Scan barcode
A review by daytonm
Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett
2.0
An extremely frustrating book. There is a lot of well thought out argument here, much of it worth engaging with even where I disagree, and some of the theory of how the brain works was genuinely compelling. In particular the pandemonium model of language production--and, despite my low rating, I like significant portions of the Multiple Drafts model!
But the author falls into infuriating patterns of thought that lead him to advance ridiculous claims that do not all logically follow from the (often) reasonable assumptions he starts out with. He responds to objections throughout, but objections presented by a rather unsophisticated fictional critic who did not always ask the questions I wanted answered. In fact, at least one stunning, seemingly foundational assertion (that a robot capable of second-order observations of its internal states would "think" it was conscious) is put forward with practically no backup or discussion--what does that even mean?? Other bucks are merely passed down the road (it only *seems* like I experience qualia? even if I concede this, the fact that they "seem" so vivid to me is not a lesser mystery than the one he seeks to deflate by denying qualia are real). It is always possible I am misunderstanding key points and/or that my gut opposition to his thesis is impeding my ability to accept genuine truths (I happily concede that this latter may have happened here or there). But as I glance other reviews, including those by experts, it looks like I am not the only one with similar frustrations and confusions about what exactly he is trying to say.
Dennet, by my diagnosis, adheres to a particular type of scientistic worldview that suggests anything beyond the reach of more or less contemporary science either doesn't matter or doesn't exist. Whatever this view's strengths, I think this book shows some of its weaknesses in both style and content. Still, the book is useful as a scientific theory of the brain, a challenge (often successful) against prevailing ideas about the mind, and a demonstration of the promises and pitfalls of his approach. Despite all my complaints, I would genuinely like to sit down with the author someday and ask him my questions and see what he says.
However, I can't give it three stars because the discussions of nonhuman animals are sloppy, un-rigorous, and riddled with both implicit and explicit human supremacism (e.g. calling species phylogenetically far from humans "lowly," which is of course an un-scientific presentation of evolution). This leads him to somewhat hand-wavey moral conclusions that are all the more egregious because he hasn't backed them up in any meaningful way.
But the author falls into infuriating patterns of thought that lead him to advance ridiculous claims that do not all logically follow from the (often) reasonable assumptions he starts out with. He responds to objections throughout, but objections presented by a rather unsophisticated fictional critic who did not always ask the questions I wanted answered. In fact, at least one stunning, seemingly foundational assertion (that a robot capable of second-order observations of its internal states would "think" it was conscious) is put forward with practically no backup or discussion--what does that even mean?? Other bucks are merely passed down the road (it only *seems* like I experience qualia? even if I concede this, the fact that they "seem" so vivid to me is not a lesser mystery than the one he seeks to deflate by denying qualia are real). It is always possible I am misunderstanding key points and/or that my gut opposition to his thesis is impeding my ability to accept genuine truths (I happily concede that this latter may have happened here or there). But as I glance other reviews, including those by experts, it looks like I am not the only one with similar frustrations and confusions about what exactly he is trying to say.
Dennet, by my diagnosis, adheres to a particular type of scientistic worldview that suggests anything beyond the reach of more or less contemporary science either doesn't matter or doesn't exist. Whatever this view's strengths, I think this book shows some of its weaknesses in both style and content. Still, the book is useful as a scientific theory of the brain, a challenge (often successful) against prevailing ideas about the mind, and a demonstration of the promises and pitfalls of his approach. Despite all my complaints, I would genuinely like to sit down with the author someday and ask him my questions and see what he says.
However, I can't give it three stars because the discussions of nonhuman animals are sloppy, un-rigorous, and riddled with both implicit and explicit human supremacism (e.g. calling species phylogenetically far from humans "lowly," which is of course an un-scientific presentation of evolution). This leads him to somewhat hand-wavey moral conclusions that are all the more egregious because he hasn't backed them up in any meaningful way.