Tricks are not consciousness.
vsaluki 6 months ago
@vsaluki Im a software engineer with a MsC in AI and bioninspired systems. I think you miss completely the analogy, you miss also in what Dennet say and more important you have just commited a very deep error in reasoning, because by defining yourself as "conscious" you actually have no insight of how that (even if is one phenomena) works, but somehow you know with absolute certainty how it doesnt work.
I dont think you do at all.
DemokritosAbdera 5 months ago
Then he goes on to talk about the quantity of things that we are consious of and how it is less than we think. Again, how is this relevant to his theory that it is physical.
Then he talks about people thinking that consciousness is taking in the whole world. What world Dennett. Is there a shred of evidence for the world that is not conciousness itself. Show me that evidence.
vsaluki 8 months ago
Again, the idiot rants on about what he thinks people want to believe. This has nothing to do with proving or disproving his own theories. The moron seems to think that if he can show an emotional motivation for not believing him that it is the same as proving he is correct.
vsaluki 8 months ago
Is'nt the point however, that we do in fact experience a complete sense of reality.
coolioto 9 months ago
Most are illusional. Everything starts with the subconscious a lot of which most people ignore. So unless one can get through the subconscious the consciousness is unknown.
Either way we make our own reality and choose to believe what we want. This is however, isnt consciousness.
letsgetinshape 9 months ago
Subjects under hypnosis have demonstrated substantially more recall in situations sometimes. Is it possible that he is not taking the mind's prioritization and categorization functions in to full consideration when striking at our "excessively bloated" opinion of our own consciousness?
cdstingj 9 months ago
Well he starts with an ad hominem and question begging attack, and ends with denying the existence of consciousness. Wow. What a profound thinker...
ORAKAR 9 months ago
@ORAKAR He most certainly does not deny the existence of consciousness. He says consciousness isn't what we think it is.
zhimbo 9 months ago
@zhimbo "It's_just_not_there" seems to be an explicit rejection of consciousness, but... I'd be happy to agree that he doesn't deny the existence of consciousness, since it would be an utterly ridiculous position! :)
ORAKAR 9 months ago
I'm aware of the definition of incoherent and your statement about our ideas on consciousness not being 'completely fleshed out' fits perfectly.
You see the old mantra that the science evangelists keep trotting out, about how we haven't explained it all yet but give us a bit more time and we'll get there, just doesn't wash. Anything that you think might deny science its great TADAA! moment you get aggressive and petulant about. In order to explain consciousness science will need to 'recalibrate'
fishybishbash 9 months ago
This man is a philosopher not a scientist and Steven Hawking in his new book debunks these fraudsters for what they are. Its like psychology made up nonsense by humans, a perception of reality, this man is the Devils theologian. You can either see everything as a miracle or nothing. To take consciousness back to a illusion is nihilism, how can he not find it mysterious that out of one single piece of energy after the big bang consciousness was formed.
cooldudesg54 9 months ago
@cooldudesg54
Yea, all philosophers are frauds because of something Dennett has said. Go away.
twooffour 9 months ago
Hey physicalists, I'm still waiting for that glorious future where computers will replace the workforce and no one will have to work again. Well Computers are now running on the order of 10^11 floating point operations per second yet they can't deliver pizzas. What's the holdup? After all, consciousness and cognition is all just physical laws in action. Is there something magic about biomolecules that you can make a functioning brain from them but not from semiconductors and metals?
BillyBawb 9 months ago
Ya see. You gottta get away from thinking that less is more and start thinking that more is less. So I more or less think that I know a whole lot less the more I know.
nsecchi 10 months ago
this guy makes very big fundemental mistake, he fails to destinguish what science does and does not know about consciousness and he himself makes up a speculation about consciousness the same way all the other bullshiter do. he may say less bullshit, but I think theres some bullshit in what he speculates
Zee96969696 10 months ago
BRILLIANT
SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT
cheeseit126 10 months ago
@cheeseit126 Say what? Dennett has no more idea about the nature of subjective consciousness than anyone else. The change blindness example is a red herring and is to do with awareness which has an oblique relationship with consciousness. What he's expounding here is his belief about how things are, no more than that.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash to say that just because we don't understand our consciousness doesn't mean it is unexplainable by through natural processes
there is no "magic" to our brains; that is a belief stemming from our narcissistic sense of self-importance... we are not yet ready to come to terms with the reality of our existence; our weaknesses, our sameness, our predictability etc.
my comment was directed at his analysis of our current perceptions/beleifs
cheeseit126 9 months ago
@cheeseit126 We're not even close to defining the nature of consciousness. I understand the mindset that Dennett is championing, debunking the myths etc but its just a point of view. He hasn't defined consciousness. He's just saying how he thinks things work. Thats fine. Doesn't mean he's right - far from it. Its not a fucking outboard motor we're talking about here.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash The very idea that consciousness, whatever it is, is not subject to any rules whatsoever is inherently incoherent. Ergo, whatever it is, it must follow some set of limitations.
unhealthytruthseeker 9 months ago
@unhealthytruthseeker The Salient point is that we have NO IDEA what those 'rules' or 'limitations' are that you're convinced subjective consciousness has. Science as its current state of understanding is falling way short
of any kind of definition on this matter Moreover, it's crucial to our understanding of existence because without consciousness there is no science. Funny that the very thing that our understanding depends on is something that we have no clue as to its essence or origin.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash I wouldn't say we have absolutely no idea, just that the idea isn't completely fleshed out yet. Nonetheless, it's not so much that our understanding of everything depends on our understanding of consciousness (Clearly not, since we can do physics without once mentioning thought or belief), rather, it is that our ability to understand necessitates the existence of a consciousness capable of understanding to begin with.
unhealthytruthseeker 9 months ago
@unhealthytruthseeker Now that truly IS incoherent. First off, make no mistake, we ABSOLUTELY no idea about the mechanism whereby subjective consciousness is experienced the way it is and the fact that we have developed our understanding of neurophysiolgy has no bearing on that fact. Secondly, we're going to HAVE to define this aspect if want to further our understanding of the nature of things. Science, as it's current level of understanding, cannot. These are the 'Flaws of Physics'.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash What exactly is "truly incoherent"?
unhealthytruthseeker 9 months ago
@unhealthytruthseeker Your comments. The statement that we have some kind of idea of how subjective consciousness comes about does not cohere with the facts.
fishybishbash 9 months ago
@fishybishbash That's not what "incoherent" means. "Incoherent" refers to something being self-refuting, logically impossible, or otherwise poorly defined/formulated.
Besides, we'll never produce any explanation of consciousness that will ever satisfy you "hard problem" types because you've all specifically tautologically defined the problem so that it is unsolvable. By circularly defining the problem and nature of consciousness, you ensure no natural explanation will ever work.
unhealthytruthseeker 9 months ago
@unhealthytruthseeker
Well, the things about the hard problem is that it IS unfalsifiable, and if you don't agree, we can use the the true Zombie fallacy on you and be correct :D
twooffour 9 months ago
Saying that we have more or less information really has noting to do with being aware of the information we do have. So the entire talk is just a bit of slight of hand to cover the fact that there is no naturalist theory of being aware as opposed to processing the data we are aware of. We can explain in increasing detail how we process data, but no progress on awareness is on the horizon.
dfpolis 10 months ago
"The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the quality of the oneness in the universe." - Larry Dossey, MD
soldatheero 11 months ago
Dennet constructed a straw man and wrapped it up in an ad hominem. He should know better. I don't "want" conscious experience to be nonphysical because of a desire to feel special. It's the reverse: I am special, and I'm looking for an explanation for that. Just because a brain can have a pattern that represents a bushy grey beard doesn't mean that there has to be a consciousness experiencing that brain pattern. Do we think a consciousness experiences every ripple in a pond, or computer circuit?
placidaura 11 months ago
Pam Reynolds soul living after death is the best evidence of life after death. Just one of many examples of corroborated testimony of the existence of the soul. Why-I'm-not-afraid-to-die-evidence-of-the-soul, Wayne Wirs
shizzleman8 11 months ago
Very weak thinking there Dennet. So, ppl don't like the idea of mechanical explanations of consciousness? This has NOTHING to do with the question of what consciousness is. What ppl like or don't like has no relation to what exists. So, the field of consciousness is smaller than we think. This makes the prob go away? Not.
zosimos111 11 months ago
@zosimos111 i think the point he was making is that people don't want their consciousness to be explained because they enjoy thinking that they take in more than they do. But the fact that the conscious is obviously limited- something that most people do, in fact, reject- means that consciousness can be explained, and is more mechanical than it is magical (as most people like to think it is).
shawnisawesomeful 10 months ago
Dennet should be deflated.
His all argument is that people want to believe the mind is big beyond measure and that that is why the Mind is taken to be extra-natural.
The Mind is not smaller than you think it is. It is ludicrously bigger than you think it is.
And whoever disagrees has not explored himslef enough.
P.S. it seems by the other videos here on the side that Dennet isn't to fond of magic.
long live magic.
jonyzion 1 year ago
I love Dennett but I disagree that our minds are "boringly finite". Yes our mind is a product of brain activity, but he's forcing an either/or on the listener. You can accept the materialist concept of the mind but that doesn't make what happens in our minds boring *or* finite (at least until we're dead!). Even accepting that consciousness isn't a holy mystery leaves plenty of things to discover in ourselves that is relevant to our lives.
amaxamon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dennett is a good philosopher however:
He focuses on contingent experiential properties, instance ineffability, privacy, direct apprehension and intrinsic. In his particular attack on the third of these claims (sometimes added too with claim: we can't be wrong about our own experience) can be shown false by his Coffee drinkers or by optical illusion examples.
Still; given all the physical facts there is still something additional - the experiential fact of what it is like to be the subject.
slappyslapnuts 1 year ago
Dennett is a good philosopher however:
He focuses on contingent experiential properties, instance ineffability, privacy, direct apprehension and intrinsic. In his particular attack on the third of these claims (sometimes added too with claim: we can't be wrong about our own experience) can be shown false by his Coffee drinkers or by optical illusion examples.
Still; given all the physical facts there is still something additional - the experiential fact of what it is like to be the subject.
slappyslapnuts 1 year ago
He is such a good mediator, particularly to the layman. He doesn't use the complex 'jargon' that other similar thinking philosophers and neuroscientists use to explain consciousness, though as one becomes more acquainted with the topic, that very 'jargon' becomes the cream in the coffee.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
I've always had the feeling that Dennett is not quite right about the mind, but what I like very much is that he is obstinately reluctant to postulate ANYTHING beyond what can be scientifically justified at the time. As more evidence comes in we will know better, but to explain things with vague and themselves unexplained ideas before then is not that different from what William Paley did, and we're not looking kindly on that in hindsight. ^_^ Dennett works with what we have, and nothing else.
Blodhosta 1 year ago
I agree. Read the reply comment I posted a minute ago and let me know what you think.
metaldude82 1 year ago
You are just as much part of nature as anything. Never so far remove yourself from reality that you forget this.
Jebs24 1 year ago
I've done the spinning chair eye shaky thing, it works
huddl007 1 year ago
This doesn't say anything about having an inner subjective experience. Even if your only conscious of 5% of what is going on around you, your still having an inner subjective experience. I didn't hear anything that deflated that.
objectofawareness 1 year ago
"... there isn't something magical about the mind that is just neurons doing their ... electromechanical things" - this guy is making me sick with his know-it-all attitude, for him everything is *just* this and *just* that... we are "just" very very complex "robots"? maybe... but the "just" is just wrong in this context. mr. dennet, *you* are just another brick in the wall.
toofruitfull 1 year ago
@toofruitfull You're absolutely wrong about Dennett having a Know it all attitude. This man is completely open about what he does and doesn't know- he is a professional philosopher, after all. This is a television program that is presenting a complex concept to people who have no expertise on the matter. He's presenting the material in a manner that is easy to understand for an audience that isn't steeped in the latest journals of neuroscientists and philosophers. You're just being a dick.
jasonhutchcraft 1 year ago
@#isleofyew1
We are part of the greater whole, we're small pieces of the universe made of the same stuff, atoms/ quarks, as everything else is so when we are self-aware the universe is self-aware. Our self-awareness = the universe being self-aware.
mrfpercival 1 year ago
Chimps remember more of what they have seen than we, the differently evolved family members.
Dennett is so right.
We all are robots operating in a very complicated jungle.
I believe free will is an illusion.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
I would say consciousness is of a whole different and larger matter. The little, perhaps somewhat non-significant test he shows us, has more to do with observatory awareness. He misuses the term consciousness. Just because he can fool one or maybe two of our senses does not mean shit. The conclusions he makes are far beyond his reach. But yet, me thinking grasping my mind is far beyond his reach, that is his whole point. So I guess it comes down to faith.
Malanquan 1 year ago
I give him a F. He fails to even begin to explain consciousness.
cmpresents 1 year ago
You have to understand death to be born. Live is breathed into the dead rational view. The religionist with the "breathing" view will eventually die. The "dead" will be resurrected, and they will be resurrected on earth to learn the secrets of life.
beforethesolstice 1 year ago
nonsense dennett...
allismind 1 year ago
the perfect slave morality
diogeneslaertius666 1 year ago
IT'S JUST... NOT... THERE!
BRAAAIIIINSSSS......
ScaleBerb 1 year ago 20
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang, the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
mrfpercival 1 year ago 4
@mrfpercival "And the universe becomes self aware"???? Explain how you see that please. I mean the universe is vast and statistically there must be life in many different corners so to speak and in different stages of evolution. We are not the universe. Our eyes see what they can see but we do not create what is there with our mind. It is not because i'm in a big building that the building becomes aware.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
Comment removed
petestrat07 6 months ago
@mrfpercival awesome comment
petestrat07 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
13.7 billion yrs ago the universe appeared. Matter cooled and condensed, stars ignited to forge heavy elements, supernovae seeded the galaxy. 9.2 billion yrs after the bang the Earth formed. Starshine made organic molecules reproduce, compete and evolve. 2.5 million yrs ago an apelike creature started to use tools. Humans walked on the moon and now approach immortality. A small part of the cosmos, the human mind, reflects on itself and the universe becomes self-aware. Explain that!
mrfpercival 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrfpercival 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrfpercival 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrfpercival 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrfpercival 1 year ago
dan dannett is a zombie.
iamthewalrusQ 1 year ago 16
@iamthewalrusQ Agreed. He seems a nice old buffer though
fishybishbash 1 year ago
But keep in mind that everyone experiences a different reality. No ones experience is the same.
What you experience in your own mind becomes your reality. So who is anyone to say that what you are experiencing is wrong? If you could experience some one else's mind for two minutes, you would find out immediately that reality is different for everyone. For myself that's what I think consciousness is. Being conscious that this experience is our own and ours only.
IndeedmyFriend 1 year ago
@IndeedmyFriend No, we are all in the same reality. The very idea of "my" reality or "your" reality is incoherent. What we experience is different PERCEPTIONS of the same reality, rather than experiencing different realities.
unhealthytruthseeker 9 months ago
@unhealthytruthseeker
It's not incoherent because the respective realities of experience ARE actually different. The real world is obviously the same.
twooffour 9 months ago
That's all nice Mr. Dennett but when are you gonna say anything about actual consciousness. What does the accuracy of perceptions have anything to do with consciousness existing or not. Unless your definition of consciousness is something i for the life of me cant figure out. I cant help but think Dennett is arguing with himself over a certain idea he has of the general publics perception of consciousness(again what that is i dont know).
tnus3 1 year ago 2
@tnus3 you nailed it.
cmpresents 1 year ago
While I enjoy his work, I would say that this video completely ignores the hard problem of consciousness. Dennet says people motivated by this problem lack epistemic humility & that they want their consciousness to be infinite and irreduced. He goes on to explain one of the issues around the soft problem. This is a red herring and ad hominem attack.
Who lacks epistemic humility? the ones claiming science explains all and that there is no problem... or those who see a limit to objective kno
philosophywpaul 1 year ago 2
@Cathy, We cannot ignore certain aspects of consciousness and then claim to have understood it. This is like saying that we can explain the concept of a car in terms of wheels spinning. Authors should explicitly state what aspect they claim to have understood. I find it strange with the explanation that when I open my eyes an entire universe that I see around supposedly nicely fits into my head. Either my head is as big as the universe or there is something wrong with the explanation.
utubex03 1 year ago
Part 3: The bottom-line is that the "mind" or "consciousness" is not explained. What makes matters worse is that the word "consciousness" has different meanings when used in different contexts. What we need to do is to look beyond light-falling-and-neurons-firing and see what happens after that. What follows after that is an experience. We need to find out where that arises from and who the experiencer is. It would be better if authors stop making sweeping statements to make a buck or two.
utubex03 1 year ago
@utubex03: OK...so what sort of an explanation of the experience will satisfy you?
In my opinion: since consciousness exists as a natural process, then it should be possible [in principle] for us to find out something about how the system works. We should use as many tools and ideas as we can at it. The Hard Problem framing may turn out to be unfruitful as an approach and as an attitude to this issue.
CathySander 1 year ago
@utubex03 Exactly.
cmpresents 1 year ago
Part 2: Regardless of how the apparatus of the brain is constructed, there is the experience of the senses. Whether you are seeing a spot or an entire frame, there is the experience of it. Now what is this experience? Who is the experiencer? If you say me, then where is this "me"? Is it a robotic cell? A group of cells? The entire brain? Does damage to the brain dissolve this "me"/awareness? This doesn't make sense. The awareness behind any experience always stays. That is consciousness.
utubex03 1 year ago
Part 1: You are seeing something intently and suddenly you see something move on the corner of your eye. According to Dennett then you should not have been able to detect that movement. You may have to focus to get clarity.. but to say that you "don't" sense anything but a little spot at a time doesn't make sense. Maybe we can't FOCUS on more than one spot at one time. There is clearly a difference between seeing and focusing.
utubex03 1 year ago
Comment removed
utubex03 1 year ago
@humanistbanana Well he can show that Chalmers "easy problem" can be explained in biological terms. Some combination of quantum physics and neutral monism (informationalism or something) will likely be needed to solve the "hard problem."
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
I'm missing logic. I guess because he has such a short time to explain, but why does the fact that our consciousness is not very good mean that our conscious isn't there?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I don't think he was arguing it wasn't there... just that we aren't as conscious as we think we are (hence the title of the video).
zakiechan 1 year ago
He can explain the external behavior of a mind down to biology, but he can't boil down the phenomenal component of it down with biology. It would be a category error to do so -unless of course you want to argue that external reality has a phenomenal dimension as well but then you are a neutral monist and not a materialist.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Well, it seems to me that he is trying to do more than that: not so much explain consciousness, but rather explain it away. Big difference. Philosophers such as Searle believe that consciousness is an undeniable part of human experience and also a biological phenomenon caused by neural activity in the brain. Dennett, on the other hand wants to say that consciousness is an illusion. No good argument for this latter claim is presented in this clip.
putnah 1 year ago
Dennett doesn't deny that consciousness exists. But that the pedestal some people have placed it on and reified it is ridiculous. And none dare tamper with it.
He has shown that when people claim they are completely aware, that they are not by simple objective test.
So he deflated consciousness down from divinity etc. to its proper size that can be subjected to rigorous scientific examination.
It can then be reduced to its parts and mechanism.
Which will enable us to understand it.
dianep123 1 year ago
@putnah Such is the problem with boiling down very complex philosophical issues into 4 minutes Youtube clips!
spacerumsfeld 1 year ago
Is this clip supposed to furnish an argument that we are not conscious? If so, it is a pretty weak attempt. Saying that we are conscious of less than we think we are conscious of doesn't imply that we are not nonetheless conscious. Also, the fact that most people want to believe in this supposedly magical thing called consciousness has no bearing on whether consciouness exists.
putnah 1 year ago 2
Dennett has a way of stating trivial facts, operating on them with a slight of hand which hides many logical leaps to most people, and then implying or even explicitly drawing very large conclusions. If he did it in French, Leiter would be calling him a charlatan too.
kwalk30 1 year ago 3
Such as... ?
wilfredthebold 1 year ago
So What About Photographic Memory?
AdamOuissellat 2 years ago
First we would have to investigate how it works, if it's real... and develope a cognitive model for how it works and decide whether it conflicts or not with current state of affairs in cognitive science... quite possibly it's not...
Maybe these ppl store the data differently, but not necesarily its integrated... it may be integrated during memory retrieval.
RobertoCha 1 year ago
"What isn't there doesn't have to be explained."
-Daniel Dennett
This is my new favorite quote. I'm taking this with me everywhere. It's going in my yearbook, onto the front of my novel, upon my tombstone, everywhere.
wilfredthebold 2 years ago 2
Did it make you feel good when you heard that quote? Was that feeling there?
kwalk30 1 year ago
Who died and made you asshole general of the united nations?
wilfredthebold 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Did it make you feel good when you heard that quote? Was that feeling there?
kwalk30"
"Who died and made you asshole general of the united nations?
wilfredthebold"
@wilfredthebold When someone asks you a question you either can't or don't want to answer, do you respond with another question with an embedded ad hominem attack? Hard to admit that the quote you so love is wrong...
cocacola443 1 year ago
good place to start is to stop having trillion dollar wars
59acres 2 years ago