The Magic of Consciousness 5/6

The Magic of Consciousness

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dan
• Dennett
• The
• Magic
• of
• Consciousness
• 005

[GCthegreat1ify]

Without evidence to support your theory it's hard for people to respect it. I wanted to dig deeper into dennets work and maybe find evidence that his theory on consciousness is more than a subjective interpretation..though the more videos I watch..the same insubstantial explanations I encounter..here he ADMITS to not being able to proove his own theory so I can only take this as entertainment at the idea of consciousness

[homerj7g]

@GCthegreat1ify

In science a theory is the highest level of confidence an explanation can achieve. Dennet is not, nor did he ever claim to be presenting a scientific theory. He is a philosopher, similar to Descartes, presenting a philosophical idea (a conjecture) as to the nature of consciousness. He uses some scientific evidence as a basis for some of his ideas, but as he says, ultimately science in the future will decide the truth of his ideas.

[GCthegreat1ify]

@homerj7g

So then...what is the point that he is trying to make? I'm still not clear as to how this work that he commits his life to will have any relevance on human existence. I pretty much think this guy is useless...my mind has been given his input and marks it as "useless bullshit..." *shrugs*

[homerj7g]

@GCthegreat1ify

Traditionally the saying goes that it's the job of science to find answers, and it's the job of philosophy to figure out which questions are worth asking.

Dennett is a philosopher. I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not going to tell you that philosophy is really useful. I find it to be useful because I have a desire to know the answers to some big questions, or at least get an idea of what the answers might be. Maybe you don't. That's fine.

[vsaluki]

I've listened to about 10 Dennett clips now and I have to conclude that the man is firing blanks. He has done absolutely nothing to explain the existence of consciousness.

It's not about getting rid of the subject, it's about explaining how neuronal firing can be qualia.

[homerj7g]

@vsaluki

Dan is not trying to explain the existence of consciousness. Obviously it exists. Nobody is disputing that. He is attempting to shed light on WHAT it is. He does this from the point of view of a philosopher, and refuting certain possibilities as logically invalid, leaving a smaller subset of possibilities to fully explore.

Dan's position is that qualia by it's definition can not really exist. Dan's claim is that whatever consciousness is, it's not qualia.

[thruthem]

Santa knows his stuff!

[homerj7g]

@hyperseauton

Infallibility is for the pope. Dan Dennett has to the best of my knowledge never called anybody an idiot. Being "an academic" is not a bad thing.

If you think you are right you should NOT be too humble to say so. Dennett is very respectful of people, but he is not afraid to attack misinformed or illogical ideas.

If you think pointing out the faults of others is so terrible, why are you trying to point out what you see as faults in Dennett? That seems hypocritical to me.

[mojokiss]

i like it

[GCthegreat1ify]

@homerj7g

You know what, I retract my previous statement. The more I grasp what he's talking about the more interesting it is. He is trying to state that the mind is not floating outside of your head, detached from your brain and that your self is not a cemented, concrete you, rather billions of different neural reactions that collectively give rise to consciousness? When he says get rid of the observer he means...you're consciousness is a lot MORE than just a linear single viewer?

[RvNYC]

So if we built an machine that is self aware to the point of even tracking its own internal processes, for self repair purposes for example, it will never come under the illusion that it is Conscious. It would Know it is a mechanism nothing more.

[cunnidvd]

smoke and mirrors

[vsaluki]

@homerj7g "Dan's claim is that whatever consciousness is, it's not qualia."

If that is his claim, I see no explanation of that claim or evidence of that claim in these six clips. In fact, I don't even see him making that claim in these six clips.

[vsaluki]

@homerj7g "Dan's position is that qualia by it's definition can not really exist."

This means that either you or Dennett don't understand the definition of qualia. Qualia is the personal subjective experience. Saying that it doesn't exist is like saying that I don't experience red. Red does not exist in Dennett's physical world. But to say that we do not experience red is the height of absurdity. The problem Dennett refuses to face is explaining how neurons firing can be the experience.