 "Welcome to a rollercoaster ride into the convolutions of your brain" | 2009-11-15 |
| - Reviewed By User: A10O98CWTJQTYQ |
If you like philosophy, then this book is excellent (five stars), but since Amazon established the ranking not in terms of the quality of a book but in terms of liking it or not, I must give it three stars. The author does a better job in explaining his purpose in the second chapter of the book than I could do it: "...as a philosopher I am concerned to establish the possibilities (and rebut claims of impossibility), " so "I will settle for theory sketches instead of full-blown empirically confirmed theories", "my model may well be incorrect in many of its details" and "it is directly and explicitly vulnerable to empirical disproof", but "it is a possible explanation of a phenomenon".
The book is an attempt to explain what we perceive as "consciousness", without acknowledging its existence or even while claiming there is nothing as such. So it's a rollercoaster ride into the convolutions of your brain or more like a "slalom" in order to avoid the many obstacles that one encounters when trying to accomplish the author's goal. I must grant Mr. Dennett that I could follow most of his reasoning, which is not the case with most of the philosophical writings I have read. However his ability to write in a very clear manner does not make the multilayered "I believe that I believe that I believe...that I am hungry" any more enjoyable for me.
If I understood correctly, Mr. Dennett does not think HE thinks. The emphasis in HE is to point out that when you question thinking - or consciousness - as such, you also question the subject who thinks as an entity (as in Descartes' "I think therefore I am"). This is precisely what Mr. Dennett claims throughout the book, that consciousness and the perception of a "unified self" are illusions or what he calls "writers' fictions" that arise from the workings of our brains. There is no "Mr. Dennett" to propose his "non-rebutted" theory. It's just his brain's myriad of mechanisms (call them homunculi, pandemonium or whatever) performing extremely complex operations both simultaneously and sequentially, which in the end assemble and express a possible theory, in an almost logically flawless 500 page book. I obviously do not need to mention that it was nobody's "intention" to write such a book. The mechanisms, their genetic arrangement as well as the multiple experiences that shaped and re-shaped his neurons' connections expressed a book. Or maybe, as the author hints, the content of the book (a meme) got itself expressed, since words want to get themselves said. Is it possible...?
When we think of a living organism we do not think of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. with a complex but specific structure, organization and interactions (mechanisms). We think of what "emerges" out of those mechanisms, namely entropy reduction, self-building and replicating activities, etc. (Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics explains "emergence", complex adaptive systems and entropy reduction really well, Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell describes astonishing structures and properties that define life itself in a way that will change how you think of it, whereas Tree of Knowledge analyses the "self-building" processes of life.) Even when we mix flower, butter, milk, sugar, baking powder and other ingredients and bake them, we perceive the outcome as a different entity with individual properties worthy enough of an independent definition: cake. Both cakes and living organisms are not illusions that "appear to us" or "seem" to be different from what conforms or generates them (ingredients, structures, interactions, etc). What is the problem of considering a complex system and its "emerging" properties as different from one another? A: "Dualism of course! The system and its properties are one and the same." B: "But they ARE different, on one side are its physical components on the other side are its emerging properties"...
Maybe when neuroscientists explore the brain more deeply, they will find that neurons are interconnected forming a kind of "Moebius strip", so when somebody starts defending monism they end up on the other side, making a point for dualism and the other way around. What surprises me is that after more than 2000 years of philosophizing, people have not given up the debate.
In the end what I do not really like of philosophy is that once you start philosophizing, it is almost impossible to make it concise. Look at this review!!! Sorry for that, but I am not the exception. |
| |
 "Too discursive by far" | 2009-10-22 |
| - Reviewed By User: AFZM6Y5D3H1Z5 |
I'm submitting this review even though I read only about 25% of the book. I found after that much that his style suffers from the "philosopher's disease," which is to take 1000 words to explain what could be said in 200. Really, the explanations are 5 times too long! Most philosophers seem to think that extending the writing makes the point clearer, but in Dennett's case it just confuses the point. I got so tired of reading about the jumping dot phenomenon that I stopped even before I was sure I understood it. Like many well-known authors, he desperately needs a ruthless editor.
I am very critical about writing, length, clarity, etc. Just read my review of "A New Kind of Science," which I titled "A New Kind of Goat Food," which title describes the best use the book could be put to. |
| |
 "Philadelphia Lawyer..." | 2009-08-04 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3QLBQXF441AW1 |
I've tried to read this book a number of times but find Dennett both unfocused and infuriating.
He uses the terms "Stalinesque" and "Orwellian" for views of processing consciousness which do not agree with his own. He writes of Mother Nature at some points as if he understands it as a simple metaphor but other times seems to be positively captivated by her charm and beauty; as if she really sits knitting the designs of the world.
Dennett also doesn't seem to miss the opportunity to follow any segue, irrelevance, or story to the detriment of the point being made.
This isn't even a quibble with his point of view. It's his inability to clearly write about the topic that makes the book not worth your time. |
| |
| "Rambling attempt at presenting the "consciousness is software on the brain's hardware" theory" | 2009-07-15 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1HX2YU429GAVM |
While the book attempts to be something dramatic and important, it's presentation kills any attempt at success. As other reviewers have said, Dennet explains everything but consciousness. While a good bon mot, it is not quite true. He does try to explain consciousness as the software running on the hardware of the brain, but just does so in a poorly-structured way. It's as if he purposely tries to use an unconscious explanation of consciousness - to what end I have no idea.
What Dennet really explains is human sense perception. While this is an important part of what it means to be human, it is not the whole enchilada. Sense perception is automatically performed by the brain. Except when we are babies or are damaged, we don't receive sensory data directly - the brain creates perceptions of entities. This is what Dennet tries to label the "multiple drafts" theory.
Consciousness is more than perception, beyond the automatic responses we commonly term "unconscious" thinking. We must choose to conceptualize about the perceptions our brains create. This is a volitional act - it is not automatic. Dennet never even mentions volition, sticking to his behavioralist background.
In the end I found the book a quick read and somewhat interesting, but hardly "consciousness explained." |
| |
 "Hard to Swallow" | 2009-05-12 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2HDJ3HEIIV4CW |
In the question of consciousness one assumes that there must be "something more", some soul or immaterial force, and any explanation of consciousness which does not include this "something else" must be incorrect. Dennett likens this to explaining magic. Real magic (objects literally disappearing) doesn't exist - all "real" magic (ie performance magic) is fake. If you can get your head around this analogy then you get an insight into how Dennett approaches this subject.
This book is full of jargon, and may not be accessible to the lay person. As a scientist I appreciate Dennett's continual advocacy of neuroscience and how it is helping to illuminate our understanding of consciousness and I found his arguments generally plausible, if sometimes uncomfortable. The interface between neuroscience and philosophy will dominate modern understanding of consciousness and I believe Dennett has laid a firm foundation on to which future theories will build on.
Has Daniel Dennett explained consciousness? Maybe...maybe not. It depends if you think there is real magic or not. |
| |
| "Amazing book!" | 2009-05-11 |
| - Reviewed By User: A33B7YNQA9JY7O |
| This is actually the second copy of this book I'm buying. The first was for my own pleasure reading. The second was for my dad (for his birthday). Dennett is a great writer and I find the topic fascinating. I can't say too much about the book as a whole (because I haven't finished it yet), but I highly recommend it anyway :) |
| |
International Available
