Consciousness Explained

Rating:
Summary: Almost perfect
Review: Though I think Dennett made an error when he acknowledged the possibility of the existence of split-personality disorder, Dennett is otherwise right on.

Atheism, the destruction of epiphenomonology and a naturalist rational interpretation of consciousness as well as the explanations of artificial intelligence are put foreward all culminating in an explanation of human consciousness.

The book is difficult for someone not acquainted with philosophy, psychology, some higher mathematics and robotics. The book is not for people who have lttle background in critical thinking and generally not for people with below average intelligence.

The book finally comes together half-way through and from then on you have a better grasp f Dennett's views, but it is an uphill climb until half-way through the book.

It is a difficult but well-reasoned, rewarding work.

Rating:
Summary: And then a miracle occurred
Review: Consciousness Explained is a hard, but very rewarding, book. I first read it five years ago, and thought I mostly got it, but on reflection, I realise now I probably didn't. After recently getting through Dennett's equally fascinating (and hard) "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" I read it again. It's properly sinking in now, and I think I mostly have it. I think.

If you're considering reading Consciousness Explained, I recommend having a look at Darwin's Dangerous Idea first; some of the ideas Dennett expounds there, particularly on the nature of algorithmic progression, are extremely useful for getting a handle on Dennett's central theme in Consciousness Explained. Dennett's views in each are really quite closely related. However, the "intuitive gap" (i.e., the distance in credibility between what Dennett proposes and how things "seem" intuitively) is huge in the case of consciousness, but comparatively small for Evolution. To wit:

Consciousness: Intuitively, there's a "central meaner" in the brain sitting in a "Cartesian theatre" enjoying the son-et-lumière. Dennett says this is an illusion, and there is no "narrative centre" of consciousness at all - in not so many ways, consciousness itself is an illusion; an aggregation of multiple sensory inputs and outputs of the cerebellum, all of which are performing their own functions independently of each other. "BUT AN ILLUSION TO WHOM?" you want to scream. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

Evolution: Intuitively, the universe seems designed. It seems impossible that it could be the result of blind, unintelligent operations. Darwin says that this is nevertheless the case, through the algorithmic mechanism of reproduction, mutation and natural selection of multiple organisms performing their own functions independently of each other. This isn't such a stretch, especially as the notion of a designer of the universe is an even more problematic idea, when you give it a moment's thought.

And that's precisely the point. Dennett argues persuasively (as, of course, many have before him) that a Cartesian theatre is just such a preposterous idea as a designer of the universe. Once you've ruled it out, all you are left with is the mechanical functions of the brain (unless, with Roger Penrose, you want to say "Quantum Mechanics did it!"), so you don't have any choice in the matter: the only question is how to build these mechanical, independent operations up into something which can function like consciousness. Like evolution, an aggregation of algorithms can be a "crane" which can achieve more than a simple algorithm. And so on. When you account for the actual - heterophenomenological, if I may be so bold - quality of consciousness, you notice it's incomplete, it's bitty, it's missing stuff: it isn't quite the widescreen, 7.1 THX certified surround-sound audio-visual experience we think it is, which is all grist to Dennett's mill.

Dennett is open that this is an opening salvo rather than a complete theory, and I am very interested to find out where this has all led. To my mind too much time is spent on stimulus and response - qualia, visual images and the like - which ought to be comparatively easy to explain in terms of multiple drafts - and not enough time is spent explaining how on Dennett's theory a human being, who only *seems* to have consciousness, can create clearly intentional objects, such as this book review, or more critically, a book as coherent and persuasive as Dennett's. It is difficult to analyse this sort of intentional action without a "central meaner" to be putting the view. I think Dennett's view might be able to be developed in this direction, but to my mind insufficient resource was put into this endeavour.

As he does in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett courts controversy and seems to pick intemperate fights with his competitors, and you do wonder whether a few straw men aren't being erected. Certainly, there is the odd cheap shot, but that adds to the entertainment value - the idea of fully grown philosophers drawing handbags at forty paces is one which appeals to me, and Dennett's views on his major competitor John Searle have this quality.

But John Searle should perhaps take some comfort: Dennett may at times seem abrasive, but he surely doesn't *mean* to be.

If you know what I mean.

Olly Buxton


Rating:
Summary: brilliant work
Review: Dennett is a brilliant scholar, and his book shows how careful analysis can go a long way towards explaining consciousness. His approach is scientific as well as philosophical, and draws on a great deal of previous research and theory to support his claims.

And as for reviewers who think this book is bad because it doesn't agree with their own (often vague and uninformed) theories of consciousness: please leave your oppinions out of it. The fact is, Dennett is a legitimate scholar; he doesn't make any rediculous claims or makes assumptions without careful scrutiny. He even affirms that his theory of consciousness is not a complete theory. But what he does come up with is grounded in extensive research and empirical evidence, and the result is excellent academic writing. I highly recommend this book, and the same high level of scholarship can be found in Daniel Dennett's other works.



Rating:
Summary: Still explains a lot
Review: I left "Consciousness Explained" (CE) on my bookshelves for more than a decade between when I originally purchased it and when I finally got around to reading it, but that did not decrease its value.

Maybe the greatest value of the book is the thorough job it does of dispensing with many of the naive ideas as to the overmystified nature of consiousness, ideas which may seem almost straw men to serious philosophers and scientists but which nevertheless still dominate public dialogue. From the 'Cartesian theatre' to 'qualia', the problems with such notions under real scrutiny are pursued relentlessly.

Dennett proposes instead a "multiple drafts" model of consciouness, building in part on Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind" while placing weight on experimental results and observations of patients with identifiably variant brain function. CE is very much about the close up view of where our conscious attention seems to be directed from moment to moment and may need to be understood in the broader context of a theory of intentionality which Dennett explored in his even earlier "The Intentional Stance".

Long before reading CE, some policy research work convinced me of the close analogy between how humans turn broken sub vocalised "thoughts" into coherent stories and how organisations determine their own stories. Dennett helps with the story of how mental processes extended our pattern recognition beyond the perpetual now in which we must live.

He also has a fair stab at recognising both the similarities and limits of animal consciousness, though if I had to find something to disagree with it would be his inference that animal consciousness is unavoidably something lesser through their lack of a rich language for their stories. Increasing acceptance that much of the detailed memory of humans and animals involves recognition of cues from the environment (including our computers) may level this playing field a bit.

If you want a feel for the directions of research into consciouness, CE is well worth the reading time. If you want pat answers forget it.


Rating:
Summary: Dennett's Dangerous Idea
Review: First of all, this guy's book-title smacks of hubris! He is a pedant posing as a philosopher. Using sophistry to weave a web of verbal convolutions, in which consciousness manages to elude him. I've read a lot on the topic of mysticism, encompassing the last hundred years or so, relating to people from all walks of life and I have found the consistency in these personal reports more convincing than anything that Dennett has produced.
I'm not going to be dogmatic, but anyone reading the material that I have read, with an open mind, feels that Dennett has missed something too suble for his logic.