Consciousness Explained: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|book review|}}{{Br|Consciousness Explained}} {{author|Daniel Dennett}} ''First published September 28, 2004''<be>
{{a|book review|}}{{Br|Consciousness Explained}} {{author|Daniel Dennett}} <br>''First published September 28, 2004''<br>
===And then a miracle occurred===
===And then a miracle occurred===
 
{{br|Consciousness Explained}} is a hard, but rewarding, book. It pays to have a look at {{br|Darwin’s Dangerous Idea}} first; some of the ideas Daniel Dennett expounds there, particularly on the nature of [[algorithm]]ic progression, are useful for getting a handle on Dennett’s central theme in {{br|Consciousness Explained}}. Dennett’s views in each are really quite closely related. However, the “intuitive gap” (i.e., the distance in credibility between what Dennett proposes and how things “seem” intuitively) is huge in the case of consciousness, but comparatively small for {{t|evolution}}.  
{{br|Consciousness Explained}} is a hard, but very rewarding, book. It pays to have a look at {{br|Darwin’s Dangerous Idea}} first; some of the ideas Dennett expounds there, particularly on the nature of algorithmic progression, are useful for getting a handle on Dennett’s central theme in {{br|Consciousness Explained}}. Dennett’s views in each are really quite closely related. However, the “intuitive gap” (i.e., the distance in credibility between what Dennett proposes and how things “seem” intuitively) is huge in the case of consciousness, but comparatively small for {{t|evolution}}.  


To wit:
To wit:


*'''Consciousness''': Intuitively, there’s a “central meaner” in the brain sitting in a “Cartesian theatre” enjoying the son-et-lumière. Dennett says this is an illusion, and there is no “narrative centre” of consciousness at all - in not so many ways, consciousness itself is an illusion; an aggregation of multiple sensory inputs and outputs of the cerebellum, all of which are performing their own functions independently of each other. “BUT AN ILLUSION TO WHOM?” you want to scream. It just doesn’t seem to make sense.
*'''Consciousness''': Intuitively, there’s a “central meaner” in the brain sitting in a “[[Cartesian]] theatre” enjoying the son-et-lumière. Dennett says this is an illusion, and there is no “narrative centre” of consciousness at all - in not so many ways, consciousness itself is an illusion; an aggregation of multiple sensory inputs and outputs of the cerebellum, all of which are performing their own functions independently of each other. “BUT AN ILLUSION TO WHOM?” you want to scream. It just doesn’t seem to make sense.


*'''Evolution''': Intuitively, the universe seems designed. It seems impossible that it could be the result of blind, unintelligent operations. Darwin says that this is nevertheless the case, through the algorithmic mechanism of reproduction, mutation and natural selection of multiple organisms performing their own functions independently of each other. This isn’t such a stretch, especially as the notion of a designer of the universe is an even more problematic idea, when you give it a moment’s thought.
*'''Evolution''': Intuitively, the universe seems designed. It seems impossible that it could be the result of blind, unintelligent operations. Darwin says that this is nevertheless the case, through the algorithmic mechanism of reproduction, mutation and natural selection of multiple organisms performing their own functions independently of each other. This isn’t such a stretch, especially as the notion of a designer of the universe is an even more problematic idea, when you give it a moment’s thought.