Rating: 
Summary: Looking in the wrong place
Review: It is scary to see some people relying on arguments from fundamentalists like Michael Behe whose conclusions are not only flawed but have nothing to do with consciousness at all. Likewise it is scary to see some people relying on arguments from fundamentalists (of the opposite extreme) like Daniel Dennet whose beliefs contradict the spiritual depths of reality. The self aware universe and the depth of Being clearly transcend spiritless matter and so contradicts Dennet's argument that our universe is spiritually "dead". All of life is spiritual and therefore all of life's problems are spiritually based - and spiritually solved. Which side is more in touch with the deeper nature of consciousness and the ultimate issues of Being? I believe Daniel Dennet has his ladder completely against the wrong wall.
Rating: 
Summary: The wrestlings of a theist
Review: Wow ! What a fabulous book about the inner workings of the human mind. Only trouble is, Dennett ties himself in knots because he thinks that matter is all there is in the universe and denying the undisputed fact with lots of documented proof that there is more to life than just matter. We have love, awareness an appreciation of intrinsic value and a deep and profound capacity to communicate with our Creator. How can anyone seriously deny this ? ; after all we're snowed under with proof of this undeniable fact !The works of Behe, who has performed lots of experiments to prove his Intellgient Design hypothesis beyond dispute support this, as does the philosophy of Keith Ward who shows that God must exist because he can certainly imagine Him doing so. Against this avalanche of proof of a loving Creator what can people like Dennett offer ? An explanation of how awareness might arise out of natural phenomena with no divine intervention. Waht consolation is that ? Under his hypothesis we're no more than fantastically clever monkeys !! I suggest Dennett actually study some science before he offers his half-baked theories. Oh the lengths that materialists have to go to to make their theories fit the facts, it would be laughable were it not so sad. Not so the theist whose beliefs fit hand-in-glove with everything we can observe about the world, after we prune out everything that does not and is therefore quite obviously wrong. Now there's a thing.
Rating: 
Summary: Anaesthetics
Review: That's it. That's all you need to know. Anaesthetics. They turn off your consciousness you know. Just like that. We don't know how but they do. Your body still functions but you are not conscious. So if your soul can be switched off by a chemical then I think it's safe to say your soul is entirely material and from what we know it seems to arise when there is a certain amount of electrochemical activity in the brain. Drop below that level and your soul (consciousness, call it what you will) switches off. Dennett knows what it's all about. Wow, God defeated by chloroform. Isn't that something ?
Rating: 
Summary: The wrestlings of a materialist
Review: In this book, Dennet mixes up the word "description" with "explanation". It soon becomes apparent that Dennet's wrestling with consciousness is a process of the author shooting himself in the foot. The self-aware experiences of human beings actually refutes materialism, because our awareness and feelings are experienced by a self-aware 'subject' which transcends inanimate matter. Dennet, and other materialists, have so much trouble tackling consciousness, because they explicitly deny the existence of the soul, even though these books are really describing the soul. What, within human beings, ultimately possesses understanding, responsibility and conscience? What is it that pursues truth, beauty and goodness? What experiences and appreciates life and creation? What sees and understands the thoughts, memories and mental events of your mind? What, within human beings, is ultimately being? The soul is being, and our mind and body are the tools of the soul. Dennet's materialistic perspective lacks depth, and it denies reality. In his other book, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', Dennet says, "Science has won, religion has lost." Dennet may need to eat his words, because in principle, science cannot provide final answers regarding the nature of the Infinite, and scientists can only explore the cosmos and pheneomena such as consciousness, rather than explain it. Indeed, consciousness itself reveals an invisible reality which exhibits the exact opposite of 'impersonal laws', and renders suspect the belief that we exist by accident. We all know that death is an absolute certainty for us all. It is one appointment nobody can dodge. So when you die, what happens to 'you'? What happens to that force of consciousness and what happens to your 'being' itself? Do you switch off? ... Or do you go somewhere?
Rating: 
Summary: Another Reductionist Hairsplitter
Review: Ok, so when is he going to explain just why I experience these various brain processes as having "qualia". Why do I smell a rose? See a train. Yes, these are occasioned by chemical and electrical changes in the neurocircuitry...However, this does not explain why I experience a world that has qualities. Yawn, TSEAY
Rating:
Summary: Read this book!
Review: Here's why you should read this book whether you're sympathetic to materialist theories of mind or not: 1. It's still the best summary of recent work in philosophy of mind, neurophysiology, Artificial intelligence, and psychology, and how they come together to offer a new picture of mind. 2. It's the best critique of Cartesian assumptions ever made. 3. Whether you agree with him or not, Dennett is the most intellectually exciting philosophical writer around. His mastery of compelling thought experiments and "intuition pumps," his wit and his verbal ingenuity make reading Dennett a treat, and he's at the very top of his form here. And besides, you'll learn what's wrong with Searle.
Rating:
Summary: Is consciousness "special"?
Review: Whether consciousness is "special" or not is a question that cannot be answered within the realms of science. Only a personal belief-system can answer this question. If scientists finally explain consciousness and illustrate that it is merely inanimate atoms that experience things, then it can only ever be a subjective issue as to whether this is "special" or not. From the religious perspective, science is the discovery and exploration of God's creation. Whatever science "explains", there will always be room for a Creator who set up the laws in the first place. It is very rational to believe that the very existence of consciousness is purposeful and valuable.
Rating:
Summary: What if consciousness isn't special?
Review: What if consciousness could be explained, and explained in a way entirely consistent with our present understanding of physics and chemistry and biology, and without recourse to super-natural, mystical, spiritual, or other scientifically unverifiable mechanisms? And if consciousness can be explained in this way, could not a machine, albeit a sophisticated one, be conscious? If not, why not? Both questions are unsettling to most of us. Even the very scientific and rational among us harbor a small hope that consciousness is not mechanistic, the intuition that consciousness is special. What if it isn't? The story goes that when LaPlace offered his mathematical explanation of the orbits of all the planets, correcting some of the problems Newton had left unsolved, he was asked about the conspicuous absence of God in his explanation. He is said to have responded, "I had no need of Him in my calculation." Dennett does not offer the final explanation of consciousness, he offers a way that consciousness might be explained, and explained entirely, without requiring a soul, or a transcedental self, in the explanation. I found it somewhat disturbing and intellectually thrilling that such an explanation is possible, regardless of its ultimate truth. Regardless of your philosophical point of view, you cannot ignore this book. The repercussions of Dennett's thinking in our culture could well be huge.
Rating:
Summary: Great, but very heady!
Review: This book is not for someone who bores easily with tedious, abstract philosophical meanderings. While Dennet is a superb thinker, his writing is not for everyone. I recommend the book, but only for those of you with lots of leisure time to deeply ponder the excellent arguments the author makes.
Rating:
Summary: What does Dennet expect?
Review: I thought Dennet and a previous reviewer hit upon a significant point by making the comment about "the centre of gravity" - even though the reviewer was somewhat mislead by saying Dennet tried to "undermine the notion" that the self is invisible by comparing it with the centre of gravity. Dennet was making the point that some people have suggested that the self is a sort of abstraction - just as some have suggested that the centre of gravity is an abstraction. Even so there aren't many scientists who would refer to the centre of gravity as an "abstraction". But in making this comparison Dennet illustrates that consciousness is essentially an underlying "law" of nature. It has to be. The fact remains that the physical matter of the brain is quite ordinary - that is, it is made up of the chemical elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus. What is special is how it is organised. Dennet says in his final chapter that "only a theory that explained conscious events in terms of unconscious events could explain consciousness at all. ... This leads some people to insist that consciousness can never be explained." In theory, if scientists managed to position physical atoms in a perfect and unique correlation, and then applied the correct through-put of energy, then, according to Dennet, consciousness would consequently arise. Therefore from a materialist perspective, that unique correlation would be the scientific explanation. Any attempts to explain "why", or any attempts to explain the intrinsic "reality" of consciousness, would be futile, for it would be like attempting to explain the 'reality' of the laws of gravity. Science just can't do that. Natural laws are just there - ready to be discovered by scientists. Once the atoms are in place and the exact correlation has been observed and confirmed, then the materialists' job is done and whatever happens next is up to nature. But ironically, the nature of consciousness REFUTES materialism itself, for what follows is a "deeper" reality of conscious experience. This is the main reason why consciousness is such a slippery customer, and this big, thick book reveals a materialists' wrestling with the reality if consciousness. Even if scientists succeed in "explaining" consciousness in the way Dennet implies, then it would be impossible to undermine religious belief that the universe has some kind of deeper meaning or deeper reality, for the underlying 'laws' of consciousness reveal a reality which is the exact opposite of 'impersonal laws'. As Georg Hegel eloquently put it: "God does not remain petrified and dead; the very stones cry out and raise themselves to spirit." I had to ask myself - what does Dennet expect?
| 
