Closer To Truth
For more videos and information from Daniel Dennett http://bit.ly/1y49TBd
For more videos on whether brain can explain mind click here http://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.
Source
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope u put the English sub 🙁 it will help very much
Is he saying the brain is turing compatible but consciousness is not? I mean the brain has to b turing compatible right?
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No.
anybody else thinks he looks just like Hershel greene?
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.
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.
What a genius Dennett is, toi be able to explain how a lump of meat can explain mind.
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.
Is consciousness updated continually (i.e., bound with a certain frequency) or is it updated continuously?
The human mind is inadequate for understanding the human mind.
Why do I always feel unsatisfied at the end of Dennett's lectures or talks, like he didn't really answer the question?
So does this imply that non-human animals are conscious as well?
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.
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.
5:31 Cartesian illusion
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.
Reading through the bullshit Dennet hasn't got a clue, I thought these new atheists had all the answers! Fail Lol
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.
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..
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
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 ..
Back to ideas from LSD .I have read that out of 100 micg ingested onnly two make it past the blood brain barrier and effect in the outer eight layers on the convoluted surface .
Also the eyes are a extension of the brain not an organ . So I am thinking after all the processing is done that I am in that outer layer . This is all speculation I have no education but I read a lot and widely so this may be wrong but not as wrong as the McKenner boys.
Water and chemical puddles, mobile, walking talking puddles, water and chemicals from stardust. That's what we are.
Miletus was right. Anaximander was right. There's obviously no nothings, and there's obviously something,. And what we are forced to experience are our talking walking puddles of chemicals that we are amidst all the non-water non life parts of what we experience.
That I am conscious is the only thing I can be certain of.
Consciousness is the constant noise felt by us moments after the electrical activity that takes place ceaselessly within the body.
I like the way Dennett keeps using the word "designed". Of course, he's totally oblivious that the word requires a Designer.
"The rods and cones are designed to….". There's the place to start. Designed. By whom?
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.
Does he ever answer the question? This sound like first rate gibberish to me.
The mind corresponds with a brain , but it is prinarily part of your soul, it is where you make decisions, and have volition.
Perhaps Brain can explain Mind, but not in this bearded embodiment!
Dennett actually seems like a cool guy but he bull shits on an even higher level than Deepak.
Rostral reticular tegmtal complex. Not pineal gland
Dennett is a joke.
Daniel Dennett is a first-class sophist and this is a perfect example. Absolute gibberish. He denies the existence of consciousness and the mind and calls them an illusion. If that is not insane, then I do not know what is. The difference between reality and illusion PRESUPPOSES consciousness and any sophomore will tell you that. This guy is just popular because he is one of those intellectually bankrupt New Atheist idiots that are all the rage these days.
Yes, the brain recognizes the source of all thoughts broadcasted by the total Mind/Time.
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