Philosopher: human consciousness and free will are the result of "physical processes"

[Kire]

Speakers Dan Dennett: Philosopher, cognitive scientist

Philosopher and scientist Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes and are not what we traditionally think they are. His 2003 book Freedom Evolves explores the way our brains have evolved to give us -- and only us -- the kind of freedom that matters, while 2006's Breaking the Spell examines religious belief through the lens of biology.

Why you should listen to him:

One of our most important living philosophers, Dan Dennett is best known for his provocative and controversial arguments that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes in the brain. He argues that the brain’s computational circuitry fools us into thinking we know more than we do, and that what we call consciousness — isn’t.

This mind-shifting perspective on the mind itself has distinguished Dennett’s career as a philosopher and cognitive scientist. And while the philosophy community has never quite known what to make of Dennett (he defies easy categorization, and refuses to affiliate himself with accepted schools of thought), his computational approach to understanding the brain has made him, as Edge’s John Brockman writes, “the philosopher of choice of the AI community.”

More: http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/dan_dennett.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. Consciousness is a fly on the ass of an ox,

taking credit for plowing the field.

[opihimoimoi]

2. The Human Mind has evolved to the point of Conciousness?

But of course...we have learned throughout time from others before us and add our intuitions/experiences to the canvas of Life.

Art is an expression of conciousness? of course it is...David Susuki of TV Fame once said PREDICTION and CONTROL...if we can predict, we can control...

If we can visualize/imagine the abstract....this should be a part of SOLVING...INTJ and ENFS types like to solve...

Its some thoughts that occur to me when stoned

Conciousness Solves...answers...heals...teaches ....shares...bonds...Altruism is possible.....usually on Level 3

[cosmik debris]

3. "free will" is a meaningless term to me.

It implies that there is some "will" that is not "free".

I've never heard a compelling case for "non-free will".

[HamdenRice]

5. Obviously your knowledge of psychology

is at a base level of zero. If you had just a little knowledge of psychology, you would be aware of disorders in which a person cannot completely control their actions.

These disorders are windows on human behavior, which show that most people are subject to some constraints on their "free will."

No one who has had at a college level course in psychology would agree with you.

[cosmik debris]

6. At first I thought you were stalking me

Now I realize that you are just desperately lonely because no one wants to play with you.

[HamdenRice]

8. Pot ... kettle ... black

Really, why don't you just put me on ignore if you can't help following me around DU?

I would much rather we have absolutely nothing to do with each other because I have never once read anything of any interest whatsoever that you have posted. Your posts are a waste of valuable electrons, and of my time.

If you never, ever respond to any of my posts, I will never respond to yours.

Can you accept that? Or will you continue to spam my threads with your utterly useless nonsensical non sequiturs?

[cosmik debris]

9. Blame others--your Standard Operating Procedure.

You're like a little child who misbehaves to get his parents attention.

A bully never has friends. That's why no one wants to play with you.

[HamdenRice]

10. I challenge you once again: le't completely ignore each other, not respond to each other

I have no interest whatsoever in interacting with you in any way. At the top of this subthread, you accuse me of stalking you. If you feel that way, then the best solution is for us to not respond at all to each other's posts.

This is a direct question and challenge.

You should answer the question.

Others are reading this, and will make certain conclusions about who is stalking whom based on your answer.

I am perfectly happy to put you on ignore or simply ignore you forever, because you have nothing useful or interesting to say -- ever. You would have to stop spamming my threads, however, which seems to be something you don't want to do.

[cosmik debris]

11. A Bully never has friends.

You don't need my permission to put me on ignore.

[HamdenRice]

12. But I want you to ignore me in return

I don't want you spamming my threads or interacting with me in any way.

Why is it that I'd be thrilled to have nothing to do with you, and would gladly make the commitment never to interact with you, but you cannot make the same commitment in return?

[cosmik debris]

14. You can't always get what you want.

And that certainly sounds like a plea for mercy from a person who insults me with most every response.

[HamdenRice]

23. Plea for mercy?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No, it's an exposure of your hypocrisy.

Also see post 5. You are once again demonstrating you know little about psychology -- even your own! You seem to be showing you cannot actually use your free will to choose not to interact with me.

I'm irrestistable to you!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

26. All that alpha male chest pounding means nothing here.

You stalk me from one forum to another and then say that you're irresistible to me?

You attack me without provocation and then say that I spamm YOUR sub threads?

I believe the phrase I'm looking for here is

Blame others. That's your SOP.

[trotsky]

17. "Why is it that I'd be thrilled to have nothing to do with you"

LMAO

The evidence is plain to see - YOU responded to HIM first. Too freaking funny.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

19. But he thinks I'm spamming HIS thread??? n/t

[Kire]

21. he's free to think that

if he wasn't, then that might contribute to the topic, as well

[cosmik debris]

35. So, let's break this down.

According to HR's example, people with some mental disorders have no free will.

He finds it impossible to refrain from responding to my post, thus indicating that he has lost his free will.

Thus by his own example ...




(Of course, the example is flawed. It is not correct to say that neurotics and psychotics have lost their free will when in fact, they have lost their sanity.)

[heidler1]

22. But, but, but, you were the first responder?

How can you pretend otherwise?

[HamdenRice]

24. Unfortunately there is a long history

of cd spamming my threads and sub threads.

[varkam]

34. "Others are reading this, and will make certain conclusions about who is stalking whom..."

Hmm..it's a shame that there's not a record of who responded to whom on these interweb thingies...

Oh, wait a minute.

[rock]

4. Consciousness is an illusion

according to Dennett. I just haven't been able to figure out who it's an illusion to.

[HamdenRice]

7. I think of consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain

Long ago I took a great course in physiological psychology -- exactly this issue of how psychology is related to brain structure.

Interestingly, the professor who had studied the issue his entire life had come to a philosophical conclusion -- that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain structure and physical function, but that we would never be able to say a particular processes causes a particular conscious thought.

We can correlate brain function and structure with consciousness; but we can't show how one causes the other, nor which causes which.

Ironically, this view is different and almost opposite from the school of philosophy of mind called "epiphenomenalism."

[Az]

13. The more we find out about the brain

the more we find that freewill is just an illusion created by the brain. More and more we find that decisions are made long before we begin to be consciously aware of making the decision. The ideas that we latch onto bubble up from our subconscious and present us with the sense of coming to a decision.

This does not let us off the hook though. Although we may be piercing the notion of mind, consciousness, and freewill in the lab we will never be able to pierce it on a personal level. And thus we must always live life as though we do have freewill and as though the decisions we make have consequence. For we can never pierce the veil of the illusion as we are a product of that illusion. And as Godel suggested a thing can never truly no itself.

[Jim__]

15. I agree with Dennett that human consciousness is the result of physical processes.

And I watched his video on consciousness.

The best book I have ever read on consciouness is Gerald Edelman's The Remembered Present. Edelman is a doctor and the founder of the Neurosciences Institute. In this book, he describes the physical structures in the brain that account for consciousness. Having read that book, none of the things in Dennett's video were particularly surprising or inexplicable to me.

I think science has moved past philosophy in this field.

[On the Road]

16. Anyone Familiar with the Split Brain Experiments

has to conclude that conciousness is a function of the physical brain. Beyond that, the existence of self-awareness is fundamentally a mystery.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Thanks, Dan. You're only 150 years late to the party there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

[struggle4progress]

20. Philosophy accomplishes nothing whatsoever in this regard

Science, by definition, begins and ends in the effort to understand physical processes, quantitatively and precisely

So a scientific investigation of "consciousness" can only be undertaken, under the general hypothesis that "consciousness" is produced by physical processes: if a scientific understanding of "consciousness" is indeed possible, that understanding will be in terms of physical processes. But such vague philosophical comments must not be confused with scientific inquiry. A scientific argument for the physical basis of "consciousness" might be (for example) a quantitative theory relating "consciousness" to certain physical processes, together with the design and construction of a physical process exhibiting "consciousness", to experimentally demonstrate the correctness of the theory

An excellent scientist will produce both the physical theory and the supporting laboratory data. A good theoretician will produce a theory adequate to indicate what laboratory experiments should be done. A good experimentalist will do the most careful practical study possible, indicating what the results teach us about the strengths and weaknesses of the current theory

But whatever involves only vague niceties, advancing neither the theoretical nor the experimental work, is speculative philosophical bullshit

[BlooInBloo]

25. HAHAHA!!!! Way to pick the most uncontroversial thing he's ever said!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea was excellent, but his best piece imo is Real Patterns - a small essay from about 20 years ago (JPHil, iirc).

A person to listen and talk to, as well.

Shoulda stuck closer to Rorty imo, but then, I think *everybody* shoulda stuck closer to Rorty - even Brandom. :rofl:

[Odin2005]

28. Rorty sucks.

Rorty's Neo-Pragmatism and his ass-kissing of the Postmodernist morons are things I strongly disagree with.

[BlooInBloo]

29. No, *you* suck.

[knitter4democracy]

31. Real patterns? Like, for mittens?

;)

[Odin2005]

27. Cartesian Dualism has become intellectually bankrupt, thank goodness.

Sadly too many people still dogmatically assert dualism and use BS arguments like "philosophical zombies," "Chinese Rooms" and similar nonsense based on biased and fallacious assumptions that lead to a desired dualistic conclusion for religious or ideological reasons.

I agree very much with Dennett's definition of consciousness as a "narrative center of gravity"

[Jim__]

30. The Chinese Room is neither nonsense nor Cartesian dualism.

I've disagreed with Searle's conclusions about the Chinese room since the first time I encountered it. However, it is an extremely rich model to use for thinking about intelligence and consciousness, and has been for almost 30 years.

[Odin2005]

33. I thought Dennett ripped it appart in "Consciousness Explained"?

*Odin starts paging through his copy of the book...*

[knitter4democracy]

32. Why only us?

How can we be sure that there isn't a single other living being on this planet with consciousness? Squids have amazing nerve patterns and seem to communicate with each other, and dolphins seem to communicate and respond by anticipating another's actions and so on. Awfully human-centric to say only we have consciousness.

As for the process being physical, um, yeah, it is. What else could it be? Extra-physical? We live in these bodies.