Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

It is, especially when the author describing Dennett's position gets it completely wrong.

What Dennett means when he says consciousness is a user illusion is pretty much what would be meant by saying a file icon on your desktop's screen is an illusion. There isn't really a brown folder somehow in your computer. That icon is merely a representation of a startlingly complex series of processes and structures in your machine, which is the "real" folder.

The things we report happening in us when we describe a conscious experience are just our brain's way of representing incredibly complex processes happening in our nervous systems in much the same way.

That said, I really wish Dennett would stop using the term "illusion", because he just invites people to misunderstand him when he does so.

The problem is that that's not what the word "consciousness" normally refers to. There is a lot more to consciousness than how things "appear" to be.

It's simply intellectual dishonesty from Dennett to redefine the word to mean something else, and then make the sensational statement that he has explained consciousness.

[Terrapin Station]

"Consciousness is an illusion" is a completely incoherent idea.
What's supposed to be experiencing the illusion if not consciousness?

If you're interested in illusionism, this is the book to read: Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness

Here's Keith Frankish's central paper with same title: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b722/f ... 8453e7.pdf

Also see: Eliminativism about Consciousness

(1) Is it possible for you to stop posting in a manner that's so patronizing?

(2) Are you ever going to be up for attempting to defend anything that you reference?

[Terrapin Station]

"Consciousness is an illusion" is a completely incoherent idea.

It is, especially when the author describing Dennett's position gets it completely wrong.

What Dennett means when he says consciousness is a user illusion is pretty much what would be meant by saying a file icon on your desktop's screen is an illusion. There isn't really a brown folder somehow in your computer. That icon is merely a representation of a startlingly complex series of processes and structures in your machine, which is the "real" folder.

The things we report happening in us when we describe a conscious experience are just our brain's way of representing incredibly complex processes happening in our nervous systems in much the same way.

That said, I really wish Dennett would stop using the term "illusion", because he just invites people to misunderstand him when he does so.

Yeah, I agree with that. It's a very sloppy way of saying what it is that he wants to say.

[Consul]

(1) Is it possible for you to stop posting in a manner that's so patronizing?

Is it possible for you to see the difference between providing or referring to sources of information and patronizing?

(2) Are you ever going to be up for attempting to defend anything that you reference?

I don't defend what I reject—such as illusionism (aka eliminativism) about phenomenal consciousness.

[Faustus5]

It's simply intellectual dishonesty from Dennett to redefine the word to mean something else, and then make the sensational statement that he has explained consciousness.

Sometimes you want to say, "It turns out X isn't what we commonly took it to be, it is really more like Y, and here''s why".

Or you can say "It turns out we thought X existed, but it doesn't really, here's why".

There's a Venn diagram where those two tactics overlap. I think Dennett is in that zone.

[psyreporter]

There are many people without a brain that are conscious and capable of living a normal human life. This topic is intended to discuss the implications for theories of consciousness.

This is misleading. First, the very few examples don't show people without brains and living normal human lives. They show people with brains, more or less damaged, and not living normal human lives. In the last case, the kid born with 2% of a his brain, the article states: "...The procedure was so successful that, over time, Noah's brain has grown into the space once occupied by the fluid. However, the spina bifida has resulted in paralysis from the chest down, so the little boy uses a wheelchair."

On what basis do you consider the life of the French man to not be (relatively) normal?

(2014) The woman with half her brain MISSING but who managed to live an almost normal life
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... peech.html

(2019) Doctors are stunned to discover that 60-year-old ex-soldier has lived all his life 'with only HALF a brain'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... -life.html

The math student with an IQ of 126 did not notice anything while having merely 3 to 5% of brain tissue (deduced from the estimated 50-150 grams compared to the default 1400 grams).

Imagine 10% of a bicycle and then taking part in traffic. Imagine 10% of a human body and then "be" a human.

On what basis do you believe that 10% of a human brain is still to be considered "a brain"?

[Terrapin Station]

(1) Is it possible for you to stop posting in a manner that's so patronizing?

Is it possible for you to see the difference between providing or referring to sources of information and patronizing?

The problem is this: why are you thinking that I'm unfamiliar with the info you're providing?

[Steve3007]

As intended by the physiology of the human.

Ok. I didn't realize that a physiology could have intentions.

[Terrapin Station]

As intended by the physiology of the human.

Ok. I didn't realize that a physiology could have intentions.

The brain('s functions) are definitely a part of human physiology. And that's where intentions occur.

[Consul]

There are many people without a brain that are conscious and capable of living a normal human life.

No, there aren't many conscious brainless people. Actually, there are none! There are only conscious people with incomplete brains.

[Consul]

"No, again, those pathological cases show merely that not all parts of the brain are necessary for (phenomenal) consciousness. They don't show that all parts of the brain are not necessary for it.
Consciousness may be variably realizable by and in different parts of the brain; but even if this is true, it by no means follows that its realization doesn't require any part(s) of the brain.
The same is true of cognitive abilities, which may be variably realizable by different parts of the brain too, so that the destruction or loss of one part can be functionally compensated by another one."
—Consul: viewtopic.php?p=357220#p357220

This is possible thanks to the brain's neuroplasticity.

QUOTE>
"Neuroplasticity, capacity of neurons and neural networks in the brain to change their connections and behaviour in response to new information, sensory stimulation, development, damage, or dysfunction. Although neural networks also exhibit modularity and carry out specific functions, they retain the capacity to deviate from their usual functions and to reorganize themselves. In fact, for many years, it was considered dogma in the neurosciences that certain functions were hard-wired in specific, localized regions of the brain and that any incidents of brain change or recovery were mere exceptions to the rule. However, since the 1970s and ’80s, neuroplasticity has gained wide acceptance throughout the scientific community as a complex, multifaceted, fundamental property of the brain."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/neuroplasticity
<QUOTE

[Jklint]

Haven't read all the references but is there any mention of the brain density of the surviving parts?

[Sy Borg]

Where I am up to after the endless unresolved consciousness debates I've had with Consul is that proto-consciousness is everywhere (which he disagrees with).

I don't think there are any better reasons to believe that "proto-consciousness is everywhere" than there are to believe that "proto-music-making is everywhere" or "proto-computing is everywhere" or "proto-volcanic eruptions are everywhere" or any properties that any arbitrary thing has. In other words, we could just as well say that "proto" anything is everywhere, and make it an interpretive exercise to characterize any phenomenon in a way that has something in common with the "proto" property we want to claim.

No, we are talking about the hard problem of consciousness - experience - not just mental processing.

The usual claim is that experiencing is a special phenomenon that can only come from a special organ, the brain. However, in its simplest forms consciousness may well not be nearly as rare and special as many of us imagine.

We like to think that consciousness somehow magically emerged from magical brains with these special magical qualities that has absolutely no correlate or precursor in nature. This would seemingly be the only time in all of evolution that this has occurred.

[Gertie]

"Consciousness is an illusion" is a completely incoherent idea.

It is, especially when the author describing Dennett's position gets it completely wrong.

What Dennett means when he says consciousness is a user illusion is pretty much what would be meant by saying a file icon on your desktop's screen is an illusion. There isn't really a brown folder somehow in your computer. That icon is merely a representation of a startlingly complex series of processes and structures in your machine, which is the "real" folder.

The things we report happening in us when we describe a conscious experience are just our brain's way of representing incredibly complex processes happening in our nervous systems in much the same way.

That said, I really wish Dennett would stop using the term "illusion", because he just invites people to misunderstand him when he does so.

That's still slippery imo, because it's not just that we 'describe' a conscious experience, it exists regardless of whether we describe it.

And it's not 'in much the same way' as an icon of a file 'represents' the physical processes. The file icon is a symbol, mental experiences are things in themselves with their own specific types of properties.

[Count Lucanor]

This is misleading. First, the very few examples don't show people without brains and living normal human lives. They show people with brains, more or less damaged, and not living normal human lives. In the last case, the kid born with 2% of a his brain, the article states: "...The procedure was so successful that, over time, Noah's brain has grown into the space once occupied by the fluid. However, the spina bifida has resulted in paralysis from the chest down, so the little boy uses a wheelchair."

On what basis do you consider the life of the French man to not be (relatively) normal?

First, on the basis that he has an IQ of 75, which under the Current Wechsler (WAIS–IV, WPPSI–IV) IQ classification falls in the "borderline" category. It implies "very close to being intellectually disabled".
Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education

Secondly, on the basis that the French man does have a brain, no matter how damaged it might be. This is not the same as not having any brain, as you had suggested.

Third, because the article you submitted clearly states that:

"Update 3 Jan 2017: This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this."

(2014) The woman with half her brain MISSING but who managed to live an almost normal life
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... peech.html

(2019) Doctors are stunned to discover that 60-year-old ex-soldier has lived all his life 'with only HALF a brain'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... -life.html

Half a brain is not complete absence of a brain, as you had suggested these examples showed.

The math student with an IQ of 126 did not notice anything while having merely 3 to 5% of brain tissue (deduced from the estimated 50-150 grams compared to the default 1400 grams).

This is another case of hydrocephalus, so it deserves no different treatment than the case of the French man.

Imagine 10% of a bicycle and then taking part in traffic. Imagine 10% of a human body and then "be" a human.

On what basis do you believe that 10% of a human brain is still to be considered "a brain"?

The analogy does not apply. A miniature bicycle, 10% the size of a normal bicycle, but that still works, has ceased to be a bicycle? At best, all that your examples show is not that consciousness is not brain-generated, but that the way many people thought consciousness was generated by the brain, should be revised.