Daniel Dennett - Can Brain Explain Mind?

For more videos and information from Daniel Dennett bit.ly/1y49TBd
For more videos on whether brain can explain mind click here bit.ly/1F9GUcj
Is the mind solely a product of the brain? What seems obvious to some-the purely physical explanation of the mind-seems impossible to others.

[@CloserToTruthTV]

Dennett touches on this subject in many of his books, but perhaps his most well-known and influential is "Consciousness Explained."

[@ivjdivfjalekvvjp]

Why do I always feel unsatisfied at the end of Dennett's lectures or talks, like he didn't really answer the question?

[@prygler]

Because he cant explain it... He is not an expert in the field... He just wants to be a smart guy and explain everything even though he cant. He loves the attention and the self-perception as a great mind that thinks and then comes up with the best answers and the truth about how things work... But that is not science... So he is doomed to fail...

[@Delorian82]

Some people prefer to experience the magic trick than to have it explained.

[@thenickowenshowdot-com7712]

Because you're a thinking person.

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

ivjdivfjalekvvjp totally agree with you. The art of speaking much and saying nothing.

[@caricue]

Since Dennett did not answer the question, I will. Yes, the brain explains mind, but the mind cannot explain the brain.

[@alexvandenbroek5587]

I'd say calling consciousness an illusion makes for great book titles and headlines but why can't we just accept that it's exactly what it seems to be, a complex, ingenious and dynamic process involving our whole bodies and brains intimately connected to the rest of our direct surroundings, to produce living organisms that continually and simultaneously experience multiple important aspects of the immediate surroundings of which it is a subset. The easy problem is describing parts of these processes via reductional models, the hard problem is accepting there is no such thing as an easy succinct philosophical answer and acknowledging we will probably never be able to appreciate all of its wonder and intricacies by insisting that it must somehow be even more special..

[@travxlx464]

+Alex van den Broek The problem isn't merely that there is an experience but how and to what degree an experience happens. Just as one is being bathed in sensory data that one can experience, an individual is also in contact with so much that is not processed therefore not experienced yet is still there. Any serious emergent model of consciousness could not begin by excluding a ghost in the machine but, in the end, none of them can find one. Mr Dennett is not proclaiming that there is no self or no soul. He is merely stating that he does not see one in his experiments yet by common perception there should be one right where he is looking. If tasked, many people would agree that in order for something to exist it must have weight by taking up space in a given point in time, yet somehow, if there is a soul in the brain, it doesn't do any of those things. If in fact there is a soul or self that is resident and not a product of emergence itself, then where is it and what does it do?

[@myles5158]

@@travxlx464 there isn’t.

[@farmerjohn6526]

Maybe counsciousness is no big deal 🤔. Once we build a brain, they will all have counsciousness without us doing anything but flipping the switch on.

[@ElysiaPrincess]

If subjective consciousness and qualia are not "real," but instead just illusions that deceive us...then may I ask, who exactly are they deceiving? If there is no such thing as subjective consciousness and experience, then it's not possible to fool anyone, because no one is there to be fooled, we are all just unconscious automatons. This is a huge flaw in materialist thinking as far as I can see. In order for someone to be "deceived" into thinking they are conscious, there has to be someone there to be deceived in the first place.

[@geppegep]

ofc they are rea (in my opinion). Everything makes sense in the "physical world" with strict laws, and your brain will pick up everything (almost) in totallity that you need, there is NO reason why consciousness should be any different, and the argument that just because the vision or senses can be fool makes consciousness not true is just bullshit

[@Ptrrrrrrrr]

The problem with Descartes reasoning what that he jumped from the epistemological statement that it must've been him that doubted, because he was doubting everything he could KNOW, to the notion that that same entity, him, must really EXIST: an ontological conclusion to an epistemological thought-experiment. Josh Solomon, you are basically doing the same thing, namely assuming the entity that Dennett denies exists in the first place. The "I" you claim is being fooled really does not exist, other than as some function of the brain that operates to organize and attain goals. Consciousness itself is what's at stake, and that makes the argument tricky, but perhaps it's best phrased as such: Dennett doesn't deny with have consciousness, just that consciousness is the captain of the ship. Consciousness is instead in the crow's nest, seeing landmarks ahead and feeling first hand where the wind blows. My problem with the argument is more pragmatic. I just wonder how an individual, conscious being is supposed to evaluate all this information. Sure, I agree, consciousness is a construct of the brain and it can be constructed by AI-scientist by a laboratory: now what do I do?

[@ElysiaPrincess]

Peter Saarloos I don't think I'm really assuming consciousness exists, because I think Des Cartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" argument is pretty solid. I mean,. if you define consciousness to be "the thing that perceives," then our consciousness is kind of like the "window" that we perceive everything in our world through. And if you want to assume that anything your perceive in the world is real, then you basically have to assume that the window itself is real. I mean, what sense does it make to believe that everything you see through a window is real, but the window itself is an illusion? Also, The whole captain of the ship versus watcher in the crow's nest argument sounds more like an argument against free will than it sounds like an argument against the existence of consciousness. Finally, I don't really think we have any reason to believe that consciousness can be created by an AI scientist in a lab. You can create a really sophisticated program sure, but how can you ever prove that it's "conscious?" The entire root of the argument is based on the assumption that if something can "fool" you into thinking it's a person, then it must be conscious. Which I think is a terrible definition of consciousness.

[@tbayley6]

+Peter Saarloos How can you have an ontological conclusion without an awareness? Yes, perhaps thoughts think themselves, but can you do any kind of philosophy (or science) without being aware of your thoughts? That awareness is the hard problem. It's the same awareness that attests to the existence of anything at all. Without it we're not aware of anything. So if you say it is an illusion then all of its products, i.e. our entire knowledge of existence, is also an illusion. And that doesn't seem to get us anywhere - unless we all go quietly into the dark?

[@treewalker1070]

Excellent point, Josh Solomon.

[@stefanconradsson]

Condensed summary of "conciousness explained". Thanks to uploader.

[@CharlesVeitch]

Dennett; reigning world champion of the Logos playing hide and seek

[@1999_reborn]

What do you mean?

[@hruiz6633]

Trying to separate different component of the Brain associated with hearing, vision as separate entities and somehow unifying them as conscious illusion still does not explain conciousness. He is still explaining the easy problem and not the hard problem.

[@PGBurgess]

The whole argument he is trying to make is that there is no real 'hard problem'. That a better understanding of the easy problems solves the hard question of consciousness. (One does, offcourse, not have to agree with this; but i get the feeling most critique come from missing that very point.)

[@PGBurgess]

***** Why? Well you experience it because that is how the system works. There are theories of light (like QED) that explain what light is and how it works; there are theories on how the brain respond to it.. Off course all that does not explain 'why' you experience it in a certain way. The argument rests upon the idea that 'why' questions do not really matter on non-designed systems. Which i think to be a fair point.. I understand this might be an unsatisfying way of looking at it. However i think this comes mainly because the how-questions are unanswered.. not because the 'why' is not adressed. To me the best way to explain this is to try to come up with a way we COULD come up with an explanation of why.. and i can not find a decent way of adressing that question. ps: just to be clear ... i'm not saying that other theories can't exist.. i'd be more then happy to change my mind if f.e. quantum-zeno-effects (or anything else) turn out to explain these things..

[@PGBurgess]

***** Good points.. But all theses things seem to point that we do not understand a lot about neurological networks and how the behave, develop, interact... and how networks hold complex information. (Though the idea that there is a 'there, in the brain' is a bit blunt...) I do understand the question you raise.. adressing the hard problem.. They sound very profound and meaningfull.. I'm just not sure they are. I do not think they require an explanation.. and this is sort of Dennetts point. There does not need to be 'something' that is conscience in there... The networks just produce the subjective experience.. because that is what they do. (They are the individually processors, with great similarites due to evoltion and small differences because they devellop in a unique way.) I understand there are many usefull, difficult and practicle question unanswered. But i do not think the hard problem is a usefull term. If not for the reasons above.. then because of the fact that after decades of neuro and philosophy on this.. no-one has managed to formuled the question clearly, let alone indicate what an answer 'might' look like...

[@PGBurgess]

***** That is true...it does require big explenations.. i do not not think Dennetts the mechanical and computer-analogy are good or even on the right track. I do not think there is evidence that such a systems have any level of consciousness. But as you pointed out before, there is a gradual approach going true animals... It is my opinion these systems have certain very distinct features in common (and that are not in computers f.i.): such as levels of partially 'chaotic' networks, non-linair dynamics, (perhaps meaningfull quantumeffects), .. Things that can give meaning to a 'conscious self'-system that is convergent with the whole entire biological system. Though there are some great articles on this... i accept your point that thus far. most of it is speculalation. On the other hand, and this might be perhaps a biased stretch, i think most of it points to the idea that consciousness could be explained by explaining the neural network. (I am quite fond of chaostheories, fractal patterns and non-lineair dynamics... and this might give me perhaps my bias to think they are so important in the explenations...)

[@iwilldi]

***** P.G. Burgess Can the brain explain the mind. The answer is: 1 yes to 7-8 billion no. (the latter number is the lower bound) The hard problem would be, how to explain your consciousness. I think that is a no brainer. Dennet only deals with awareness and the underlining physiological phenomena. Because anything else would be philosophy and religion.

[@jjharvathh]

Really interesting to watch all these people (like Dennett) try to answer a question to which no one knows the answer. hahahah.... All these answers to this question that people have come up with --- these are the real illusions. No one knows the answer to this question is the only honest thing to say, at least now.

[@deltamuTheta]

The craziest thing is to accept it as the truth, which is what most of us end up doing.

[@wildbill6536]

Every time that people discuss mind vs. brain, they start with the senses and try to tie that to consciousness because it is an easy starting point. They also try to say that the brain learns only via the senses. That does not address Einsteins thought experiments. Dennett does not differentiate between determined expressions of the brain and random expressions of the brain. He also doesn't say whether neither is appropriate.

[@blcrlink3d138]

There is the irreducibleness of the consciousness, you can’t reduce it ontologically the same way you can reduce digestion into simpler concepts. Consciousness is the prime and fundamental brick of your singular life experience. If you sleep you are not conscious, if you are awake and reasonably functioning, you are. Consciousness is irreducible. The same way, is decisions. Choosing is the very basic activity of consciousness, you can’t explain it with priori causa arguments. Your decisions are the very activity of you being conscious. And it’s yours and yours alone. Because, as consciousness, they are subjective. You can’t reduce or explain subjective experience into objective experience, if such things are indeed subjective

[@normjohnson4629]

That I am conscious is the only thing I can be certain of.

[@zatoichiable]

have you been unconscious?

[@zatoichiable]

***** you cannot deny.

[@zatoichiable]

***** only you can know that.

[@LMR72]

No, it isn't. What does that even mean? What would it mean not to be certain that you're conscious?

[@normjohnson4629]

@@LMR72 Everything else could be an illusion created by your mind, however without a consciousness you have absolutly nothing.

[@LaureanoLuna]

But f is a function and f(b*) is a thought, a value of the function since f takes brainstates and returns thoughts. That f(b*) is not about b* plays the same role as a set's not being self-membered. Non self-membered sets were called by Russell 'normal'. It's the same diagonalization technique as any trained logician would see. Anyway, this doesn't matter. What matters is how good the argument is.

[@ongvalcot6873]

Dennett is an imperfect machine that failed to convince other machines that they are machines.

[@errgo2713]

He merely explains how certain processes work within the brain of the human organism; he's never argued that humans are machines.

[@asavnad7246]

Consciousness is the constant noise felt by us moments after the electrical activity that takes place ceaselessly within the body.

[@salasvalor01]

The mystery is the the concept of I, not the awareness part of consciousness. Furthermore, every I is unique because they all exist independently of one another-- for instance, my consciousness does not constitute multiple brains. Whenever people talk about consciousness, they don't ever seem to be talking about consciousness. Same with the question why is there something rather than nothing. These are legitimate questions and saying they don't deserve legitimate answers undermines reason, logic, and reality.

[@salasvalor01]

Max Hodges Except, the gist is curated, the changes are virtually nonexistent. I like to think of a character in a movie/videogame: they have a personality, look, and so on. Over long courses of time, the pattern shifts, but only if you let it. Some of us who have their own personality their work are pretty static because we define our own influences and style- working with what we're given, obviously.

[@salasvalor01]

Max Hodges Most aspects never change about oneself if it's a personality-based lifestyle. Only improvements to the basic structure. The self exists in that it is an experience regardless of how it exists.

[@justbede]

The question is not who designed, or whatever, a mind. The question is who came up with the idea that there is a mind. Why would it be needed and what would be its function?

[@EclecticSceptic]

Fascinating, thanks for the upload.

[@caricue]

The brain can obviously explain mind since there is nothing else inside of our skulls. The real question is whether the human mind can explain how a brain works. That one is pretty obvious also.

[@davida1b2c3d4c5]

The best we have so far is that consciousness, a process of the mind or whatever, is an 'emergent' property of the brain. This means very little in explanatory terms. So, for anyone to claim that they have an explanation for it is ridiculous at this time. You don't have to be a scientist to understand this. In fact, religious people possibly have the upper hand in this debate because at least they believe in 'metaphysical' concepts.

[@davida1b2c3d4c5]

@Atla Kapp Why...? Yes.

[@LaureanoLuna]

I can't see how any entity could lack intrinsic properties. Things need first to be somehow in themselves to later enter relationships with other things.

[@OfCourseICan]

I have read, watched and listened to scores of neuroscientists. When it's all boiled down, sadly none of them have the definitive answer. What I have deduced is; the Universe is a living entity and is perennial communication with our minds.

[@caricue]

What's wrong with just accepting what you see; an evolved organism with a rich internal life. Just because we are not able to work out how this happens is no justification for making up elaborate stories.

[@LaureanoLuna]

Let me make the derivation of the contradiction explicit. 1. b* is normal iff f(b*) exists and is not about* b*: by def. of 'normal' 2. f(b*) exists; it is t*. 3. b* is normal iff f(b*) is not about* b*: from 1. and 2. 4. f(b*) is about b* iff b* is not normal: by def. of f(b*), i.e. t* 5. b* is normal iff b* is not normal: from 3. and 4. There you are.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the brain take in energy as well as physical information, or turn the information that it takes in into energy?

[@AshtonMotana]

It seems that Daniel explains consciousness is an illusion simply because it has multiple drafts for ideas. This infers that Daniel assumes that the only way for conscious to exist is that it cannot have multiple drafts; the first draft must be the only and final draft for consciousness to exist. Defining consciousness in this manner is a qualitative argument and thus is philosophical, not scientific. Once again, I think he fails to show that conscious is an illusion. The only thing I have experienced where I could try to explain my own consciousness are form dreams I’ve had. The dream characters I’ve dreamt, I’ve explained to them that they weren’t real, that it was a dream, and they look at me like I’m crazy. These dream characters I only presume represent memories, feelings and ideas of experiences I’ve had. They are the archetypal characters of what I fear, hate, love and everything in between. I think they are the subconscious of my brain, the biological machine that lies within my head, and they don’t know that they aren’t real, that they exist only in my dreams. Many times I would look at myself in a mirror in my dreams, I would touch my face, my hair and my teeth, while knowing it was a dream, I would think to myself, that this isn’t real, yet it feels so real. In my experience, I’ve concluded that my subconscious, and probably every one else’s, (the biological machine as I refer to it) can’t tell the difference from reality, what is and isn’t real. One of the reasons for this conclusion is scary haunting movies, though I don’t believe at all in demons, devils god and the devil, subconsciously though, I still get goose bumps, and become a afraid of the dark as the person in the movie, and experience a sensation of fight or flight. I believe our subconscious is aware of our environment, but not aware of itself, hence those dream characters. I can acknowledge the things I can in my dreams that I cannot do in real life. I also don’t like to think that all I am is just a biologically machine.

[@LaureanoLuna]

Caution. Intrinsic properties need not be intrinsically mental or intrinsically physical (whatever that means). They need only be nonrelational. This is the sense relevant for a previous exchange. As far as I know, no one, hence, no physicalist, denies their existence.

[@farmerjohn6526]

Actually, can mind explain the brain is the real question.

[@Jon58004]

So does this imply that non-human animals are conscious as well?

[@donaldclifford5763]

I'd say animals are all self aware, at least as much as a self aware algorithm.

[@LaureanoLuna]

My apologies. Line 4 in my derivation was wrong, The NOT added is the correction. 1. b* is normal iff f(b*) exists and is not about* b*: by def. of 'normal' 2. f(b*) exists; it is t*. 3. b* is normal iff f(b*) is not about* b*: from 1. and 2. 4. f(b*) is NOT about b* iff b* is not normal: by def. of f(b*), i.e. t* 5. b* is normal iff b* is not normal: from 3. and 4 Line 4 follows from the fact that f(b*) is just about* all normal brainstates. Sorry. Hope it's all clear now.

[@squamish4244]

Assuming our perception is reliable is perhaps the biggest flaw in mind science today.

[@LaureanoLuna]

If b* is not normal, then t* = f(b*) exists and is not about* b* because t* is just about all normal brainstates, hence t* is normal. Contradiction. The situation is the same as in the famous Russell paradox. The premises hold for even the weakest form of physicalism: supervenience physicalism. And the argument disproves supervenience. I dont understand your notation, e.g. you treat 'f' as a proposition though it is a function. Are you sure you have understood my argument?

[@LaureanoLuna]

How related my argument is to Russell's paradox is rather insubstantial; so. let it be. More importantly, you're forgetting that t* is just about all normal brainstates. Hence, if t* is about b*, then b* is both normal (because t* is just about normal brainstates) and non normal (by def. of 'normal', i.e. because f(b*), that is, t*, is about it).

[@vikingjanch]

Why is he ignoring the obvious issue (the "hard question") ? It almost seems like the typical evasive manoeuvre of the physicalist, who hopes you wont notice the issue of consciousness itself in the technical chicanery.

[@LaureanoLuna]

If there is just one possible set of definitions that allow to derive a contradiction from supervenience physicalism, then supervenience physicalism is definitely refuted. The same for any other claim, of course. I'd hate to look anything less than polite but I'm afraid I don't have the time to pursue our conversation much longer.

[@LaureanoLuna]

My argument uses the same diagonalization tecnique as Russell's paradox. So you say there's no possible thought about all normal brainstates as there's no possible set of all non self-membered sets. This does make sense but I think it fails all the same: consider that any nonempty set is a possible universe of discourse in Model Theory and that normal brainstates are way too few to go beyond sethood: in fact, they form a finite set. So, how could it be impossible for a thought be about them?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could energy be the boss that directs focus and attention in the brain?

[@1lightheaded]

A few things to think about, The image you see of the world can not be produced by your eye. looking at this picture one is under the impression that one is aware of a picture with colour out 180 degrees to the edge which is not possible and that can be demonstrated so somehow this virtual image is being produced . one is continually behind in reaction and it is usually stated that there is 5/8th second between reaction time from event happening to reaction. My dad played this trick where he help a bank note and my fingertip and thumb about one inch wide and about an inch and a half below where he is holding the bill and if you can catch it you keep it . No matter what when he dropped the bill my fingers closed after the bill has passed .This is a fun game to play and it demonstrates how far we are behind what is happening now . You have to project into the future to even catch a ball thrown to you but your brain calculates the ballistic so your hand can be where the ball is going to be but one sees this as being in the now and seamless. With the picture " it matches the up and down orientation where as the eye receives it the other way . your eyes can only see form and colour in the fovea which is the central 2% of the retina .This is about the size of your thumb nail held out at arms length and your eye sicades side to side and up and down and the rest of the retina tracks movement we haven't even dealt with colour . if you enter zogg from Betelgeuse in the youtube search bar he will explain how that works . from all these inputs ones brain shows you this wonderful image in colours that don't change as the light changes and apparently in real time with colour all the way to the edge what you think you are seeing can not be produced so if you are claiming you are concious what you are concious of is a virtual image that your brain is creating like a map projected into the future and if you have ever looked for something it doesn't become part of the picture till after you find it . . if you have ever played hunt the thimble you will know what I mean . At a kids party when I was five all the kids are made to leave the room and a thimble which is shiny is placed in the open and the kids brought back in and told when you see the thimble sit down don't look at it and don't say anything . One by one kids see it and sit down . The last couple of kids become a little frantic and then the rest of the party said cooler warmer till the last kids are guided to it . I was one of the last kids to see it when you see it it becomes part of your world view but it was in plain sight all the time who is the master who makes the grass green ?when you claim that you are concious remember you are conscious of the picture your brain produces Now just for a laugh drop a hit of white blotter at about 125 micg and see what happens Some people are convinced that the altered visual effects are what is actually there but it is due to random firings and ones brain has to make sense of it . This may explain what is said that it is all an illusion you are not seeing the world you are seeing what your brain produces and you cam make errors and this is what you call being concious

[@zatoichiable]

how do we know reality for certain?

[@LaureanoLuna]

All physicalists assume at least WGS, which for intrinsic properties has been shown to imply the kind of supervenience I assume. Since I argue for an intrinsic property, it follows that all physicalists should assume the kind of supervenience I use. Wilson argues that supervenience is too weak for physicalism. But anything stronger would also imply the existence of the function f used in my argument, and that's enough for it to go through. So, all is right in my argument in that respect.

[@Neura1net]

Is he saying the brain is turing compatible but consciousness is not? I mean the brain has to b turing compatible right?

[@LaureanoLuna]

My definitions areconsistent. But I manage to define a thought that cannot supervene on a brainstate. What my argument does is diagonalizing out of the set of all thoughts that can supervene on brainstates. I show there is at least one thought that cannot. It's the same if I define the set RS of all non self-membered members of S: RS cannot be in S. I insist: my definitions lead to no paradox or contradiction; they simply refute supervenience physicalism by means of a reductio.

Mind is an illusion because it's an illusion. Daniel Dennett.

[@lewisrain]

It depends how you use the word "design", I suppose. Evolution is "design without a mind", in his view. That is how he uses the term. The mechanism of mutation and natural selection "designs" complex systems.

[@PacRimJim]

Is consciousness updated continually (i.e., bound with a certain frequency) or is it updated continuously?

[@PacRimJim]

The human mind is inadequate for understanding the human mind.

[@thenickowenshowdot-com7712]

Presumably you concluded this using your mind.

[@donaldclifford5763]

I'd say that's an unsupported conclusion.

[@usethenous]

Finally, a Closer to Truth KZbin channel! Wahoo!

[@mountbrocken]

Summation. "The brain tells me the brain is nothing more than an objective process with illusory consciousness," Sounds legitimate.

[@1lightheaded]

to figure the mind brain interface . There are cells that produce waves at different frequencies and and cells that receive so are there diffraction patterns produced and decoded ? that is a wild speculative guess i. Anybody in neuroscience can have that Idea I am A generalist . but if the mind is a software hand the brain hardware that might be one way if conciousness could be a meld between a complex difraction pattern and meat processing ..

[@usethenous]

Finally, a Close to Truth KZbin channel! Wahoo!!

[@mountbrocken]

Who is to say that the observational world is not illusory and the conscious experience is the real ontologically existing world? Dennett is presenting sophomoric philosophy.

[@jazmx]

Is there a book where Danett elaborates on his idea of how brain explains mind ?

[@jazmx]

Thanks a lot :)

[@LaureanoLuna]

Nothing weaker than weak global supervenience (WGS) can be called physicalism. See Wilson, J. 1999. How superduper does a physicalist supervenience need to be?. The Philosophical Quarterly 49. For intrinsic properties, like being just about* all normal brainstates, which depends only on the logical content of the thought, all forms of supervenience (even WGS) imply the one I assume. See Bennett, K. 2004. Global supervenience and dependence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68(3).

[@anthony-dc4sg]

Rostral reticular tegmtal complex. Not pineal gland

[@SocksWithSandals]

The senses have to be heavily edited based on habitual interests or you will never pick out useful information for your consciousness to experience. Be it firewood or snakes.

[@desciasca3043]

It would be interesting to include unconscious factors that play a part in all of this, it seems likely as Freud suggested that consciousness is a recent aquisition of man and that it has been built up over millenia, the root of our mind/pyche/brain is really the unconscious animal instincts

[@farmerjohn6526]

Right. We couldn't consciously think until we could talk. And when women learned to talk , men learned how to go hunting and fishing...

[@ericday4505]

Does he ever answer the question? This sound like first rate gibberish to me.

[@zorgzarg9849]

I also "holy shit" now and again, and it proves absolutely nothing about my views or beliefs. Silly, silly argument.

[@sadiatahir8545]

Beautiful!

[@theophilus749]

Interesting - but - as usual with Dennett, nothing in his theses on consciousness (or free will) really even so much as addresses the philosophical problem of consciousness. He's tackling the issues at a lower level, that of speculative science rather than philosophy. That is useful but there is nothing here that need rationally move even a full-blown Cartesian Dualist, let alone lesser philosophical mortals.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Laurence BonJour isn't the arch-deity of the universe. Science has an a priori part anyway, what you said isn't even applicable.

[@Deffine]

I agree. There is a problem of semantics when it comes to consciousness. I think you have to differentiate between the observing part og consciousness and qualia itself. We know there is a strong causal relationship between the qualia in consciousness and the material, biological processes going on in the body. Thats not mystifying. Whats mystifying is the observing part of consciousness. There is no scientific model to date that prove "the observer" somehow manifest from material processes.

[@LaureanoLuna]

You are unable to spot a mistake in my derivation now. So you turn to ideological matters. But logic cannot be answered by ideology, only by more logic. In contrast to your cook or the famous barber or the Russell set, I haven't defined a paradoxical object but, like Gödel or Turing, I an object that goes beyond a particular realm, namely, the realm of thoughts that can supervene on brainstates. Please, don't break the rules of honest discussion.

[@GASmotorsports]

by that logic someone who believes in intelligent design should never use the word evolve.

[@tbayley6]

Yes, the brain can probably explain the mind - that's the easy problem. But are explanations enough?! That's the hard problem. Newton was dissatisfied with his own law of gravity - he felt it was just a numerical tool and that it explained nothing in reality. Apparently we no longer feel that way, as our explanations and simulations increasingly take on the sense of being actual reality. One day perhaps we'll be happy to give way to them entirely and that'll be the end of the matter.

[@iranjackheelson]

+Tom Bayley this then would beg the question at what point exactly explanations become "enough" and our minds find those explanations "satisfying"?

[@tbayley6]

+iranjackheelson I was being ironic :-) I don't think explanations can ever completely satisfy, because they lack the actual dimensions of what they try to explain. As an analogy, reading a recipe is not as satisfying as eating the meal. Satisfaction occurs when something ceases to provoke us, or when we feel nothing is missing (there are many ways of putting it.) I think permanent satisfaction is only possible once we understand that explanations can't deliver it, and that having problems and uncertainties is natural and existentially irrelevant.

[@williamtalks7178]

+Tom Bayley its missing consciousness a meaningful consclusion that you can relate to after all you are looking at the universe through its own eyes so when you talk bout the world your talking bout urself so if its not relatable and abstract its disatisfying what does it mean to be a vortex? or a molecule? or laws of physics

[@tbayley6]

ETV We make observations and we discover explanations to explain them, but these explanations cannot *replace* our observations. Because without the observations there is nothing to explain. So, if consciousness is observable then consciousness can be explained, but it can't be replaced without making the explanation meaninglessly abstract. However, this is exactly what seems to be happening - in explaining consciousness people want to explain away (replace) the very act of observing.

[@williamtalks7178]

Tom Bayley yh science proud its self in objectivity seeing as consciouness is too subjective a truth you have no choice but to expain it away to be honest , its like a neuro scientist will say human consciounsess is just a bunch of chemical signals resopnding to each other some like dan claims dem to be virtuall particles now if i was to then ask how a single celled amoeba with no nuerons or brains can hunt for food and shows levels of awarness ud be told that it doesnt have any awwarness its just a bunch of chemicals signals responding to each other lol see the problem? so i understand the motive behind objective to science to explain away the phenemon

[@justbede]

Sooo ...How brain explains consciousness? His brain doesn't.

[@_cmesh_]

evolutionary design. random new features emerge, and those that provide a species an advantage remain.

[@bris1tol]

What a genius Dennett is, toi be able to explain how a lump of meat can explain mind.

[@LaureanoLuna]

My God, t* is an individual thought-type just as b* is an individual brainstate-type. Your expression 't* CAN'T identically be about b*' makes no sense to me. Sorry, I will leave our exchange as it stands. Just lack the time. I'll be very glad to meet you for other topic. I'm as interested as you are in logic and set theory.

[@LaureanoLuna]

My God, you seem unable to 1. follow a derivation in propositional logic; 2. recognize a diagonal argument based on the Russell paradox. You say: "Either f is about b or it's about anything else". f is a function: its being about makes absolutely no sense!

[@jasonreynolds3903]

5:31 Cartesian illusion

[@jimmyschot]

not who, but what.

[@AlbertoLopezisnotit]

Explanations are analytical code. Code related to an object. "Explain the "mind" with words is just adding more analytical codes to a subjective object. More words around words. The "ilusion" of unity (ego??) from our body comes from cultural biased perceptions and weak cognitive cappacity to discern the Natural integration between the body and the environment. The body is an element of the environment that reflects on a biased way this environment, a human reality, in our case... At the end of the day, explanations are not "Strong facts" from the existence, they are just human technological analytical code to re-interpret a biased human reality... reverse enginering from the algoritmics codes that emerge from the human capacity of abstraction... An this human capacity of abstraction is related to creativity. Creativity is related to transformation. Transformation is related to Life and existence under our human condition... and the Pinnacle of abstraction on human condition are the notions of Nothing (Zero, Vacuum, Emptiness, Death), All ( Unity, Universe, Whole, Life) and anything between this two notions... The imaginary continuom of the potencial on the human abstraction... An imaginary source of information that not necesarily has to depend on a human condition and could be an integral part of the environment on itself... The question is: Could be the Creative Potential on the Brain or human beings cappable to create a Reality inside itself with minimal environmental resources?? Is this possible human realization really an important human realization?? A perfectly predictable and controlled environment... A code that reproduce on itself the Reality... Maybe not. Maybe, our deepest realization is not related to any kind of Knowledge... and when the human is near to this extreme condition of Knowledge... Stops and say... I want to be ignorant of lot of things, I want to be imperfect, an ignorant animal that could love other animal in an animal nature, just born, grow, survive and dead under an animal nature. Not an Isolated Technological God on a kingdom of Virtual and Real Gods.... As humans, We have a deep emotional and romantic relation with Ignorance... Humans love ignorance as they love knowledge... Maybe, they love more Ignorance. Today, we are just talking monkeys that are begining to understand their relationship with the environment... Monkeys, looping around words and futile non technological explanations, Intelectual masturbation ... Far from to get the codes or algorithms behind the the scene that makes possible the arise from the creativity and/or Inteligence in ourselves. But, it seems that our desires of knowledge are oriented to discover the sources of the knowledge on itself... The funny paradox is that there is not any sources... Sources is just a human and temporary analytical code referent to Object... There is not subject, there is not object, just a vast myriad of informational(energy) relations. Technology is nature, Nature is Technology, Science is just human reverse enginering not Universal knowledge... Universal Knowledge is a contemporary human myth... As God is an arcaic Myth. The Caos theory Monkey writer.

[@EverythingInane]

maybe some people are not conscious and that's why they talk like this. Or maybe some people have a sort of reduced presence of consciousness, like a reduced awareness of the fact that they are aware.. they are so caught on the material they don't even notice the self. And maybe there are other people out there who are even much more aware of this experiencing "self" than I am, which is inspiring for me to think about, as for me I exist in a sort of vague recognition of my consciousness, confident enough to know something experiential is truly there, yet without a forceful enough ability to really see it very clearly

[@EverythingInane]

I mean, let's be fair, If I wasn't conscious, and people started asking questions like this, I would of course have no recognition of what they really mean, and just assume that they're talking about brain functions coming together.. a processor managing data.. and end up saying exactly what he is saying.

[@justbede]

Perhaps I am just a little smarter.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Science is itself philosophy.

[@Oplosser]

anybody else thinks he looks just like Hershel greene?

[@StephenPaulKing]

Dennett decribes well how the brain might generate the content of qualia but nowhere deals with the sense of to who the qualia is presented. If it is a process, what is it? Could it be a reflexive process where semantic modeling of the content is mapped reentrantly onto that content?

[@sleepyeyeguy]

People who use big words and convoluted sentences are suspect. If you understood clearly what you were talking about you would frame it in such a way that others could easily understand it.

[@StephenPaulKing]

sleepyeyeguy Could you explain to a person with no education how to build a car? Do you really expect that consciousness will have a simple explanation?

[@sleepyeyeguy]

Stephen Paul King You could at least define your terms. For example: What is "qualia"? "a reflexive process where semantic modeling of the content is mapped reentrantly onto that content" You really think you couldn't have made this more coherent? What is "reentrantly" would "inwardly" have been just as accurate? I'm just saying.. I know people like Deepak Chopra (who is a straight quack) like to use convoluted phrasing and words to increase apparent credibility.

[@StephenPaulKing]

sleepyeyeguy I would be happy to read your book attempting to "explain consciousness". :-)

[@sleepyeyeguy]

Stephen Paul King Thank you for defining your terms and clarifying your points.

[@JoEEll2233]

Why does he constantly refer to the word 'design' when describing the functions of the brain? Who is the designer?

[@kazearaki853]

Which part of science is a priori?

[@desciasca3043]

However whether there is consciousness that exists throughout the uniververse is another matter, quantum physics does support this idea

[@EclecticSceptic]

For example, maths.

[@danielarista1352]

so stupid, cells are "making judgements". So silly.

[@kazearaki853]

Not really but originally it was. Laurence BonJour once pointed out that for philosophy to have any meaning, it must be a priori. Science part way with philosophy when it exclusively embrace empirical evidences.

[@JoEEll2233]

If you don't believe in 'Intelligent Design', do not use the word 'design' when describing something that came into being without one.

[@sngscratcher]

No.

[@AVMamfortas]

"The rods and cones are designed to....". There's the place to start. Designed. By whom?

[@TheTazm0n]

check amazon: The Crucible of Consciousness

[@LaureanoLuna]

I am familiar with Russell's paradox. I've published some papers related to it. For instance "Intentionality and Computationalism. A Diagonal Argument' in Mind&Matter 7(1), 2009, co-authored with the Canadian mathematician Christopher Small. You can find there a Russellian argument very similar to the one I published here. See my profile at philpapers. If you leave a message in my youtube page with your email address, I'll send you a preprint.

[@zeroonetime]

Yes, the brain recognizes the source of all thoughts broadcasted by the total Mind/Time.

[@WindEnder]

Not only he is only answering easy questions of consciousness, deliberately ignoring the hard problem; but he is also oversimplifying vision, for example. See Donald Hoffman's TED talk about vision, for example.

[@myothersoul1953]

The hard problem should be ignored, it's just another form of dualism. Dualism just because it's ancient doesn't mean it is wise, it's certainly not useful.

[@JoEEll2233]

He just said 'the brain is 'designed' to pick up..." Designed? Designed by who?

[@kazearaki853]

Dennet speak a hell lot like a scientist, to take his position, one must assume our perception is reliable. His idea is interesting but definitely not philosophy.

[@LaureanoLuna]

If physicalism is right, there's a function f such that for each brainstate b there's at most one thought f(b) & for each thought t there's at least one brainstate b, f(b)=t. Say thought t is about* x iff x is one y & t is the thought that some y exist. Call b normal iff f(b) exists & is not about* b. Let t* be the thought that some normal brainstates exist. t* is just about* all normal brainstates. Let f(b*)=t*. b* is normal iff it's not. Contradiction. There's no such f. Physicalism is wrong.

[@JoEEll2233]

Or who.

[@technowey]

He never answers the question that was asked. I think an honest reply is, "I don't know." He posits that consciousness is an illusion. The idea that consciousness is an illusion is an illusion! Obviously, we all know what is meant by consciousness, and it exists. I am conscious. A rock is not conscious. What I expect he means is that the consciousness some people imagine they have is an illusion, but frankly I find that obvious. Most people who read know that our internal mental models that we construct to represent reality by using input from our sense are not perfect representations of reality. Internal bias in our existing beliefs and mental models; change blindness; inattention blindness; imperfect sensory models; imperfect senses; and probably other factors affect our impression of reality. The basic idea of flawed interpretations of reality is common knowledge. Most people know the police often get different stories from different witnesses. I found his "king of the mountain" argument totally unconvincing too. Whether there is "something extra" or not to make an organism consciousness is not known, and there is nothing to support his thesis that nothing extra needs to exist than what he describes. He just can't know that. That's not to say he's necessarily wrong, but if I had to bet and there was a way to determine the answer, I would bet he is wrong about that. I don't know what manifests as consciousness, but I do think that whatever consciousness is requires a complex self-symbol as part of the mental model.

[@ericday4505]

The mind corresponds with a brain , but it is prinarily part of your soul, it is where you make decisions, and have volition.

[@almostbutnotentirelyunreas166]

Perhaps Brain can explain Mind, but not in this bearded embodiment!

[@kazearaki853]

What the hell? Math isn't even Science! Clearly you need to read Popper and Kuhn. And you wonder why BonJour is above Dennet?

[@celal777]

I like the way Dennett keeps using the word "designed". Of course, he's totally oblivious that the word requires a Designer.

[@perplexedmoth]

Which can be non-anthropomorphic natural, mechanistic processes.

[@celal777]

How can "design" be "mechanistic"?

[@perplexedmoth]

by mechanistic, I mean through series of events that follow each other according to a set of rules which we try to discover with scientific method and call physical laws. I agree that his use of the word "designed" implies a likelihood of a man-like designer, and therefore is not very appropriate. It is true that the word design means a process with purpose, where purpose implies intentionality, which in turn implies the presence of a mind. This is the gist. Dennett, and I think that mind is physical (every mental state has a direct physical state), and mechanistic (in the sense I defined above), therefor the designer is such a mechanistic mind. p.s. I'm a panpsychist and think that mind is not exclusive to humans or animals, but a fundamental feature of the universe, and is present in everything. But I get your point, he shouldn't have used the word designed, because it commonly implies an intelligent designer to the audience.

[@VidkunQL]

Dennett uses the word in a sense that does not require a sentient designer. If you want evidence of this, I suggest you listen to his "Strange Inversion" lecture. (And no, the fact that you use it your way does not mean that he just admitted to what you would have meant if you had spoken the same words.)

[@ericday4505]

celal777 I dont know why the interviewer never asked designed by who?

[@JoEEll2233]

Hmmm. You've made your point. There is certainly no intelligence in your design.

[@profzen1]

Dennett is a joke.

[@donaldclifford5763]

That is an unsupported conclusion