Reddit reviews Consciousness Explained
We found 32 Reddit comments about Consciousness Explained. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Back Bay Books
Reddit reviews Consciousness ExplainedWe found 32 Reddit comments about Consciousness Explained. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I think that we're getting very close to explaining consciousness. Two thinkers you should look at are philosopher Daniel Dennett and cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene.
Dennett offers many refined arguments that help conceptualize consciousness while respecting scientific findings in a variety of fields. He also specifically addresses the phenomenon of qualia that you seem to be interested in.
Stanislas Dehaene began by tackling problems of cognitive numeracy and literacy by way of neuroscientific study, specifically imaging studies. He has slowly moved into investigating "consciousness" in a broad sense and has come up with a very compelling definition at a physiological level.
Getting through the above mentioned material has really helped me think seriously about consciousness. I feel now that I at least have a working hypothesis of how consciousness works, and so I don't necessarily share in your malaise over the subject.
I hope this helps to answer some questions you might have and, with any luck, raise a few more.
I recommend some books to you:
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661
http://www.amazon.com/Am-Strange-Loop-Douglas-Hofstadter/dp/0465030785
http://www.amazon.com/The-Minds-Fantasies-Reflections-Self/dp/0465030912
Your sense of self, your "I", your mind, is produced by your brain, which is a physical structure that is not destroyed and remade during sleep. This is why you remember what happened yesterday. "You" are a pile of grey goo in a skull.
This is a good introductory essay by Nick Bostrom from The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. And this is a relevant survey essay by Drew McDermott from The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness.
If folks aren't taking well to the background reading, they might at least do alright jumping to Section 5 from the Descartes' Discourse (they can use this accessible translation). One little snippet:
>I worked especially hard to show that if any such machines had the organs and outward shape of a monkey or of some other animal that doesn’t have reason, we couldn’t tell that they didn’t possess entirely the same nature as these animals; whereas if any such machines bore a resemblance to our bodies and imitated as many of our actions as was practically possible, we would still have two very sure signs that they were nevertheless not real men. (1) The first is that they could never use words or other constructed signs, as we do to declare our thoughts to others. We can easily conceive of a machine so constructed that it utters words, and even utters words that correspond to bodily actions that will cause a change in its organs (touch it in one spot and it asks ‘What do you mean?’, touch it in another and it cries out ‘That hurts!’, and so on); but not that such a machine should produce different sequences of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence—which is something that the dullest of men can do. (2) Secondly, even though such machines might do some things as well as we do them, or perhaps even better, they would be bound to fail in others; and that would show us that they weren’t acting through understanding but only from the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need some particular disposition for each particular action; hence it is practically impossible for a machine to have enough different •organs to make •it act in all the contingencies of life in the way our •reason makes •us act. These two factors also tell us how men differ from beasts [= ‘non-human animals’].
That sets the stage for historically important essay from Turing of Turing-Test-fame. And that essay sets up nicely Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. Scientific America has two accessible articles: Searle presents his argument here, and the Churchland's respond.
As always, the SEP and IEP are good resources for students, and they have entries with bibliographies on consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness, AI, computational theories of mind, and so on.
There are countless general introductions to philosophy of mind. Heil's Philosophy of Mind is good. Seager's introduction to theories of consciousness is also quite good, but maybe more challenging than some. Susan Blackmore's book Conversations on Consciousness was a very engaging read, and beginner friendly. She also has a more textbook-style Introduction that I have not read, but feel comfortable betting that it is also quite good.
Searle's, Dennett's and Chalmer's books on consciousness are all good and influential and somewhat partisan to their own approaches. And Kim's work is a personal favorite.
(sorry for the broad answer--it's a very broad question!)
Are you open to doing some reading?
​
"Behave" by Robert Sapolsky
​
This book is an amalgamation of scientific research, referencing study after study that demonstrates how different aspects of our biology play key roles in our demeanor, our emotions and how we think and behave. Our gut flora, for instance, plays key roles in mood and perhaps even our social interactions [1] [2] [3]. That's just one example of the many dozens of lines of evidence that the book describes.
​
Now, it does look as though you've done some research into the philosophy of human subjective experiences, specifically qualia. I'm sure you're aware, but there are other philosophers who explain that qualia doesn't exist at all. Even one of the larger proponents of qualia, John Searle, doesn't ascribe it to a soul, or substance dualism, but to property dualism. Interestingly, Searle and Dan Dennett (a denier of qualia) had a published exchange on this very topic some 20 years ago. I'm not versed enough on the topic to actively engage in a debate on it, but it seems that, at second glance, qualia isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Time will tell, of course.
​
With that said, there are vast amounts of data that thoroughly link our emotions, feelings, behaviors, etc. specifically to certain function of our biology. There is certainly more to be discovered in this field, but "Behave" spells out all of the nitty gritty details and compiles years and years worth of research. If you're actually interested in reading a thorough hypothesis coupled with the multiple lines of evidence to support it, I have a pdf copy of this book I'd be willing to share. Simply PM me your email address.
I'm reading this right now: http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=sr_1_1
It's really quite good, at least to my marginally-educated-about-such-things opinion. :-)
Consciousness Explained by Dan Dennett
You need to read Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained (1991). That is the best treatment I've ever read about it.
Where did he claim atheists are (more) intelligent? Do you think he claimed it with this part?
>Atheists see religious people as idiots...
When a believer and an atheist come to different conclusions on a moral issue, both sides logic behind the argument should be scrutinized, however one side wins easily when the other side usually only come up with "because I said so" or "because someone said so".
When people in disputes (like theists and atheists) through different ways come to agree on some part of an issue that's called common ground, and that is generally sought after, but you don't seem to want that, or think one couldn't come to the same conclusions for different reasons.
>Oh please don’t claim religion.
Yet you claim atheists to be the hypocritical ones?
Still, I can also quote random people unnecessarily ;)
>It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.
– Epictetus
>The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
– Charles Darwin
Actually, the fields of psychology and sociology do have things to say about evolution of consciousness, free will, behavioral analysis and morality. Although everything is not known yet, at least some are trying. Here's a few interesting articles/books on the subject:
The Evolution of Ethics by Francisco Ayala
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, on Google Books
Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett
Edit: formatting
As /u/Das_Erlebnis said, there's tons of literature in the philosophy of mind. Check out some books, e.g. Chalmer's [The Conscious Mind] (https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Search-Fundamental-Philosophy/dp/0195117891/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) and Dennett's [Consciousness Explained] (https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MK07ERGEZ7B8NBW6JBS1).
Edit: I'll add Nagel's essay [What is it like to be a bat?] (http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf) to the list.
Here's how I like to think about free will:
As you journey along the path you meet an old man....
For a scientific view of consciousness:
Read naturalist explanations of decision-making, the image of the self, how thoughts work, qualia, etc. You probably want to start with I am a Strange Loop, then Consciousness Explained, and work your way to Godel Escher Bach. There are also many essays online about the non-supernatural nature of the mind, this one being one that atheist Redditors link to often. Also see Wikipedia articles about the mind, free will, etc.
Even after I became an atheist, I could not shake the feeling that consciousness could not be just patterns of atoms. Even in a universe that follows rules and that was not deliberately created as part of a plan, I thought that maybe there's some kind of "soul stuff" that interacts with our brains and is responsible for consciousness. But then, if I can tell that I am conscious, then 1) the soul stuff impacts the natural world and is thus observable and not supernatural, and 2) I am no different from a computer that understands itself well enough to say it is conscious. (It helped me to think of AIs from fiction, like HAL and Data, and try to think of what it would be "like" to be them. Books like The Mind's I are full of such thought experiments). So after thinking about it for a while, I was able to shed that last and most persistent bit of supernaturalism and embrace the naturalistic view of the mind.
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a fascinating read about how it might have come about. I recently finished reading Consciousness Explained. It was kind of long but also interesting.
Hi there! I love how organised your lists are. I might have to take a leaf out of your book because I'm entirely too disorganised. Annoyingly I have to have a separate Amazon UK wishlist for Blu-Rays because I'm in Australia and the US site has DVD/BRs for the wrong region.
u/LeeHyori provides a great outline of the main aspects of logical positivism, e.g. the verification principle, so I won't bother addressing the 'what is logical positivism' question in detail. (The only things I would add are things like a general tendency towards: reductionism, formalism, a Wittgensteinian metaphilosophy, support of the sciences and unifying them, etc). What I want to bring up is about the objections to LP and positivists today, like Dennett.
>From my understanding, it was because their main idea seemed contradictory ("only verifiable things can be true" is itself not verifiable).
Aside from the self-refuting nature of the verification principle that you point out here, there were other problems as well, such as the theory-ladenness of observation, consequent problems with logical positivism's reductionism and empiricism (e.g., observation/protocol statements are not purely empirical), the holistic nature of confirmation, the [difficulties defining what an analytic statement is/the circular nature of the concept] (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html), and the apparent irreducibility of the sciences. So you're right that LP suffered tremendously by relying on a self-undermining theory of meaning, but there were other serious problems, which gave rise to a ton of awesome new literature on the subject.
>However, has there been any prominent philosophy that has grown out of logical positivism that is in itself a stronger version of the positivist's philosophy?
I don't think anyone that famous became more positivist, in the sense of embracing a more extreme verification principle, but Dennett has said publicly he is kind of a closet verificationist - examples of which are in [Consciousness Explained] (http://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661). He talks for instance about how his analysis of the inverted qualia argument supports "the shockingly "verifications" or "positivist" view that the very idea of inverted qualia is nonsense--and hence that the very idea of qualia is nonsense" (p.390 in my edition). He also mentioned we're all verificationists in some sense, using the example of impossible-to-detect gremlins in the engine of your car - but here he seems to be more saying the obvious claim that we need evidence to verify hypotheses, not that unverifiable = nonsense.
In any case, Dennett's definitely one of the biggest philosophers still writing today who inherited the positivist tradition, and if we can still use the term I'd say he's one of the most positivist philosophers alive.
No.
Read a book. May I suggest:
How the Mind Works
Consciousness Explained
The Crucible of Conscoiusness
The Astonishing Hypothesis
The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature
His approach to philosophy of mind and consciousness is "heterophenomenological" (his phrase) and is anti-Cartesian in the sense that it attempts to collapse the mind and body into one physical entity (monism) via appeals to neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Consciousness, Explained is a great place to start.
I would caution you about Dennett because, while he is a well-respected and important philosopher, he also write books for a popular audience that are less philosophical in nature.
So I would stay clear of his new atheism stuff, stay away from his beef with Sam Harris (who isn't a philosopher), and try to find lectures where he talks about consciousness (which is his main topic in philosophy).
So I would recommend starting with Daniel Dennett's TED talks, which are much easier and accessible. Here's a good introductory lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYh0lAWCnpI
https://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_dennett
Next, I would try to watch this lecture and see if you can follow it (it's a bit more complicated, but it outlines the debates around consciousness in a similar way to what you might find on the SEP):
https://youtu.be/JoZsAsgOSes
Finally, his book Consciousness Explained outlines his basic approach to consciousness. While not for a general audience, he does clarify and explain his positions well, so it might be worth looking into:
https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518209721&sr=8-1&keywords=consciousness+explained
>Since when is the concept of free will unprovable?
A lot of other people responded, but your question was addressed to me.
I will assume that you aren't being purposefully dense, and that you really aren't aware of the debate surrounding whether free will is real or an illusion. Unfortunately this is not a debate that can be summed up in a reddit comment. There are worse places to start researching than wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
But if these questions actually intrigue you and you are willing to challenge your preconceptions, I highly recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661
>If you do not believe in a higher power, do you not have free will by default?
This is called an "either-or" fallacy, or a false dilemma. I've read a number of books by apologists, and I'd say this is their favorite fallacy (although arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority are close behind).
The answer is no, you don't have to believe in free will if you don't believe in a deity. Whatever gave you that idea?
I personally don't know if free will exists or not. For one thing, there is currently no empirically testable definition of free will. All existing definitions aren't falsifiable.
Here are some of my favorite popular books by academic researchers about consciousness:
And for more of an inside-out view, I'd recommend a book on meditation by a former neuroscientist: The Mind Illuminated by Robert Yates
If you like Harris and Pinker's philosophical stuff, check out John Searle, Noam Chomsky, and Dan Dennett (Dennett wrote a harsh review of Harris' book on free will). They're like Harris and Pinker, but better.
I first heard the word "meme" from this book from 1992 :
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293749679&sr=8-1
I really enjoyed Dennett's Consciousness Explained. Chalmers' The Conscious Mind presents another popular view which, if I recall correctly, opposes Dennett's views. I'm slowly getting into work's by Steven Pinker.
Probably a general Philosophy of Mind reader would also benefit you just to get a good idea of the different views and topics out there within the discipline. I cannot remember which one I read years ago, although if I read one today I'd pick Chalmers' Philosophy of Mind or Kim's Philosophy of Mind.
Weiskrantz L. - Some contributions of neuropsychology of vision and memory to the problem of consciousness - chapter 8 of "consciousness in contemporary science" edited by Marcel and Bisiach esp pp 186-190
see also
Weiskrantz L. - "Blindsight: A case study and implications"
you might be able to find a pdf..
Referenced in Dennett's "Dismantling the witness protection program - 2. Blindsight: Partial zombiehood?", chapter 11 pp 322-333 of "Consciousness Explained"
(I know I'm late, but would like to add my 2 cents anyway.)
I'd say the series stays about the same. (But I also loved it to begin with.) I only remember disliking some of the developments with the Deltans storyline (though I did like it again at the end) and perhaps the romance being a bit of a mixed bag for me.
>... the narrative left behind a lot of what I found most intriguing about the story (Cartesian dilemma of soul and body) ...
Do you mean dualism? When exactly was this brought up?
As I understood it, Bob 1 was pondering whether or not he (a computer program) could be considered conscious -- Something living, something of moral significance. I thought this was settled adequately by his extended monologue. He was wondering whether he was a philosophical zombie (i.e. acting as if conscious without actually being conscious.) He was not wondering how his soul interacted with his replicant hardware (or software.)
And I'd say he's revealed himself as a sort a functionalist: "Handsome is as handsome does." Or rather "Bob is as Bob does."
On that subject, one of my favorite philosophy books is Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. It's heavy reading but I still recommend it. Here's a review. Also this preface by Tadeusz Zawidzki about Dennett's corpus :D
Edit: phrasing
First off, we are not sure how to define conciousness. It is very difficult to study because it is inherently subjective. To approach conciousness requires integrating information ideas from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, computational science. That said, one of the premier thinkers/writers about conciousness, Daniel C. Dennett, is also a premier thinker about evolution. To boot, he is one of the new atheist writers called the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". His body of work includes the audaciously titled Conciousness Explained. His works are meticulously thought out & thourogh, so be prepared.
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412263188&sr=1-1&keywords=consciousness+explained
Other works i can recommend are: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Freedom Evolves. His theory of conciousness has changed a bit since The Minds "I".
Em janeiro, terminei de ler Fundação, do Isaac Asimov. É um livro sensacional; super recomendo. Agora, estou terminando The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism e Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. O próximo que eu vou ler provavelmente será Consciousness Explained, do Daniel Dannet.
While it's a bit out of date, "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel C. Dennett can give a good introduction to what we know about how the brain really functions, and the vast difference between directly perceiving the world and the actual action of the brain to filter out most of the world, and translate what's left into an internalized model our consciousness is made aware of. It's a philosophy book, but leans heavily on medical understanding of brain biology, real-world behavior testing, and AI development progress (as of the 1990's).
The biggest aspect of it being out of date has to do with the sections on AI; our neural network architectures in use today are significantly more advanced and more similar to biological systems than what was available in the 1990's. That said, the insights from the state of development at the time (and its failures) are even more prescient in light of the last 10 years of AI development and progress.
We don't know yet.
The brain is so complex, science is just scratching the surface of what consciousness is and how it works.
Daniel Dennett wrote a book called Consciousness Explained. Summary: It's a hard problem.
Have you read Consciousness Explained ?
There's an awesome primer here on how the human mind creates the illusion of experience, if you want to check it out. Dennett's sometimes a bit obtuse, but he's rarely wrong: http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explained-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0316180661
Consciousness Explained
Actually this book already defined and explained it quite well, with reasonable scientific evidence that has mostly held up over the years.