Comments on: Consciousness Explained

By: hermes handbags

hermes handbags — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 06:05:35 +0000

Gil,

Yes, our intuitions make it difficult to envision a mechanistic consciousness. However, Dennett does a much better job than I do of reconciling intuition with current neurological theory.

-Scott

By: Scott Young

Scott Young — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:44:16 +0000

Gil,

Yes, our intuitions make it difficult to envision a mechanistic consciousness. However, Dennett does a much better job than I do of reconciling intuition with current neurological theory.

-Scott

By: Gil Gaudia

Gil Gaudia — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 01:01:10 +0000

While you have done a fine job in summarizing Dennett’s position, I still am unable to imagine who is in control of my thoughts–other than the simplisticly naive little me floating around inside my cranium. When I attempt to consider a mechanistic explanation of consciousness it always comes back to who puts the final stamp on the thought. I know there can be no interaction between non-physical and physical phenomena, yet I am unable to escape the mind-body dualism. I’m an atheist who is imprisoned by a “feeling” that someone (me) is inside my head looking out at the world.

Thanks for trying.

By: david thurman

david thurman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:00:02 +0000

“Instead of being in a single location, Dennett imagines that consciousness is better described as a virtual machine”

This is where dennett stumbles into his own Cartesian theater. The machine metaphor is directly linked to a correspondence way of looking at the brain. This very much reductionist view is fairly dated although I would say it’s the pop view of the brain and really is sort of silly. The illusion is that somehow we can wrap around on ourselves in some simplistic clear defining reductionist way is well simply Cartesian theater looking at Cartesian theater. Our emotions play a key role so a machine model is not going to work very well. I think the move towards a metaphor of nonlinear dynamic system is much more accurate, and I would say Alva Noe is giving us a much more modern and accurate description of consciousness than Dennett. We will never Get around on ourselves so to speak, but we can understand ourselves and i think through that understanding, find our links in who we are in relationship the larger framework that surrounds us. Dennett, he’s a boomer like me, sort of old and tired, has some good insights, I love the Cartesian theater description very nice, It’s already been said thousands of years ago in many if not most religious texts.

By: Nick Egrotes

Nick Egrotes — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:51:55 +0000

hello again,

consciousness indeed, is becoming real challenge for science in general,

of course is not “magic”, i agree with you, still big enigma though

cheers

By: Nick Egrotes

Nick Egrotes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:43:39 +0000

i prefer to read your ideas than the boo itself

is meaningless at the moment to explain consciousness, we are just waiting the neuroscience to locate and explain it-in near future i hope-

Dennett’s theory, is just another theory, not a ny truth

bye bye

By: Liz

Liz — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:53:06 +0000

Consciousness is undefinable, yet it’s qualities can be known. Consciousness, is awareness, is self-growing, is continual and without end and undiscriminating. Consciousness is the ability to know itself in as many ways as is possible. Consciousness is awareness of expansion through recognizing itself as the agent of expansion. As consciousness manifests itself in physical properties, ie brain matter, rocks, neurons, wood, concrete and all possible variations of stuff, it also recognizes itself without physical boundaries. It just is an awareness non-localized and growing and is not dependent on the container through which is flows and experiences itself.

By: J.D. Meier

J.D. Meier — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:36:10 +0000

Great write up.

It reminds me of the saying, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Useful is a great test and I measure against effectiveness.