Consciousness Explained

very interesting but kind of a bait-and-switch 2010-01-25

Reviewer: Aristo

Steven Pinker, in "How the Mind Works", criticizes certain unnamed theorists for announcing that they have solved the hard problems of consciousness, when they really have only solved the relatively simple ones. I don't know if Pinker had Dennett in mind, but to me that definitely applies here.

Dennett is convincing when it comes to the relatively simple questions (e.g., how to get around Cartesian dualism), but when it comes to the hard questions, he proposes what I think are non-answers (for reasons that would take me much too long to explain here). He also seems to latch onto provocative ideas without adequately showing that they are supported by logic or evidence - the theories of Julian Jaynes, for instance.

Nonetheless, the ideas are indeed provocative, and Dennett is an entertaining writer for a philosopher. His views are far from universally shared, so be sure to read this alongside other works - John Searle is one strident critic - and judge for yourself whether Dennett has succeeded or not.

Welcome to a rollercoaster ride into the convolutions of your brain 2009-11-15

Reviewer: A. Panda

If you like philosophy, then this book is excellent (five stars); I am sure that Mr. Dennett's thinking is a milestone in the philosophy of mind and that we can probably talk about "before and after Dennett". However, since Amazon established the ranking not in terms of the quality of a book but in terms of liking it or not, I must give it three stars. The book is an attempt to explain what we perceive as "consciousness", without acknowledging its existence or even while claiming there is nothing as such. So it's a rollercoaster ride into the convolutions of your brain or more like a "slalom" in order to avoid several obstacles on the way. I must say that I could follow most of the reasoning, which is not usually the case with other philosophical writings. However, this does not make the multilayered "I believe that I believe that I believe...that I am hungry" any more enjoyable for me.

I will borrow from the author his explanation of this book's purpose: "...as a philosopher I am concerned to establish the possibilities (and rebut claims of impossibility)," so "I will settle for theory sketches instead of full-blown empirically confirmed theories", "my model may well be incorrect in many of its details", but "it is a possible explanation of a phenomenon". He supports his theory mainly with examples from AI and a few from neuroscience.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Dennett does not think HE thinks. The emphasis in HE is to point out that when you question thinking - or consciousness - as such, you also question the subject who thinks as an entity (as in Descartes' "I think therefore I am"). This is precisely what Mr. Dennett claims throughout the book, that consciousness and the perception of a "unified self" are illusions or what he calls "writers' fictions" that arise from the workings of our brains. There is no "Mr. Dennett" to propose his "non-rebutted" theory. It's just his brain's myriad of mechanisms (call them homunculi, pandemonium or whatever) performing extremely complex operations both simultaneously and sequentially, which in the end assemble and express a possible theory, in an almost logically flawless 500 page book. I obviously do not need to mention that it was nobody's "intention" to write such a book. The mechanisms, their genetic arrangement as well as the multiple experiences that shaped and re-shaped his neurons' connections expressed a book. Or maybe, as the author hints, the ideas contained in the book (memes) got themselves expressed, since words want to get themselves said. Is this a possible explanation of the phenomenon in question...? Is Mr. Dennett suggesting that ideas are like viruses that selfishy use our brains for replicating themselves or maybe it's like a symbiosis in which those ideas that help humans are the ones that get replicated?

For more on consciousness try The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, which is not so counterintuitive and in my opinion seems to reflect better what we experience as consciousness in our daily lives. Although based on the same basic premises I found it far more enjoyable. Read also Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind which hints at the consciousness problem from different angles by explaining some neurological disorders or brain lesions.

When we think of a living organism we do not think of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. with a complex but specific structure, organization and interactions (mechanisms). We think of what "emerges" out of those mechanisms, namely entropy reduction, self-building and replicating activities, etc. (Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics explains "emergence", complex adaptive systems and entropy reduction really well, Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell describes astonishing structures and properties that define life itself in a way that will change how you think of it, whereas Tree of Knowledge analyses the "self-building" processes of life.) Even when we mix flour, butter, milk, sugar, baking powder, etc. and bake them, we perceive the outcome as a different entity with individual properties worthy enough of an independent definition: cake. Cakes and living organisms are not illusions that "appear to us" or "seem" to be different from what conforms or generates them (ingredients, structures, interactions, etc). What is the problem of considering a complex system and its "emerging" properties as different from one another? A: "Dualism of course! The system and its properties are one and the same, as in the brain/mind problem." B: "But they ARE different, on one side are its physical components on the other side are its emerging properties" and on and on...

Maybe when neuroscientists explore the brain more deeply, they will find that neurons are interconnected forming a kind of "Moebius strip", so when somebody starts defending monism he/she always ends up on the other side, making a point for dualism and the other way around. What surprises me is that after more than 2000 years of philosophizing, people have not given up the debate. (Feb 13th, 2010: "Ooops, this meme was already expressed"; for more read my review of Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition).

In the end, what I do not really like about philosophy is that once you start, it is almost impossible to make it concise. Look at this review!!! Sorry for that, but I am not the exception.

Too discursive by far 2009-10-22

Reviewer: Stephen B. Gray

I'm submitting this review even though I read only about 25% of the book. I found after that much that his style suffers from the "philosopher's disease," which is to take 1000 words to explain what could be said in 200. Really, the explanations are 5 times too long! Most philosophers seem to think that extending the writing makes the point clearer, but in Dennett's case it just confuses the point. I got so tired of reading about the jumping dot phenomenon that I stopped even before I was sure I understood it. Like many well-known authors, he desperately needs a ruthless editor.

I am very critical about writing, length, clarity, etc. Just read my review of "A New Kind of Science," which I titled "A New Kind of Goat Food," which title describes the best use the book could be put to.

Philadelphia Lawyer... 2009-08-04

Reviewer: Broadmeadow

I've tried to read this book a number of times but find Dennett both unfocused and infuriating.

He uses the terms "Stalinesque" and "Orwellian" for views of processing consciousness which do not agree with his own. He writes of Mother Nature at some points as if he understands it as a simple metaphor but other times seems to be positively captivated by her charm and beauty; as if she really sits knitting the designs of the world.

Dennett also doesn't seem to miss the opportunity to follow any segue, irrelevance, or story to the detriment of the point being made.

This isn't even a quibble with his point of view. It's his inability to clearly write about the topic that makes the book not worth your time.

Rambling attempt at presenting the "consciousness is software on the brain's hardware" theory 2009-07-15

Reviewer: Dinsdale

While the book attempts to be something dramatic and important, it's presentation kills any attempt at success. As other reviewers have said, Dennet explains everything but consciousness. While a good bon mot, it is not quite true. He does try to explain consciousness as the software running on the hardware of the brain, but just does so in a poorly-structured way. It's as if he purposely tries to use an unconscious explanation of consciousness - to what end I have no idea.

What Dennet really explains is human sense perception. While this is an important part of what it means to be human, it is not the whole enchilada. Sense perception is automatically performed by the brain. Except when we are babies or are damaged, we don't receive sensory data directly - the brain creates perceptions of entities. This is what Dennet tries to label the "multiple drafts" theory.

Consciousness is more than perception, beyond the automatic responses we commonly term "unconscious" thinking. We must choose to conceptualize about the perceptions our brains create. This is a volitional act - it is not automatic. Dennet never even mentions volition, sticking to his behavioralist background.

In the end I found the book a quick read and somewhat interesting, but hardly "consciousness explained."