I am, therefore I think: Daniel Dennetts hard problem

[rug]

Words turned our brains into minds, and got us hung up on the ghost in the machine. But a new book isn't going to banish that spectre



by Julian Baggini
Published in April 2017 issue of Prospect Magazine

In the story of western modernity, science plays the role of both hero and villain—saviour and nemesis. The tension is captured in Charlie Chaplin’s classic speech at the end of The Great Dictator (1940). In one moment, Chaplin, at this point playing the Jewish barber not the Fascist leader, advocates “a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness”; in another, he laments that the “machinery that gives abundance has left us in want” and that cold reason has turned us into “machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.” Scientific demystification of the world is a double-edged sword. It enables us to practically achieve more but also risks turning us, in Richard Dawkins’s phrase, into mere “biological robots.”

Nowhere is the threat of science stealing our souls more feared than in the mental realm. No sensible person now doubts that the brain is the engine of consciousness. But if everything we think and do is the result of neurons firing, are we deluded to believe that our thoughts make any difference? In fact, a lot of research suggests that the conscious part of the brain is the last to know what we’re going to do. Could it be that conscious awareness is just an “epiphenomenon,” a kind of functionless noise produced by the whirring of the brain? If so, then as the philosopher Jerry Fodor puts it, “practically everything I believe about anything is false and it’s the end of the world.”

To see off this threat we need a way of understanding consciousness that preserves our humanity, while being fully compatible with our best science. The philosopher Daniel Dennett—a prominent New Atheist whose best-known book is Breaking the Spell—has for decades been trying to deliver on both counts.

But his critics claim he has failed. His major work Consciousness Explained (1991) was mockingly referred to as “Consciousness Ignored” or “Consciousness Explained Away.” Writing in the Times Literary Supplement, Galen Strawson famously said that Dennett should be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/i-am-therefore-i-think-daniel-dennetts-hard-problem

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/interview-daniel-dennett-philosophy-big-role-to-play-bacteria-to-bach-minds-descartes-cognitive-science



Allen Lane
Published 21st February 2017
496 Pages
162mm x 240mm x 42mm
791g
£25.00

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/253900/from-bacteria-to-bach-and-back/

[edhopper]

1. thanks

I really like Dennet.

A writer that makes the complex understandable.

[rug]

2. I like him too.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. What I didn't like about his "Consciousness Explained" was...

...to coin a metaphor, that he explained in great detail how the movie projector worked and then with a wave of his hand said "And therefore, the audience doesn't exist."

The problem simply goes away if we postulate that there are three fundamentals in nature:

1. Space-time
2. Mass-energy
3. Information-consciousness

All three being elemental. All three having existed since (or perhaps before) the big bang, and all three mutually dependent on the others. Thus an indeterminate state of quantum superposition collapses into "reality" only when observed. So what observed the early universe that made it real so as to evolve consciousness as something novel that didn't exist before? It's worse that the chicken and egg thing. Mass-energy only manifests concretely in space-time when interacting with information-consciousness. Any two without the third cannot exist in any meaningful, concrete, non-quantum way.

[uriel1972]

5. If you make intelligence/consciousness...

a fundamental of the universe... where is it?.... why can we not detect it?... how does it interact with matter and energy but not leave a trace of it's existence?

[Binkie The Clown]

6. Not Intelligence; Information.

Consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence. Consciousness has to do with information.

As for consciousness, close your eyes and think real hard. "Now where can I detect an instance of consciousness?"

You really think consciousness leaves no trace of its existence? You really think so? You really think you own instance of consciousness left no trace of its existence in space-time as mass-energy when you posted this? Hmmmm. Interesting.

But you have just disproven your own objection by allowing your own instance of consciousness to impact the world of space-time and mass-energy when you posted this. Your consciousness imprinted information on space-time and my consciousness detected that imprint. I'd call that a trace. Odd that you can't detect it when it's right there in front of your nose.

[uriel1972]

7. patterns of energy and matter...

There is no need for a third fundamental this intelligence and consciousness are nothing more than patterns of energy and matter...

[Binkie The Clown]

9. Patterns are not matter or energy. Patterns are not space or time.

"Patterns" are a third kind of thing. That thing is called "information", and is fundamental.

You can't simply turn a blind eye to something that exists, yet is not space, or time, or matter, or energy. And as soon as you say "consciousness is nothing more than..." you have done nothing more than try to "define it out of existence," which is what Dennett tried, and failed, to do. You haven't proven that consciousness arises from matter and energy, you have assumed that consciousness arises from matter and energy. To make that claim is an act of faith, not the result of any kind of logical reasoning.

The reason I cannot convince you, and that you cannot convince me is that we are starting from a different set of axioms. To you that consciousness arises from matter is an axiom, given a priori, without proof. To me, that consciousness is elemental is an axiom, given a priori, without proof. We cannot reason together when our axioms are incompatible.

You assume your axiom to be true, and, in fact, self evident, which is why you believe it without proof, and assume that anyone who does not share your axiom must certainly be wrong.

I assume my axiom to be true, and, in fact, self evident, which is why I believe it without proof, and assume that anyone who does not share my axiom must certainly be wrong.

Since an axiom, by definition, cannot be proven, and since we cannot follow the other's reasoning without shared axioms, it follows that we shall never agree on this subject.

[uriel1972]

10. Oh well...

when you can provide evidence come back to me.

[Binkie The Clown]

11. And...

When you can provide evidence come back to me.

But, there is no evidence for axioms. They are assumed, a priori. I cannot provide evidence for my axioms just as you cannot provide evidence for your axioms.

[uriel1972]

12. You are asking me to provide evidence for matter and energy...?

No I guess not, you are asking me to prove that some consciousness force does not exist, I suppose. After that I will prove the non-existence of the Aether and Phlostigen.

We have found evidence of matter and energy wherever we have looked from the ultra-micro to the uber-macro. What we have not found is any detectable "consciousness force".

You turn the light on in an empty room and look for the cat... there is no evidence for the existence of a cat in that room, then it is not unreasonable to assume there is no cat in that room.

I am asking you to provide some evidence for a cat in that room before I agree there is a cat in that room. So far all you have told me is that you believe a cat to be in that room and no matter how much logic I assail you with that you wont believe me when I say there is no evidence of a cat.

There is no evidence for a "consciousness force" outside of wishful thinking. There is no cat in the room. If that makes me "axiomatic" then so be it.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. He may not have, but you can.

You can damage matter in the human brain in a very small, subtle way, and render a person forever without consciousness even though their body continues to live.

Badly damage the dorsal side of the Pons portion of the brain stem, consciousness cannot and does not, at any level, form. The 'person' is rendered unconscious, likely permanently.

Damage the ventral side, leave the person 100% conscious, but completely paralyzed.



I agree with your point on information being fundamental. It can exist beyond 'us' as rationing reasoning animals. But it does need a substrate of physicality, even photons are 'physical' in a sense.

[Binkie The Clown]

14. And...

you can damage a TV set in very small ways and make all the television networks vanish.

But of course that's nonsense.

Again, you are assuming that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter and energy. Suppose, instead, that the human brain is able to host consciousness rather than originate it. Then your argument fails to hold water. Whether what you wish to "prove" is true, then, seems to depend on what initial axioms you assume to be true, without proof.

You assume that brains create consciousness that didn't exist before, and I assume that brains connect with, or host consciousness that was there all along. You can't prove your assumption and I can't prove mine. That's why they are called assumptions. The problem arises when people make assumptions without realizing that they are making assumptions. That blinds them to the fact that other assumptions are possible which lead to other conclusions.

Consider this section on axiomatic assumptions in the wikipedia article on the philosophy of science.

In fact, consider this whole article.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You can also alter a person, dramatically, without destroying them.

A personality can be radically changed by something such as, surviving a lightning strike. That is a meat based change. Physical damage causes radical alteration of the Person(tm).

The brain is part of the equation, brain, spinal column, and the nervous system throughout the body together give rise to Self.

We can test that by selectively turning parts of it off, with damage, or in actual diagnostic tests, with transcranial magnetic probes, etc.


It's not an assumption. It's every day lab work now.

[Binkie The Clown]

16. "Personality" is not "consciousness".

You can alter a brick's shape drastically by smashing it, but it's still matter. "Shape" is not "matter".

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I can alter a computer network by disconnecting various connections. Personality is not required,

but useful for illustrative purposes. Our brains are mostly just networks. Scorched carbon is less useful to contribute to self/consciousness than a living neuron, and represents dead connections. Many millions of them can die, and produce alterations in the consciousness without killing the organism.

The smashed brick isn't very useful as a brick anymore. Yes the matter exists, but the function and capacity of the matter has changed. Consciousness is an attribute of certain arrangements of matter. That's all.

[Binkie The Clown]

18. "Consciousness is an attribute of certain arrangements of matter." is and axiom,

assumed without proof.

Which is why I pointed out that we will never agree as long as we begin with incompatible axioms.

In a way it's like arguing with a Christian whose makes the assumption that the Bible is the literal word of God. When he backs up his conclusions by quoting the Bible, we just shrug and realize that he can never convince us because our axioms do not include that the Bible is God's word. We reject his assumption so we reject his conclusions.

You assume "Consciousness is an attribute of certain arrangements of matter." and I reject that assumption. Hence we will never agree. Until we can agree on a shared set of assumptions there is no point in continuing. To me, your reasoning is petitio principii, and to you , my reasoning is circulus in demonstrando. For both of us, the only recourse is either argumentum ad lapidem, or "argument from incredulity". Hence, I propose we drop the subject.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. We can break consciousness by re-arranging the matter for starters.

We can gauge it in other life forms. We can alter it with physical forces. We may have already fabricated artificial ones.

That's more than an axiom. Axioms can't be tested, by definition.

[Binkie The Clown]

20. Artificial Intelligence is not Artificial Consciousness.

You are conflating two very different things. If we cannot agree on the meaning of basic terms, we cannot agree on conclusions drawn from them.

From the very bottom of your heart you believe you are right. I understand that, because I feel it too. If I didn't feel I'm right I wouldn't be arguing my case, and if you didn't feel that you are right you wouldn't be arguing your case. This is because we have two different and incompatible underlying metaphysics. And there's a good chance we are both wrong. You are free to try to convince me, just as a fundamentalist is free to try to convince you and me of Biblical inerrancy. That doesn't mean either of us is likely to change our underlying assumptions and suddenly become fundamentalists. It ain't gonna happen. And it ain't gonna happen that you will convince me by arguing from premise X when I argue from premise not-X.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I did not conflate artificial intelligence and artifical consciouness.

There is actually a rather large body of work and debate about what would constitute artificial consciousness, and what qualifies and how will we know, etc.

You have brought up artificial intelligence, not me. 'artificial intelligence' like Siri, Cortana, Alexa, AskGoogle are little more than IF This Then That plus some algorithms, but not artificial consciousness. You conflated, not me.

[Binkie The Clown]

22. OK. Glad you clarified that. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. If the human brain hosts consciousness, in what other circumstances does consciousness exist?

Why does a brain host it, and not a kidney? Why does consciousness obey the rules of physics, following the brain on the Earth's surface as it rotates and orbits, and the human body moves around? Is there consciousness waiting in deep space for the right bit of matter to become its host?

[Jim__]

24. I agree that it can be both interesting and informative to postulate that consciousness is ...

... fundamental.

For instance, I believe Euclid’s fifth postulate taught us a lot about geometry, and even though it is not true of all geometries, it allowed us to gain a deeper understanding - I doubt we ever would have arrived at a Minkowski space-time without having first worked through a geometry based on something like Euclid’s fifth. Looking at consciousness from various perspectives may help us to find a more productive approach to understanding consciousness, and, of course, we may learn that it is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

I disagree that due to the postulate the problem simply goes away . For instance, if we accept that postulate, it can raise some ethical questions. If consciousness is fundamental, are broccoli stalks conscious in some way? Can they feel pain? When I throw a rock against a wall, do both the wall and the rock feel pain? If consciousness is fundamental, may that imply that we should live our lives differently than we do?

Also, I am not clear on what you mean by consciousness has to do with information. In post #20 you state that artificial intelligence isn’t consciousness, and I agree. But, I’m not sure how you view them as different. For instance, in a few years, if self-driving cars become generally available, and I get into my car and tell it to drive to the post office, the car will check on its current position, find the position of the nearest post office, then find the possible roads it can use to get there. It will access and process information. If I get in my car to drive to the post office today, I go through essentially the same process that the car will go through. I will also access and process information. Yet, I believe that I am conscious and self-driving cars will not be, and I think that you agree. Can you explain how consciousness has to do with information.

[Binkie The Clown]

25. Well,

since my theory is half-baked, and off the top of my head, I'm not really well prepared to explain anything other than that it's a fun idea to play around with.

However, if you google "brain as receiver of consciousness" you will get links to a lot of articles written by people smarter than me.

E.G:

https://www.quora.com/If-the-brain-is-like-a-radio-receiver-for-consciousness-then-what-is-the-antenna-what-transmits-the-signal-and-where-is-the-transmitter-how-does-it-work

http://gnosticwarrior.com/the-brain-is-more-of-a-receiver-of-consciousness.html

http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/weve-been-looking-for-consciousness-in-the-wrong-place

http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/269

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/one-page-proof-that-attributing-consciousness-to-the-brain-is-absurd/

And of course, the William James lecture of 1898 that may have been one of the first expositions of this hypothesis: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jimmortal.html

[Jim__]

4. I definitely agree with Baggini's conclusion.

Specifically:

… If Dennett finds it impossible to express an idea in such a way that he does not feel misunderstood, then something must be wrong with either his position or his explanation of it. If he is to win over his critics, Dennett’s own hard problem is his need to do more to show why others should give up theirs.

Also the argument that Baggini gives as Dennett’s favorite argument against qualia sounds more like confusion than an argument:

Dennett’s favourite argument against qualia takes as evidence what happens when we stare at an inverted blue, yellow and black version of the American flag, and it is replaced by a white screen. An after-image of the flag seems to appear in its red, white and blue version. But as Dennett says, “there are no red stripes on the page, on your retina, or in your brain. In fact, there is no red stripe anywhere.” There is no thing at all, which means there are no qualia.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. What a ridiculously melodramatic review. Ugh.