A review by stelepami
Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett
4.0
It took me almost a year to finish this book because it required concentration and a critical eye and I frequently found myself turning to a novel for light escapism instead. When I did buckle down and work at it, I was captivated by -- but not captive to -- the ideas Dennett presented. I try to read about philosophy and science with an open but skeptical mind, looking for holes in the logic which leads to the conclusions. This book is twenty years old and quite dated in some aspects (including -- to my untrained eye -- the font choice and typesetting), but it makes me wish to find out what has changed in the field since it was written.
One of the reviews on the back cover of the paperback claims that it is "as audacious as its title," and I think the adjective is fitting. Dennett does not shrink from making bold claims, and as I read I was not always sure that he presented solid arguments to back them up. I am not certain I subscribe completely to his Multiple Drafts model of consciousness, but I admire his challenge to the Cartesian Theater and the fact that he presents an alternative.
I certainly agree with Dennett (and Hofstadter in [b:I Am a Strange Loop|123471|I Am a Strange Loop|Douglas R. Hofstadter|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171853665s/123471.jpg|2691404] -- if I'm remembering my reading of that book correctly) that a centralized stream of consciousness is a convenient fiction for our everyday lives. I appreciate a theory which allows me to function on that level on a daily basis without denying the science which shows that the complexity of our brains (and thus mental lives) is composed of very simple interactions at a much more basic level. I almost cheered on page 406 as Dennett very prettily summed up my beliefs about consciousness and the exact thing I find so frustrating about religion in one go:
"We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious -- not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism! I can't prove that no such sort of consciousness exists. I also cannot prove that gremlins don't exist. The best I can do is show that there is no respectable motivation for believing in it."
I find the idea that what I am is a center of narrative gravity rather charming, although I recognize that I am not satisfied to swallow that idea whole without challenging it.
This book made me think. That is one of the highest praises I can award. Furthermore, it made me want to think more.
One of the reviews on the back cover of the paperback claims that it is "as audacious as its title," and I think the adjective is fitting. Dennett does not shrink from making bold claims, and as I read I was not always sure that he presented solid arguments to back them up. I am not certain I subscribe completely to his Multiple Drafts model of consciousness, but I admire his challenge to the Cartesian Theater and the fact that he presents an alternative.
I certainly agree with Dennett (and Hofstadter in [b:I Am a Strange Loop|123471|I Am a Strange Loop|Douglas R. Hofstadter|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171853665s/123471.jpg|2691404] -- if I'm remembering my reading of that book correctly) that a centralized stream of consciousness is a convenient fiction for our everyday lives. I appreciate a theory which allows me to function on that level on a daily basis without denying the science which shows that the complexity of our brains (and thus mental lives) is composed of very simple interactions at a much more basic level. I almost cheered on page 406 as Dennett very prettily summed up my beliefs about consciousness and the exact thing I find so frustrating about religion in one go:
"We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious -- not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism! I can't prove that no such sort of consciousness exists. I also cannot prove that gremlins don't exist. The best I can do is show that there is no respectable motivation for believing in it."
I find the idea that what I am is a center of narrative gravity rather charming, although I recognize that I am not satisfied to swallow that idea whole without challenging it.
This book made me think. That is one of the highest praises I can award. Furthermore, it made me want to think more.