Dennett's predecessor brings it all together

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the philosophical contributions of David Hume to the understanding of consciousness and subjective experience, particularly in relation to Daniel Dennett's materialist philosophy of the mind. Participants explore Hume's concepts of "impressions" and "ideas," and how these relate to contemporary debates on consciousness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that Hume's ideas on consciousness are integral to Dennett's philosophy, despite Dennett not explicitly referencing Hume.
  • Hume's concept of "impressions" as immediate sensory stimuli and "ideas" as subjective experiences is discussed, with emphasis on how all ideas can be traced back to impressions.
  • Another participant argues that Hume's philosophy implies that when all impressions and innate behaviors are stripped away, nothing remains of the self or mind.
  • One point raised is that questions regarding the comprehension of impressions are moot, as Hume suggests that perceptions are simply how they are, without needing further explanation.
  • Participants express differing views on the relevance of linking computational processes in the brain to subjective experiences, with some emphasizing the importance of experience in understanding consciousness.
  • There is a discussion about the subjective nature of experience, where one participant argues that imagining something involves a complex interplay of neural processes that contribute to the experience itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of Hume's philosophy and its implications for understanding consciousness. There is no consensus on the relevance of Hume's ideas to the contemporary discussion of consciousness, and the debate remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference previous threads and discussions that may provide additional context, but the limitations of their arguments and the assumptions underlying their claims are not fully explored.

  • #91
It can be interesting to look to: digital versus analogue.
Digital can never give all the fine-tuning of the analogue world.
Dennett only looks to the digital aspects.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by pelastration
It can be interesting to look to: digital versus analogue.
Digital can never give all the fine-tuning of the analogue world.
Dennett only looks to the digital aspects.

Pelastration, could you document that assertion about Dennett? I've read a number of his books and never saw any such limitation.
 
  • #93
Interesting. Neural science on BBC.
While looking to a hand moving (ie. take a coin, shooting a gun) on a movie ... the brain zone controlling ' the sense of touch' is also activated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/sci_act.shtml

direct link to download the realone file: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ram/sia.ram
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Pelastration, could you document that assertion about Dennett? I've read a number of his books and never saw any such limitation.
Thanks selfAdjoint,

It was not coming directly from him but: http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge82.html

Quote: "Experimental psychologist Steven Pinker speaks of "a new understanding that the human mind is a remarkably complex processor of information." To Pinker, our minds are "organs of computation." To philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, "the basic idea of computation, as formulated by the mathematicians John von Neumann and Alan Turing, is in a class by itself as a breakthrough idea." Dennett asks us to think about the idea that what we have in our heads is software, "a virtual machine, in the same way that a word processor is a virtual machine." Pinker and Dennett are talking about our mental life in terms of the idea of computation, not simply proposing the digital computer as a metaphor for the mind. Other scientists disagree (See below: "Is Life Analog or Digital" by Freeman Dyson), but most recognize that these are big questions." end quote.

I maybe over-interpreted. ;-). But I don't like Dennett. So ...

Now that page gives a discussion on digital vs analogue, and Smolin makes this nice remark: "So while the holographic principle says that no observer in the universe can access more than a finite amount of information, that information may be stored in a way that cannot be represented digitally by any computer that could be built inside the universe."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
16K
Replies
38
Views
11K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
14K
Replies
66
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K