| |
|  |  |
| Discussion: Daniel Dennet what exactly is dennet's view of self. A meme host, a constructed narrative, an orwellian rewrite? how do the particular features of dennet's "consciousness" form together into anything global? I'm still working it out. if anyone has any idea what this "self" might be, please let me know. >>By kev Good question. Personally I would say that the physicalist has no answer. Physicalism lacks a definition of this thing we refer to as "I". It recognises there is a close correlation between brain process and qualia, but cannot coherently define the relationship without slipping into an implied dualism - and I mean CAN NOT. My own opinion is that there is only one solution to this problem, and it is the solution provided by the likes of Hegel, Schopenhaur, Berkeley and in more recent times by Schroedinger, Huxley, and Bohm - i.e. that physicalism is an inadequate model of reality and that consciousness must be considered as a Cosmically relevant phenomenen. However, somebody needs to attempt a defence of physicalism, if only to demonstrate that it is inadequate. >>By Geoff Dann It would appear to me that Dennet's view of self is that the features you mention, in particular the multiple drafts which taken as a whole form a narrative with a "centre of gravity," are sufficient in themselves to comprise "self". That is, self is nothing more, and nothing less, than the sum of those parts. >>By Rob Kerr Addressing Mr Geoff Dann "consciousness must be considered as a Cosmically relevant phenomenen" The pure ignorance displayed by dissmissing a legitimate answer to a enigma that seems to be unsolveable provided by Dennet and his fellow physicalists only likens you to the ideal of which you oppose. Neither dualism nor physicalism can solely admit to solving the mind body problem. This is a fact that I believe you have overlooked. >>By Joel Heffernan To Joel Hefferman. ------------------------- The pure ignorance displayed by dissmissing a legitimate answer to a enigma that seems to be unsolveable provided by Dennet and his fellow physicalists only likens you to the ideal of which you oppose. Neither dualism nor physicalism can solely admit to solving the mind body problem. This is a fact that I believe you have overlooked. -------------------------- Joel - I'm not sure I understand your response. I fully agree with you when you say that "Neither dualism nor physicalism can solely admit to solving the mind body problem." I haven't 'overlooked' this fact because I am in complete agreement with you! The philosophers I mentioned were neither physicalists nor dualists! Hegel, Schopenhauer, Berkeley and Schroedinger were all idealists. Bohm was a 'neutral monist' and I'm not sure Huxley would have allowed himself to be categorised as any of these things. In a way, Dennetts "solution" is at least internally coherent - but the price for this coherence is a heavy one, for it seems to remove any hope of a meaningfull answer to any of the 'big questions' in philosophy. Your response is typical of physicalists - you state that neither physicalism nor dualism can solve the problem but you fail to consider idealism at all. There are of course very important historical reasons for this stance - the German idealists were immediately followed by Darwin and the whole controversy that has raged ever since between 'evolutionists' and 'creationists'. To the scientific physicalist any idea that consciousness is not an evolved trait seems like a combination of heresy and madness - yet the mind-body problem will not go away. To understand the way out of this puzzle an entirely new way of understanding the world is required, and that understanding takes you outside the sphere of pure rationalism. By that I mean that the pure rationalist cannot go there - he or she must inevitably either side with the physicalists or become a 'mysterian' and simply declare consciousness to be inexplicable. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there are two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. In order to make progress in our understanding we do not simply 'dismiss' Dennett, but it may be neccesary to recognise that it is possible to construct a complementary model of reality, and that a true understanding of the 'big picture' requires an understanding of how these two views of reality relate to each other rather than declaring one of them to be the truth and the other to be false. At the end of the day I believe that consciousness must always remain a deep mystery to the pure rationalist. Provided that rationalist is willing to admit that he is faced by an apparently 'unsolvable enigma' then there is no problem. That is precisely the way it should be. :-) Geoff Dann >>By Geoff Dann the mind body problem is a myth ,"When your dead, your dead", how ever if you live in a religous reality you have dreamed up , you will not accept the mind , soul etc. dies >>By john fedden I don’t find my own thoughts that complicated, I think of them in the following way: A memory is a stored trace of an electrical impulse that was produced by a sensory organ. A thought is a permutation of a memory or a previous thought. The summary of all thoughts represents our consciousness. It is the summary of many memories and many permutations of permutations of memories. The fact that we can remember words and form permutations of what we read is not different than our ability to remember where we found food and to form permutations of this way of finding food. When we dream, then many meaningless permutations are produced. Our conscious mind consists of permutations that the brain deems meaningful. >>By Rabenelster I'm not really familiar with Dennet or the arguments made here. What I wonder is how any position that does not have physical reasons or evidence can be properly weighed? How can an argument, despite being logically sound, be verified, if it has no observational consequences to measure? Maybe Im missing something and if so, please chime me in. >>By Hume Ungus You are not logged in. To access all functionality, you can log in via Flork. Flork is a worldwide community of people who are interested in music, movies and books. As a Flork-User, you can participate in this and other discussions, meet new people and exchange messages with other members directly: www.flork.com |