But there is! We have not one but five senses. They all have to be out
of wack is just the right way for us to be fooled by them. Otherwise
we'd notice the contradiction. However the incorrect conclusions one
reachs can be detected by the errors one experiances with ones
predictions.
At what point has a given phenomenon been "sensed"
> and what point has it been "processed"?
when one experiances it, and then when one thinks about it.
Dennett makes an excellent case
> that there is no distinct point or boundary at which a given idea can be
> said to have "passed into consciousness".
sure there is: right after you experiance it. whether you continue to
remember it or not is another matter.
Rather than consciousness being
> a "place" (physical or metaphorical--in the brain or mind) where
> processed items are "presented for viewing" (by whom?), he presents a view
> of consciousness as the very *processing* itself.
It has to reside in the brain. People have had just about every other
organ pulled at one point but were still in possession of consciousness.
You mess with the brain however and the nature of your consciousness
changes.
>
> > > >If they were ,you'd find out about it. Natural law is self enforcing.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. The nature of far off galaxies, the small
> > > constituents of
> > > matter or even how my own mind works could be totally different than I
> > >
> > > imagine. In other words, my notion of existence could be so different
> > > than
> > > existence itself..
> >
> > Far away or extremely small. Notice how you worry about things that
> > don't affect you. If you should ever find yourself in a far away galaxy
> > or dependent on the nature of some strange quark I advise you to get
> > their nature down pat. As for how the mind works, it works is all I can
> > say. If I really knew the answer to that I'd have my computer type out
> > these responses for me!
>
> As for how the mind works, it certainly can't be dismissed as not
> affecting us!
I did'nt. I addressed that near the end of the paragraph.
Dennett gives loads of good evidence that "how my own mind
> works" IS "totally different than I imagine". And that this is in fact
> important, because the mistaken ways we tend to think about thinking can
> mislead us badly (see also _Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion_, for
> more ways a lack of understanding how our minds work can hurt us in our
> daily lives).
>
> If anyone wants to argue about Dennett's claims, great; it would be really
> nice if they could read Dennett first, since he puts everything so well
> and I'd really rather not type the whole book. :) Besides,
> _Consciousness Explained_ is really fun reading and I could recommend it
> to smart people on that ground alone!
>
> Eva,
> living bibliography
When he can make a machine that can make me believe that it is thinking
then I'll believe his claims that he has discovered the nature of
consciousness.