Maintaining a thesis at all costs

[atanu]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built. I felt like sharing my view. Most of the following is taken from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The two cores of Mr. Daniel Dennet's thesis are:

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

 

[Kemosloby]

See what happens to the brain on drugs?

 

[atanu]

See what happens to the brain on drugs?

More details please.

 

[Kemosloby]

More details please.

It sounds like he is travelling down the same road as Orwell, reality only exists in your mind. Then he took another puff.

 

[sayak83]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built. I felt like sharing my view. Most of the following is taken from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The two cores of Mr. Daniel Dennet's thesis are:

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

Never understood Dennet's stand on either free will or consciousness.

 

[Kapalika]

I kinda get where he's coming from, but I think it's pretty clear that there is an external world we are (alibet imperfectly) perceiving through stimuli so I don't agree with the idea that everything is just all in the mind which appears to be the implication.

The apple doesn't exist because it's a subjective division of energy and interactions, not because there isn't a blob of energy and interactions there in the first place, part of an indivisible whole that we might call the Universe.

It's kind of really hard to go through life, not making up, dividing and naming things like this. Thus even someone who knows an apple is a conceptual tool will still call it an apple. Because how else do we communicate what localized bits of energy and interactions we are talking about? Language is inherently dualistic like our minds. Trying to describe a nondual world. That's what it ultimately comes down to.

 

[atanu]

It sounds like he is travelling down the same road as Orwell, reality only exists in your mind. Then he took another puff.

See, I have not much difficulty in intuiting that the world is representational.

But then Dennet seems to go the opposite way in order to anyhow cling to so called naturalism.

If the world and the self are representations then how the physical brain and it’s so called structures are not?

 

[shunyadragon]

It sounds like he is travelling down the same road as Orwell, reality only exists in your mind. Then he took another puff.

I have read Dennett's works, and no this is not remotely a reflection of Dennett's view.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The article says "One of Dennett’s most important claims is that most of what we and our fellow organisms do to stay alive, cope with the world and one another, and reproduce is not understood by us or them. It is competence without comprehension...."

It says that Dennett explains 'thought' is something that has evolved in animals unconsciously but eventually has given the appearance of consciousness. Apparently this author enjoys pointing out all of the high functioning mental processes that are unconscious upon which our apparent conscious minds float like barges on a sea.

Theory of mind - Wikipedia mentions that Dennet defines the phrase 'Intentional Stance' to mean "an understanding that others' actions are goal-directed and arise from particular beliefs or desires." For example if you trip someone they interpret whether you are accidentally tripping them or are purposely doing so. A parent must attempt to determine what their child is thinking. It seems that Theory of Mind is a psychological realm that studies behavior of children both normal and with diagnosed problems in an attempt to determine any precursors of thought. Dennett is interested in this kind of research.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know this may not be your intent of the opening line 'maintaining a thesis at all costs' but . . .

The 'maintaining a thesis at all costs' is indeed a problem of believers of many religions and belief systems in history. From Dennett's perspective of 'What is the Nature of human will?'. He proposes a compatabilist view of limited free will. The limitations on human expression of their will in terms of 'determinism' range from the obvious to subtle, and reasons that most people maintain an ancient world view of their belief system (thesis) involves many subtle restraints such as the desire for a sense of community, and peer and cultural influences that limit their choices.

The concept that 'intelligence evolved naturally' is a sound part of his thesis.

I like Dennett, though I do not necessarily always agree with him.

 

[David T]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built. I felt like sharing my view. Most of the following is taken from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The two cores of Mr. Daniel Dennet's thesis are:

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

The main problem with denett is everything.. His strong tendency to start with a conclusion to arrive at theory is just backwards bad science and pure quackery and very freudian BTW. He is a mechanical reductionist. He starts with a book, writes a book and projects the book about a book onto the topic consciousness. It's total nonsense. I dare say I have never caught a single breath of nature in a single sentence dennett has ever written. Dead is all dennett writes. If you are drawn to dead listless pointless abstractionism I suppose he is fantastic. Personally I prefer the wilderness, forests ocean first person, seems more honest and is way more real than denetts junk.

.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

I'm going to speak in the logic of poetry. That earns extra bonus points in eastern philosophy, for some reason, and maybe bonus points in this discussion.

Imagine a tree. We can look at the roots structure, the tubes leading from it's trunk upward to the leaves, then unfurling into the sky as it takes in the sunlight. We can easily look at all the processes of the tree, and claim understanding for how a tree works.

However, the field of study we call
Study of the Tree, must necessarily branch into other fields for us to get the complete picture.

We must look to the soil. . . It's composition and structure. The roots of understanding come from other disciplines. The nutrients the tree uses, the foundations on which it is built.

We must look to the sky. . . It's composition, the implications for the life around it as the tree breathes, taking in substance and breathing it out.

We must look to the forest. . . The trees around our tree. How do they interact with one another? How far spaced are they? Why such a density or variety? We must see the tree in its space ralated to other trees, and how that tree is affected, and affects, those around it.

We must look to the sun, we must look to the seeds, we must look to the life that lives on it's bark, we must look to live that eats its fruits . . . It goes on and on.

So. . . yeah. Anyway. . .

When I hear a pejorative characterization of everything in scientific inquiry as being reduced to "quarks, molecules, etc", I know that the speaker is only choosing to look at the Study of the Tree. There are scientific disciplines that range all throughout the soil, sky, and social world that affect the tree as well, such as the sweep of anthropological history, the nature of psychology, the interactions of human relationships and sociology, the nature of our body's biological needs (necessary interactions with the environment necessary to get food, water, and shelter). Neroscience is another one. It all contributes to The Study of the Tree.

If the speaker fails to account for all of this in their assessment of scientific inquiry's understanding of consciousness, then the speaker has failed to consider the myriad variables that make up the tree. On its own, The Study of the Tree looks sparse, and unfulfilling. Why wouldn't it?

Finally, there is a bright ray of hope. We'll call it (*sigh*) the Mystery of the Tree. Every single discipline I mentioned is incomplete, our understanding of soil, sun, forest, etc., and how they each contribute to the Study of the Tree is incomplete.

Our ability to engage in the Study of the Tree is in its woeful infancy. . . There is so, so much for us to learn, and that is exciting. I can understand why some, who are married to the idea that The Study of the Tree is pointless, only because:

1. we already know everything there is to know about the tree, so further Study is pointless.

2. decided that we just need to intensely look at the tree to admire its beauty, exclusive of understanding it.

3 claim that we have to burn down the tree all together so the tree can be one with the ashes of the universe.

I feel these stances are missing out on the delights of the Tree itself, and the far reaching complexities that are present in the true Study of the Tree and its associated factors.

PS. I tried with the metaphor. Any bonus points I accrued from those who think metaphor is appropriate for this kind of discussion. . . are donated to the further Study of the Tree.

 

[sayak83]

See, I have not much difficulty in intuiting that the world is representational.

But then Dennet seems to go the opposite way in order to anyhow cling to so called naturalism.

If the world and the self are representations then how the physical brain and it’s so called structures are not?

I don't thing that's the main problem. Physicalism can maintain that actual physical entities can never be directly observed but only indirectly inferred through analysis of conscious experiences, whether first person or third person manner. These conscious state themselves are also, in their turn, representations of the underlying and ultimately inaccessible physical substrate we label as the "brain". In this view, both the first person experience of the mind from inside and the third person sense based observation of neural states through science instruments are two distinct representation of the same underlying physical substrate which they label as the brain states. We essentially are and living in a top layer world of representations which is generated by an invisible but inferable bottom layer world of physical entities that generate these representations out of their mutual causal interactions, and one of them is us.

This is akin to a physicalist version of Sankaracharya's monism overlaid by a world of Maya representations.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
But then Dennet seems to go the opposite way in order to anyhow cling to so called naturalism.

Careful methodological naturalism, which Dennett's thesis is based on has the stronger explanatory power than the alternatives.

 

[idav]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built. I felt like sharing my view. Most of the following is taken from:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The two cores of Mr. Daniel Dennet's thesis are:

1. The first core is the hypothesis that intelligence evolved naturally. Dennett himself identifies two unsolved problems along this path: the origin of life at its beginning and the origin of human culture recently. But he uses this unsubstantiated hypothesis for developing the whole philosophy.

2. The second core is use of philosopher Wilfrid Sellars idea of the “manifest image” and the “scientific image”—two ways of seeing the world we live in. According to the manifest image, Dennett writes, the world is

“…..full of other people, plants, and animals, furniture and houses and cars…and colors and rainbows and sunsets, and voices and haircuts, and home runs and dollars, and problems and opportunities and mistakes, among many other such things. These are the myriad “things” that are easy for us to recognize, point to, love or hate, and, in many cases, manipulate or even create…. It’s the world according to us.”​

According to the scientific image, on the other hand, the world is

“… populated with molecules, atoms, electrons, gravity, quarks, and who knows what else (dark energy, strings? branes?).”​

This, according to Dennett, is the world as it is in itself.

In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.
...........

So, according to Dennet, the apple you see is representation of neural machinery. But what is the Neural Machinery? Of what is Neural machinery the representation of? What is the brain? That is not a representation?

Discuss please.

I don't agree completely with Dennet, I do think everything can be boiled down to be useful information for a creature, but to me everything is inherently objective not subjective. Dennet would try to point to "limited" perceptions being the problem but limited doesn't mean false.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I find many posters in this forum aligned to what Dennet et al offer us as their conclusions. I however, think that many of these esteemed members have not examined the basic tenets on which the conclusions are built.
....
In keeping with his general view of the manifest image, Dennett holds that consciousness is not part of reality in the way the brain is. Rather, it is a particularly salient and convincing user-illusion. He concludes that nothing whatever is revealed to the first-person point of view but a “version” of the neural machinery.

So, when one looks at an apple, it may seem that there is a red fruit in the subjective visual field, but that is an illusion: the only reality, of which this is “an interpreted, digested version,” is that a physical process one can’t describe, occurring in the visual cortex.

Dennet is not the basis but Buddhism. What Dennet says is not the basis but Buddhism, while the basis for believing on consciousness is Hinduism. This conversation continues the (ancient) clash between Buddhists and various Hindu views. Buddhism is based upon non-existence, Hinduism mostly upon existence. I agree that Dennet is dressing up his Buddhist view (probably obtained reading something in the bathtub) as a Scientific one and in doing so it using the conclusion of Buddha to explain the ongoing research of the Theory of Mind that is incomplete. It doesn't overturn the Buddhist point of view. I don't know but are there users quoting Dennet a lot?

Here's the result of a search for threads that mention Dennet:
Xeper(Kheper)
The "hard problem" of consciousness
Disappointed by the God Delusion
Atheistic Evangelism: What Atheists share with the Religious
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
The four atheist horsemen - your favourites?
daniel dennett on God
children and operant conditioning

 

[atanu]

I don't thing that's the main problem. Physicalism can maintain that actual physical entities can never be directly observed but only indirectly inferred through analysis of conscious experiences, whether first person or third person manner. These conscious state themselves are also, in their turn, representations of the underlying and ultimately inaccessible physical substrate we label as the "brain".

I understand what you are saying. That does not, however, explain why an unconscious process empowers Dennet with objective intelligence.

We can show formation of many natural products in laboratory. Let anyone show creation of consciousness and intelligence in laboratory.

This is akin to a physicalist version of Sankaracharya's monism overlaid by a world of Maya representations.

Sorry. Similar, but just the reverse. For Shankarharya, the Universe, Jagat is mAyA, that is built upon a real consciousness.

 

[atanu]

Dennet is not the basis but Buddhism. What Dennet says is not the basis but Buddhism, while the basis for believing on consciousness is Hinduism. This conversation continues the (ancient) clash between Buddhists and various Hindu views. Buddhism is based upon non-existence, Hinduism mostly upon existence. I agree that Dennet is dressing up his Buddhist view (probably obtained reading something in the bathtub) as a Scientific one and in doing so it using the conclusion of Buddha to explain the ongoing research of the Theory of Mind that is incomplete. It doesn't overturn the Buddhist point of view. I don't know but are there users quoting Dennet a lot?

Here's the result of a search for threads that mention Dennet:
Xeper(Kheper)
The "hard problem" of consciousness
Disappointed by the God Delusion
Atheistic Evangelism: What Atheists share with the Religious
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
The four atheist horsemen - your favourites?
daniel dennett on God
children and operant conditioning

Actually. Nirvana is defined as the uncaused, unborn, unformed which enables discernment of liberation from shackles of Samsara. Discernment is unborn quality of reality in Buddhism too. What comes up due to various kinds of desires is Vijnana (Consciousness derived of subject-object duality).

This is a separate subject, however, and may be taken up separately, if needed.

 

[atanu]

I know this may not be your intent of the opening line 'maintaining a thesis at all costs' but . . .

The 'maintaining a thesis at all costs' is indeed a problem of believers of many religions and belief systems in history. From Dennett's perspective of 'What is the Nature of human will?'. He proposes a compatabilist view of limited free will. The limitations on human expression of their will in terms of 'determinism' range from the obvious to subtle, and reasons that most people maintain an ancient world view of their belief system (thesis) involves many subtle restraints such as the desire for a sense of community, and peer and cultural influences that limit their choices.

The concept that 'intelligence evolved naturally' is a sound part of his thesis.

I like Dennett, though I do not necessarily always agree with him.

As explained in the OP, I find it impossible that, as per Dennet, the world is representational, but the brain and its states are not so. And why Dennet's intelligence is free to be objective and unravel the truth of brain, which at first place should be just a representational object -- illusion.

The concept that 'intelligence evolved naturally' is a sound part of his thesis.

That is the fundamental hypothesis on which the whole view rests. Dennet acknowledges it as an hypothesis. But enthusiasts take it as a proven thing.

The consciousness is given. Even to claim that consciousness is illusion, consciousness is required.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually. Nirvana is defined as the uncaused, unborn, unformed which enables discernment of liberation from shackles of Samsara. Discernment is unborn quality of reality in Buddhism too. What comes up due to various kinds of desires is Vijnana (Consciousness derived of subject-object duality).

This is a separate subject, however, and may be taken up separately, if needed.

I will not further derail, but seems to be a factor of many religious disagreements. When people disagree over the nature of souls or of existence or anything like that it seems to come up. The one person will say that thinking is the result of a process, and the other will say no. Its all over this forum. Naturally the support of Science and its reputation is sought by all concerned.