People don't care if their minds are 'boring and finite' as Dennett puts it. What people don't like the idea of is the notion that the universe/ existence is boring and finite. Well, its not boring, not in my experience, anything but and consciousness has everything to do with the way in which we experience and interact with our environment at a psycholgical level. So to intimate that consciousness is mundane and banale strikes me as being at best disingenuous.
I would agree that many people don’t care about the facts or the truth. Those are the people who want to imagine themselves to be something wonderful and spectacular. They do this out of an egocentric psychological need to imagine themselves as special.
I suggest that you watch the video again. Dennett is talking about the *processes* that underly our consciousness. He is not saying that the universe is boring (it is finite, however).
@EvolvedAtheist He definitely IS saying that. His standpoint seems to be that any notion of the 'fantastic' in relation to the mechanics of the universe is childish and deluded, to be discouraged. That position is entirely informed by his subjective experience and has only an oblique relationship to the 'facts' and the 'truth', neither of which the scientific community is in full possession of, as you well know. But we're getting there - and the closer we get, the more incredible it becomes.
No. You are misinterpreting what he said. You appear to be doing this in light of your own subjective experiences.
If the scientific community is not yet able to fully explain how 10^14, mindless, depolarizing-repolarizing-depolarizing robots generate *awareness* of the external world, then nobody else possesses an explanation.
The clue lies in complexity. It is complexity that converts mundane processed into the incredible. Fact is more fantastic than simplistic fantasies.
@EvolvedAtheist Well I completely agree with your last point (although I would say that the phenomenon of fantasy is very much a fact!) and also that the relationship between complexity and statistical chance is very hard to grasp and is probably the basis for the physical universe. I admit that my own experience informs my ideas on these matters, also that science is the only chance we have of establishing the truth. Thanks for replying - consciousness eh, makes you think doesn't it...
As is the phenomenon of concepts, in general. It is amazing how many people muddle conceptualization with physical existence!
The brain is complex, but its complexity is not governed by "statistical chance". Random firing characterizes grand mal epileptic seizures, and they render the person unconscious.
Experience informs all ideas. I think that the trick is to try to dissect out our emotional biases as much as possible ... and think ;)
@fishybishbash see a small portion of that painting at any one time in enough detail to really scrutinize it. This small portion of the visual field is called the fovea. The reality is that only a very small part of our visual field is relatively high fidelity. The rest is piecemeal constructions which use a lot more brain power than eye power. Scientists, philosophers and laymen alike will bloat consciousness. This causes a larger explanatory gap in their conception than which really exists.
He doesn't 'explain' consciousness. He can't, the science hasn't reached an explanation of the phenomenon yet. What he's expounding here is his opinion, based on his personal experience (therein lies the rub). His mission appears to be to point out how boring and mundane our mental process is. Dont listen. Be something amazing, spectacular - surreal. You might as well. You're only here the once -
If I understand you correctly, you are expounding an opinion based on your own personal experience and ego-centered biases. Dennett is actually saying that we imagine that our sensory perceptions are more comprehensive than actuality demonstrates. In that, he is correct.
If you are saying that we should make the most of our brief visit, then I agree. However, by definition, we cannot *all* be amazing or spectacular.
What is repugnant to me -- if you will forgive my imitating your poor sentence structure -- is ignorant theistic remarks. That is the title of his book, but if the video's title upset a theist, then I am delighted ;^/ All neuro-philosophers admit to not being able to explain consciousness. No philosopher will crack it without the aid of neuroscience, but the qualia notion is tantamount to a supernaturalist (magic-thinking) non-explanation.
@cmpresents He's talking about his book, he's not actually explaining consciousness. Not that 'explaining' is such a straightforward, unambiguous act anyway.
After all, "explaining" could be taken to be synonymous with "describing," but that's probably too subtle for a dualist. On the other hand, it is extraordinary to me that those who believe that "goddidit" is an explanation for everything, should presume to criticize Dennett ;^/
@EvolvedAtheist Explaining could be: explaining how consciousness came to be, explaining what it is, explaining what it does, or explaining where it is. The word itself is far too ambiguous to just be thrown around in such demands.
I agree. It could also mean explaining what others have thought and said about the question. I have the book, but still have not found time to read it ;) Perhaps it will make it more clear what Dennett meant by "Explaining."
I do think that postulating "qualia" as intermediaries of "explanation" is no more helpful than "goddidit." The neurophilosopher is left with the problem of explaining how "qualia" would work.
Typical Dan Dennett. Horrible logic. Say that people are adverse to his way of thinking and use that as evidence that you are right. You can say that people don't want to believe in ghosts (which may or may not be true) but that does not give ANY evidence to whether or not ghosts really exist or not. Lecturing people that they aren't willing to accept your conclusion is just a way of showing you can't prove it.
"Lecturing people that they aren't willing to accept your conclusion is just a way of showing you can't prove it."
As are the "arguments" to which you resorted.
The burden of proof -- ghosts, etc -- always lies on the positive claimant. The only possible evidence regarding ghosts, for example, would be evidence of existence. It is logically impossible to prove a non-existence, so it is beyond illogical to demand that someone prove that whatever "thing" does not exist.
This is BS. His theory can be disproved easily. You are seeing something intently and suddenly you see something move at 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 a spot at one time. There is clearly a difference between seeing and focusing.
And your "theory" can also be disproved easily since you signally failed to understand the point that he was making. Further, Dennett does not distinguish between "seeing" and "focusing." You were probably trying to say something else -- "seeing" and "noticing" perhaps. In which case, your argument actually supports his contentions.
I haven't been able to find any videos of Dennett tackling the "hard problem of consiousness", just the "easy problem". Does he talk about it in the book?
Nice treatment of awareness, or conscious perception. But such an oversimplification of what human consciousness actually is and is capable of. It's not that people want their mind to be beyond the grasp of science, it's that the mind still very much IS beyond the grasp of science. The mind does science, just think about it. But none the less, Dennett always has a very interesting and candid way of looking at things.
well this is depressing... so being happy is just a chemical in my mind reacting to other shit... then whats the purpose.. shitt..i have no idea about this study but i im fukin interested as fuk in consciousness.. but the shit he says is rely depressing... i hav to disagree. with him. heprobably came to this conclusion because noone loved him and his life sucked.. so this is his excuse for his shitty feelings and why people dont like him...
Here's some more depressing news -- your entire life is the result of chemical reactions. If you can't cope with that fact, you might want to invest in professional help ;^/
@EvolvedAtheist why would anyone consider this depressing- now that's a mystery. I mean we don't consider it depressing to know how our car works. so...
Of course, but that's too logical for the religious!
I can think of a number of reasons. 1. Religionists are instructed to consider physical (non-supernatural) explanations depressing. 2. Better educated religionists understand that monism removes the possibility of an afterlife. 3. Religionists are emotional thinkers, and religious belief (chicken/egg?) is associated with feelings of emptiness.
@TheScreamingRetard No the problem with people like you is that, you believe that you need love and emotion to infer purpose. Love and emotion are both consequences of an evolved condition where it is necessary that we love our family and feel angry at people who put us at risk, feel happy when things are going well to help induce us to do it more often. None of that has anything to do with what is actually going on. Chemistry is what is going on, what u are on about is how you perceive it.
It's fascinating to observe the sheer volume of uninformed and biased comments that are posted on the topic of consciousness. Dennett attracts more inaccurate, strawman arguments than the other neurophilosophy videos that I have uploaded.
Why? Theism, deism, and dualism are *all* examples of magical-thinking non-explanations.
I suggest that you dualists try to say something intelligent, or don't say anything at all. I'm too busy to deal with supernaturalism.
@EvolvedAtheist I really liked this book - there's not a week that goes by were I don't question some thought/idea/belief/feeling I've just noticed myself (appearing) to have in the light of the ideas Dennett has used in CE.
I agree that theism deism and dualism are examples of magical thinking non-explanations. However, the property dualism, or non-reductive physicalism makes a lot of sense. I don't think that deflationary accounts of consciousness are any better than such theories of searle, chalmers or nagel.
its amazing how the world we see/sense/remember isn't directly recorded, it seems so vividly there! but what you focus on often determines the things you remember. and if something as simple as direct sensing can be this complex, imagine how complex feelings and emotions are!
the mind is absolutely fascinating! realize it or not from the time small always learning, always questioning, playing being a form of constant learning, the way how things the world and people work.
absolutely mind boggling! In own field of vision, in each eye a blind spot where have no light sensing stimuli, where our eyeball connects to the main eye nerve in the back. an absolute blind spot in our field of vision, yet when look with one eye, image seems filled in! (about half the size of your fist an arms length away in your field of vision, simply not there!! Can you find it? haha). the brain literally 'fills it in' in it's interpretation of reality! AMAZING! FACINATING!
Of all the commentary or lectures I've heard regarding consciousness, other Monists were simply wrong but this one was plain dumb
After the entire video had been of him explaining consciousness & saying that nobody but he understands the true nature of consciousness. He concludes with the brilliant assertion that consciousness is "just not there". If it's not there, then what the hell was he talking about during the whole video?
He's arguing Monism against Dualism with all things irrelevant
The fact that we "take in" less than some people may believe that they do, is regarding "perception" which involves vision & the limitations of the eyes
What in the hell does that have to do with dualism or monism... aside from nothing? Certain ways in which the mind may function or even its scope of capabilities are irrelevant to the issue
The outboard boat (brain) can't get across the lake without the boater (mind) The boater can't get across without the boat. They work in conjunction with
//The outboard boat (brain) can't get across the lake without the boater (mind)//
Nonsense. You are implying that the "mind" generates the brain, and your argument by analogy fails. In your feeble attempt to support dualism, you are resorting to the bald assertion fallacy.
Funny that you use the word "repugnant" and then resort to ridicule. Sure signs of emotional "thinking."
each other. If the boat malfunctions (brain damage) the boater again can't get across. Yet, the boat doesn't cause the existence of the boater
The only thing thats repugnant to me, is that "materialists" insist that the "immaterial" mind fits into their world view. Worse yet, only they understand whats opposed to them
"Big Thinkers"? Apparently, thats a quantitative not a qualitative measure. One can indeed think a bunch of junk. It's not that complicated. Try not to think "too" much about it
Even though the book is called Consciousness Explained, nowhere in it does he attempt to actually explain consciousness. Mainly he just shows that the common ways of thinking about consciousness are wrong, and suggests that something like the Multiple Drafts model may be more accurate. His main points, IMO, are that experiences are never in consciousness at any place or time, qualia are no different than invisible, incorporeal goblins in an engine, and self is a narrative centre of gravity.
The book finally arrived -- but it shall have to wait its turn to be read. Judging by three guest lectures that he gave at Harvard, I think that your assessment will be borne out.
Ok you say I am criticizing atheists and in part you are right. However the goal is evolution not devolution. I guess what you mean by fallacy is the idea that the unconscious mind can tell the conscious mind things. My mind (a perfectly normal brain mind you) has gone over every aspect of my life in detail. There is nothing left to discuss about it. One final assessment of the atheist viewpoint. Boring. Being competent in soil science for instance, does not make you an expert in astronomy
Ok I wrote about 60 of you. Not all of you are boring. Let me try again. The normal mind (yours seeks out the unexplained and hidden). It cannot see the obvious. Now I will spell it out for you. You are trying to explain the conscious mind by seeing the misses. Unfortunately you cannot see the hits. I think but am not sure that Einstien pulled most of his theorys out of his ass. Best to start there grasshopper. I call it the theory of probability.(I just made that up you know)
I could care less whom you consider boring. "Normal" is a statistical descriptor -- it properly describes IQs that cluster around the mean (median for a gaussian distribution). In this sense, normal minds do not seek out the unexplained -- Bertrand Russell was correct.
Boring minds assume that they are privy to gnostic insights and favour emotionally-appealing (dualistic) conclusions. When cornered, they invent premises.
David Chalmers does a pretty good job of defining the scope of the issue in his books. I think you can boil it down to asking how a nervous system can produce a "first person" experience. People with difinitive answers to this generally have not directly confronted the problem. Dennet merely sidesteps the this issue. Part of the problem is that consciousness has many meanings - and only one of those meanings poses serious explanatory problems.
I think your nervous system does produce a third-person experience.
As I sit typing I see and feel my hands, arms, legs etc all of which is third person (in the sense used in games).
But going deeper: i am aware of my mind chatting away about this comment, and of sensations and feelings etc. What we call the ego is third-person too.
First person is the witnessing awareness.
But to be aware of that you have to get very still and attentive.
// As I sit typing I see and feel my hands, arms, legs etc //
Your use of "my" indicates a first-person experience. You and I are third-persons to one another, but not to ourselves.
// Mostly we are locked into our third-person lives. //
No. *Always* we are locked into a first person life. However, some individuals misinterpret and misrepresent in the hope supporting an unsupportable point -- for "heaven" knows what deluded purpose.
You're right, he (or she) is a third person. If I were speaking of you, you'd be a third-person to me -- not that I do. Regardless, your hand is not third-person to you.
I don't have 3rd-person chatter in my mind because I do not have DID or schizophrenia. Most people with DID either speak of "them" or of "we". Being quiet can make the chatter more audible for a DID. Schizophrenics view auditory hallucinations as 3rd-person. Perhaps you know little about psychiatry.
Sorry this video is a fail. You are only explaining the conscious mind and not the unconscious one and not trying very hard at it either. For instance when I learned math I did no add, subtract or multiply like other children did. I looked at the problem and guessed the answer. Savants do this every day. Even with your theory you have to accept have different ways of thinking. My unconscious mind tells me things that my conscious one does not know and wow I look it up and its true. Explain that.
Implying that you are a savant does not rescue your comment from irrelevance. Why don't you take a crack at explaining consciousness in 500 chars? I'd add, without inventing "facts".
// My unconscious mind tells me things that my conscious one does not know ... //
Illogical statement! How could you *know* that your conscious mind has been "told" things if those thoughts are not available to consciousness? Do you think that "conscious" and "unconscious" are structurally separate?
I set out to debunk a athiest youtuber named calpurnpiso As a greek pagan I thought that I would be in a good postition to do so because without the greeks athiests would not even exist. Look it up. Anywas to make a long story short. His answer was to take out Jesus, insert retard, and block me. I give his response a 70. As in IQ of 70. Thats ok some of my best friends are retards. Please unblock me and have a discussion. I will even subscribe.
One of my philosophy professors has accused Dennett of using the "bait and switch" tactic in Consciousness explained. That is, he promises to explain consciousness, but only explains processes such as decision making, memory retrieval, e.t.c., without explaining our subjective experience; qualia. I'm not sure if I agree, but does anyone think that that accusation is what Dennett was addressing in the last sentence: "What isn't there doesn't need to be explained"?
I have not read the book -- is it worth acquiring? According to the wiki article, Dennett denies qualia as distinct, ineffable entities. I imagine that the last sentence might refer to this.
The book has been added to my reading list. So many books, so little time!
I think that one of the best illustrations of our lack of a central "theatre" is brain activity when listening to music. We light up several areas -- and even more areas if we enjoy the music. at 1:43 here: watch?v=ZmCj0ZvgEjA
Unfortunately, the enjoying-music comparison is not made in this video, but it is quite striking.
People don't care if their minds are 'boring and finite' as Dennett puts it. What people don't like the idea of is the notion that the universe/ existence is boring and finite. Well, its not boring, not in my experience, anything but and consciousness has everything to do with the way in which we experience and interact with our environment at a psycholgical level. So to intimate that consciousness is mundane and banale strikes me as being at best disingenuous.
fishybishbash 1 year ago
@fishybishbash
I would agree that many people don’t care about the facts or the truth. Those are the people who want to imagine themselves to be something wonderful and spectacular. They do this out of an egocentric psychological need to imagine themselves as special.
I suggest that you watch the video again. Dennett is talking about the *processes* that underly our consciousness. He is not saying that the universe is boring (it is finite, however).
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist He definitely IS saying that. His standpoint seems to be that any notion of the 'fantastic' in relation to the mechanics of the universe is childish and deluded, to be discouraged. That position is entirely informed by his subjective experience and has only an oblique relationship to the 'facts' and the 'truth', neither of which the scientific community is in full possession of, as you well know. But we're getting there - and the closer we get, the more incredible it becomes.
fishybishbash 1 year ago 3
@fishybishbash
No. You are misinterpreting what he said. You appear to be doing this in light of your own subjective experiences.
If the scientific community is not yet able to fully explain how 10^14, mindless, depolarizing-repolarizing-depolarizing robots generate *awareness* of the external world, then nobody else possesses an explanation.
The clue lies in complexity. It is complexity that converts mundane processed into the incredible. Fact is more fantastic than simplistic fantasies.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Well I completely agree with your last point (although I would say that the phenomenon of fantasy is very much a fact!) and also that the relationship between complexity and statistical chance is very hard to grasp and is probably the basis for the physical universe. I admit that my own experience informs my ideas on these matters, also that science is the only chance we have of establishing the truth. Thanks for replying - consciousness eh, makes you think doesn't it...
fishybishbash 1 year ago
@fishybishbash
"phenomenon of fantasy ... fact"
As is the phenomenon of concepts, in general. It is amazing how many people muddle conceptualization with physical existence!
The brain is complex, but its complexity is not governed by "statistical chance". Random firing characterizes grand mal epileptic seizures, and they render the person unconscious.
Experience informs all ideas. I think that the trick is to try to dissect out our emotional biases as much as possible ... and think ;)
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@fishybishbash see a small portion of that painting at any one time in enough detail to really scrutinize it. This small portion of the visual field is called the fovea. The reality is that only a very small part of our visual field is relatively high fidelity. The rest is piecemeal constructions which use a lot more brain power than eye power. Scientists, philosophers and laymen alike will bloat consciousness. This causes a larger explanatory gap in their conception than which really exists.
impowow 7 months ago
He doesn't 'explain' consciousness. He can't, the science hasn't reached an explanation of the phenomenon yet. What he's expounding here is his opinion, based on his personal experience (therein lies the rub). His mission appears to be to point out how boring and mundane our mental process is. Dont listen. Be something amazing, spectacular - surreal. You might as well. You're only here the once -
fishybishbash 1 year ago 29
@fishybishbash
If I understand you correctly, you are expounding an opinion based on your own personal experience and ego-centered biases. Dennett is actually saying that we imagine that our sensory perceptions are more comprehensive than actuality demonstrates. In that, he is correct.
If you are saying that we should make the most of our brief visit, then I agree. However, by definition, we cannot *all* be amazing or spectacular.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago 2
Basing on Evolutionary Branching, Dennett' paradigm could lead some of us to a dead end.
vandeha 1 year ago
@vandeha
How so?
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@vandeha Yes, it's called Natural Selection.
eurisko67 1 year ago
What is repugnant to me, is the title of this video. Do atheist do this on purpose. Dennett did not reveal what consciousness is.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents
What is repugnant to me -- if you will forgive my imitating your poor sentence structure -- is ignorant theistic remarks. That is the title of his book, but if the video's title upset a theist, then I am delighted ;^/ All neuro-philosophers admit to not being able to explain consciousness. No philosopher will crack it without the aid of neuroscience, but the qualia notion is tantamount to a supernaturalist (magic-thinking) non-explanation.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@cmpresents He's talking about his book, he's not actually explaining consciousness. Not that 'explaining' is such a straightforward, unambiguous act anyway.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
@Alexdurrant7
After all, "explaining" could be taken to be synonymous with "describing," but that's probably too subtle for a dualist. On the other hand, it is extraordinary to me that those who believe that "goddidit" is an explanation for everything, should presume to criticize Dennett ;^/
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Explaining could be: explaining how consciousness came to be, explaining what it is, explaining what it does, or explaining where it is. The word itself is far too ambiguous to just be thrown around in such demands.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
@Alexdurrant7
I agree. It could also mean explaining what others have thought and said about the question. I have the book, but still have not found time to read it ;) Perhaps it will make it more clear what Dennett meant by "Explaining."
I do think that postulating "qualia" as intermediaries of "explanation" is no more helpful than "goddidit." The neurophilosopher is left with the problem of explaining how "qualia" would work.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
Typical Dan Dennett. Horrible logic. Say that people are adverse to his way of thinking and use that as evidence that you are right. You can say that people don't want to believe in ghosts (which may or may not be true) but that does not give ANY evidence to whether or not ghosts really exist or not. Lecturing people that they aren't willing to accept your conclusion is just a way of showing you can't prove it.
ThaddeusRobe 1 year ago
@ThaddeusRobe
"Lecturing people that they aren't willing to accept your conclusion is just a way of showing you can't prove it."
As are the "arguments" to which you resorted.
The burden of proof -- ghosts, etc -- always lies on the positive claimant. The only possible evidence regarding ghosts, for example, would be evidence of existence. It is logically impossible to prove a non-existence, so it is beyond illogical to demand that someone prove that whatever "thing" does not exist.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
This is BS. His theory can be disproved easily. You are seeing something intently and suddenly you see something move at 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 a spot at one time. There is clearly a difference between seeing and focusing.
utubex03 1 year ago
@utubex03
And your "theory" can also be disproved easily since you signally failed to understand the point that he was making. Further, Dennett does not distinguish between "seeing" and "focusing." You were probably trying to say something else -- "seeing" and "noticing" perhaps. In which case, your argument actually supports his contentions.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
I haven't been able to find any videos of Dennett tackling the "hard problem of consiousness", just the "easy problem". Does he talk about it in the book?
yehcnimoigres 1 year ago
@yehcnimoigres
He denies that the hard problem exists at all.
AdamLore 1 year ago
@AdamLore Where can one find his argument for that?
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
Nice treatment of awareness, or conscious perception. But such an oversimplification of what human consciousness actually is and is capable of. It's not that people want their mind to be beyond the grasp of science, it's that the mind still very much IS beyond the grasp of science. The mind does science, just think about it. But none the less, Dennett always has a very interesting and candid way of looking at things.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
well this is depressing... so being happy is just a chemical in my mind reacting to other shit... then whats the purpose.. shitt..i have no idea about this study but i im fukin interested as fuk in consciousness.. but the shit he says is rely depressing... i hav to disagree. with him. heprobably came to this conclusion because noone loved him and his life sucked.. so this is his excuse for his shitty feelings and why people dont like him...
TheScreamingRetard 2 years ago
@TheScreamingRetard
Here's some more depressing news -- your entire life is the result of chemical reactions. If you can't cope with that fact, you might want to invest in professional help ;^/
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist why would anyone consider this depressing- now that's a mystery. I mean we don't consider it depressing to know how our car works. so...
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Of course, but that's too logical for the religious!
I can think of a number of reasons. 1. Religionists are instructed to consider physical (non-supernatural) explanations depressing. 2. Better educated religionists understand that monism removes the possibility of an afterlife. 3. Religionists are emotional thinkers, and religious belief (chicken/egg?) is associated with feelings of emptiness.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheScreamingRetard No the problem with people like you is that, you believe that you need love and emotion to infer purpose. Love and emotion are both consequences of an evolved condition where it is necessary that we love our family and feel angry at people who put us at risk, feel happy when things are going well to help induce us to do it more often. None of that has anything to do with what is actually going on. Chemistry is what is going on, what u are on about is how you perceive it.
OlympicScientist 1 year ago
@TheScreamingRetard So you're rejected his idea on emotional grounds?
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
It's fascinating to observe the sheer volume of uninformed and biased comments that are posted on the topic of consciousness. Dennett attracts more inaccurate, strawman arguments than the other neurophilosophy videos that I have uploaded.
Why? Theism, deism, and dualism are *all* examples of magical-thinking non-explanations.
I suggest that you dualists try to say something intelligent, or don't say anything at all. I'm too busy to deal with supernaturalism.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
@EvolvedAtheist I really liked this book - there's not a week that goes by were I don't question some thought/idea/belief/feeling I've just noticed myself (appearing) to have in the light of the ideas Dennett has used in CE.
Artifactorfiction 2 years ago
@EvolvedAtheist
I agree that theism deism and dualism are examples of magical thinking non-explanations. However, the property dualism, or non-reductive physicalism makes a lot of sense. I don't think that deflationary accounts of consciousness are any better than such theories of searle, chalmers or nagel.
eoelschzl 1 year ago
@eoelschzl
Why?
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
its amazing how the world we see/sense/remember isn't directly recorded, it seems so vividly there! but what you focus on often determines the things you remember. and if something as simple as direct sensing can be this complex, imagine how complex feelings and emotions are!
the mind is absolutely fascinating! realize it or not from the time small always learning, always questioning, playing being a form of constant learning, the way how things the world and people work.
AProbableAnomaly 2 years ago
absolutely mind boggling! In own field of vision, in each eye a blind spot where have no light sensing stimuli, where our eyeball connects to the main eye nerve in the back. an absolute blind spot in our field of vision, yet when look with one eye, image seems filled in! (about half the size of your fist an arms length away in your field of vision, simply not there!! Can you find it? haha). the brain literally 'fills it in' in it's interpretation of reality! AMAZING! FACINATING!
AProbableAnomaly 2 years ago
Of all the commentary or lectures I've heard regarding consciousness, other Monists were simply wrong but this one was plain dumb
After the entire video had been of him explaining consciousness & saying that nobody but he understands the true nature of consciousness. He concludes with the brilliant assertion that consciousness is "just not there". If it's not there, then what the hell was he talking about during the whole video?
He's arguing Monism against Dualism with all things irrelevant
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
The fact that we "take in" less than some people may believe that they do, is regarding "perception" which involves vision & the limitations of the eyes
What in the hell does that have to do with dualism or monism... aside from nothing? Certain ways in which the mind may function or even its scope of capabilities are irrelevant to the issue
The outboard boat (brain) can't get across the lake without the boater (mind) The boater can't get across without the boat. They work in conjunction with
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
@Chuichupachichi
//The outboard boat (brain) can't get across the lake without the boater (mind)//
Nonsense. You are implying that the "mind" generates the brain, and your argument by analogy fails. In your feeble attempt to support dualism, you are resorting to the bald assertion fallacy.
Funny that you use the word "repugnant" and then resort to ridicule. Sure signs of emotional "thinking."
//Try not to think "too" much about it//
Try to think -- and punctuate!
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
each other. If the boat malfunctions (brain damage) the boater again can't get across. Yet, the boat doesn't cause the existence of the boater
The only thing thats repugnant to me, is that "materialists" insist that the "immaterial" mind fits into their world view. Worse yet, only they understand whats opposed to them
"Big Thinkers"? Apparently, thats a quantitative not a qualitative measure. One can indeed think a bunch of junk. It's not that complicated. Try not to think "too" much about it
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
@Chuichupachichi
You wrote a great deal in order to "say" nothing. Read my other comment.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
Even though the book is called Consciousness Explained, nowhere in it does he attempt to actually explain consciousness. Mainly he just shows that the common ways of thinking about consciousness are wrong, and suggests that something like the Multiple Drafts model may be more accurate. His main points, IMO, are that experiences are never in consciousness at any place or time, qualia are no different than invisible, incorporeal goblins in an engine, and self is a narrative centre of gravity.
br0k3nglass 2 years ago
The book finally arrived -- but it shall have to wait its turn to be read. Judging by three guest lectures that he gave at Harvard, I think that your assessment will be borne out.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Ok you say I am criticizing atheists and in part you are right. However the goal is evolution not devolution. I guess what you mean by fallacy is the idea that the unconscious mind can tell the conscious mind things. My mind (a perfectly normal brain mind you) has gone over every aspect of my life in detail. There is nothing left to discuss about it. One final assessment of the atheist viewpoint. Boring. Being competent in soil science for instance, does not make you an expert in astronomy
MNBrant 2 years ago
You didn't answer the question. I had not expected that you would.
Who said anything about your criticizing atheists?
Goal of what?
Wrong on what I meant by illogical -- think "contradiction".
I am so glad that you are bored with the atheistic "viewpoint". This means that you will spare us any further dualistic nonsense.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Ok I wrote about 60 of you. Not all of you are boring. Let me try again. The normal mind (yours seeks out the unexplained and hidden). It cannot see the obvious. Now I will spell it out for you. You are trying to explain the conscious mind by seeing the misses. Unfortunately you cannot see the hits. I think but am not sure that Einstien pulled most of his theorys out of his ass. Best to start there grasshopper. I call it the theory of probability.(I just made that up you know)
MNBrant 2 years ago
I could care less whom you consider boring. "Normal" is a statistical descriptor -- it properly describes IQs that cluster around the mean (median for a gaussian distribution). In this sense, normal minds do not seek out the unexplained -- Bertrand Russell was correct.
Boring minds assume that they are privy to gnostic insights and favour emotionally-appealing (dualistic) conclusions. When cornered, they invent premises.
*You* are boring *me*. Conversation over.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
this misses the problem of explaing consciousness altogeter. this guy is a simpleton.
crescentcityarts 2 years ago
OK, why don't you explain consciousness?
You have 500 characters ... starting now.
The only rule is that you don't resort to any more ad hominem fallacies ... unless you *want* to be blocked.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I can't explain consciousness. And neither can Dennet. He basically just changes the subject.
crescentcityarts 2 years ago
It's no surprise that you can't. Since you can't explain it, how do you define it?
Which part of the subject does he change?
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
David Chalmers does a pretty good job of defining the scope of the issue in his books. I think you can boil it down to asking how a nervous system can produce a "first person" experience. People with difinitive answers to this generally have not directly confronted the problem. Dennet merely sidesteps the this issue. Part of the problem is that consciousness has many meanings - and only one of those meanings poses serious explanatory problems.
crescentcityarts 2 years ago
// "first person" experience //
I'd be totally stunned to have my nervous system produce a "third person" experience ;^/
But I do understand what you are driving at.
// only one of those meanings //
Which meaning? How do *you* define consciousness?
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I think your nervous system does produce a third-person experience.
As I sit typing I see and feel my hands, arms, legs etc all of which is third person (in the sense used in games).
But going deeper: i am aware of my mind chatting away about this comment, and of sensations and feelings etc. What we call the ego is third-person too.
First person is the witnessing awareness.
But to be aware of that you have to get very still and attentive.
Mostly we are locked into our third-person lives.
Drastam 2 years ago
// As I sit typing I see and feel my hands, arms, legs etc //
Your use of "my" indicates a first-person experience. You and I are third-persons to one another, but not to ourselves.
// Mostly we are locked into our third-person lives. //
No. *Always* we are locked into a first person life. However, some individuals misinterpret and misrepresent in the hope supporting an unsupportable point -- for "heaven" knows what deluded purpose.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
No, actually 'you' is second person; so you and I are second persons to each other.
Third-person is oneself as an object.
As I said, to know the first-person perspective you have to quieten down the third person chattering of the mind.
Drastam 2 years ago
@Drastam
You're right, he (or she) is a third person. If I were speaking of you, you'd be a third-person to me -- not that I do. Regardless, your hand is not third-person to you.
I don't have 3rd-person chatter in my mind because I do not have DID or schizophrenia. Most people with DID either speak of "them" or of "we". Being quiet can make the chatter more audible for a DID. Schizophrenics view auditory hallucinations as 3rd-person. Perhaps you know little about psychiatry.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Sorry this video is a fail. You are only explaining the conscious mind and not the unconscious one and not trying very hard at it either. For instance when I learned math I did no add, subtract or multiply like other children did. I looked at the problem and guessed the answer. Savants do this every day. Even with your theory you have to accept have different ways of thinking. My unconscious mind tells me things that my conscious one does not know and wow I look it up and its true. Explain that.
MNBrant 2 years ago
Implying that you are a savant does not rescue your comment from irrelevance. Why don't you take a crack at explaining consciousness in 500 chars? I'd add, without inventing "facts".
// My unconscious mind tells me things that my conscious one does not know ... //
Illogical statement! How could you *know* that your conscious mind has been "told" things if those thoughts are not available to consciousness? Do you think that "conscious" and "unconscious" are structurally separate?
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I set out to debunk a athiest youtuber named calpurnpiso As a greek pagan I thought that I would be in a good postition to do so because without the greeks athiests would not even exist. Look it up. Anywas to make a long story short. His answer was to take out Jesus, insert retard, and block me. I give his response a 70. As in IQ of 70. Thats ok some of my best friends are retards. Please unblock me and have a discussion. I will even subscribe.
MNBrant 2 years ago
One of my philosophy professors has accused Dennett of using the "bait and switch" tactic in Consciousness explained. That is, he promises to explain consciousness, but only explains processes such as decision making, memory retrieval, e.t.c., without explaining our subjective experience; qualia. I'm not sure if I agree, but does anyone think that that accusation is what Dennett was addressing in the last sentence: "What isn't there doesn't need to be explained"?
LBG4000 2 years ago
Ha! Descartes pulled that stunt!
I have not read the book -- is it worth acquiring? According to the wiki article, Dennett denies qualia as distinct, ineffable entities. I imagine that the last sentence might refer to this.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
@LBG4000 I completely agree with your professor. Dennett didn't explain anything. Dennett avoids the real issue altogether.
otakurocklee 2 years ago
eh... the infamous Consciousness Explained - away
ElectronicPhone 2 years ago
Are you referring to the fact that he dismisses qualia?
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Aaah, the promised Dennett video! I like his "multiple drafts" model of consciousness.
Thank you for the links.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
The book has been added to my reading list. So many books, so little time!
I think that one of the best illustrations of our lack of a central "theatre" is brain activity when listening to music. We light up several areas -- and even more areas if we enjoy the music. at 1:43 here: watch?v=ZmCj0ZvgEjA
Unfortunately, the enjoying-music comparison is not made in this video, but it is quite striking.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago