Daniel Dennett - Why is Consciousness So Baffling? (Part 2/2) 

The happiest I’ve ever seen our host.

I like the consciousness of the person in charge of the seating arrangement.

Always love his reasoning

Very engaging guy, which is not always the case with those who have spent their entire lives trying out problems in their head.

Damn Dennet still looks pretty good after all these years.

I like his idea about an intuition pump. I think the word determined is one of those. It leads people down the craziest paths, but without this word to prime that pump, it would never happen.

Glad to see him looking healthy!

I think the tactile variation of the Mary argument reduces to geometry. Mary can use geometry to figure out what it feels like to touch a triangle vs. a square because those experiences are defined by the geometry of the objects. Visual experience does not reduce to geometry, however.

Great interview

DD, a "love him or hate him" scholar...

Brilliant

Two questions for materialists: 1) Are imperfect philosophical zombies possible? 2) If they are possible what is the evolutionary advantage of subjective experience?

I’d like to add to this by saying I am red green color blind yet I can still IDENTIFY these colors accurately 90+% of the time (according to what others say) even though I know I am perceiving these colors differently than others. So who is “right”? Me or others who laugh at me for saying something looks brown rather than a certain shade of green or red that I cannot discern like they can?

I’d like a beer with Dan. He’d be a great laugh 🍺

In response to what Daniel Dennett was talking about in regard to an argument against strong AI (and I happen to agree with him), I recently encountered a discussion between two AI's - one of them a mid-level and the other one the best known AI in the world. For a considerable part of the video (up until something like 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through (I think it was around a ~25 minute conversation), it was obvious the mid-level AI was nowhere nearly as sophisticated as the other AI and the other AI could be considered to be doing an excellent job of simulating consciousness - but then at that point BOTH AIs got locked into a conversation loop during which they were both repeating something like response 1 (R1) - counterresponse 1 (C1) - R2 - C2 - R3 - C3 - R1 - C1 - R2 - C2 - R3 - C3 - R1 - C1 -... in a looping pattern, thus exposing the fact that even the best AI in the world has zero consciousness. A conscious process like that would have stopped, and said something like, "Wait a minute, why are you just saying the same thing over and over and over again?" which would have immediately broken the loop (both for itself, and for the mid-level AI). The problem with strong AI isn't that anyone has demonstrated some inherent impossibility in it ever being created, but merely that it hasn't been created yet, and that's all because of our own CURRENT limitations in understanding how to produce the hardware and software in creating it. A strong AI must be capable of rewriting it's own software (i.e., "molding its own thoughts" in order to improve it's "understanding" of what is occurring in response to external events (i.e., in interacting with the world outside of it). As far as I know, the kinds of software that is even capable of something like this - self-directed software changes in response to try to better adapt its responses to external events - is extremely limited (so we're in the very early stages in this regard), and that's what makes strong AI possible. Of course, when something like that actually exists, then we should expect it to far surpass human consciousness/intelligence, because in being able to constantly and infinitely adapt itself far faster than humans can, it will outpace us very quickly.

Dennett has a wonderful way of expanding my consciousness, hahaha... so I'm glad he qualifies this "cognitive tic" that enables us to imagine zombie philosophers as something worthy of serious consideration. This way I can find it provisionally thought provoking.

Our minds are invisible but that is what processes information to form visible images, words, etc. while the Servant of Creation makes you a living being in these fake visible worlds.

Every time Dennett speak he thinks to be so funny that the other is compelled to laugh to not let him down ...

I see all questions, no answers from DD. He tells us what three different thought experiments are (and two of them are taught in undergrad psychology and philosophy survey classes) but he doesn't actually extract very much meaning from them. I don't know anything I wouldn't have learned from managing to stay awake in class.

I want more of DD

Consciousness is so baffling because we are trying to explain it in terms (materialism) that do not apply. Consider each of Dennett's intuition-pump examples. 1) Another word for zombi is simulation. Simulations can never be conscious because they function not by associations (meaning) but by machine-like mechanisms; 2) When Mary the colour scientist first experiences colour, she learns something new. Why? Because experiences wire the neuroplastic brain (refer Norman Doidge). Semiotic theory relates. Associations of experiences are required to give meaning to colour. Mary's very first encounter with the red rose establishes an association that causes an emotional response that wires her brain - "AHA! I was right! That IS what I theorized!... but... it's so BEAUTIFUL" Despite her theorizing being right, the EXPERIENCE of colour is a new emotional response (association) that wires her brain to reaffirm her theory, and this experience has expanded her intuitions. Her realization of the beauty of the red rose is something that she could not have factored in. Her solid theoretical understanding remains incomplete until she experiences colour; 3) Chinese room. Same as 1 & 2, above. Languages (Chinese) depend on the meanings that conjoin with experiences. Simulations can APPEAR to be conscious, but can never BE conscious because consciousness requires associations to be made across experiences. Experiences are semiotic and emotional (meaning). To laugh at a joke in Chinese is to laugh at a meaning. All life functions by attributing meaning to experiences. Even the lowly neuron attributes meaning to experiences (eg., refer Eric Kandel's work on association in Aplysia). Simulations never attribute meaning because they are machines. Perhaps this outline responds to the onus of proof that Dennett is demanding of the authors of these three thought experiments. Key concepts: 1) Charles Sanders Peirce (semiotic); 2) Mind-body problem: Languages, colours, inferences are contingent on the body that interfaces with the experiences that wire the neuroplastic brain.

Anything we don't understand is baffling. The special ability to walk on water is baffling.

I think Dennett is right that we should take materialism seriously but I will never understand how qualia are to be understood as illusions. Isn't that almost the only thing we can be certain about? That something feels like something?

Dennett the top philosopher living today imo. But also, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who doesn't find consciousness baffling? Once you allow for sensations and perceptions, _why not?_

Consciousness is literally whatever we think it is.

He says we shouldn’t adjust all of physics, or split the universe in two, based on a hunch. But to think all is one, all is the universe, all is mathematics, is also a hunch. Just because something has a huge history doesn’t mean it is true, it just means people were capable of thinking that way and found it useful. Yes I want explanatory power, not just intuition. Yes I want to grasp consciousness, to make it tangible and formal. I totally respect people getting inspired by consciousness to make tangible and formal systems and models, things that are functionally indistinguishable from consciousness. I’m just not convinced.

Then "alive" is as mysterious as consciousness.

People tend to confuse existential and intrapersonal intelligence with consciousness… it as with all intelligence is a gradient from genius to imbecile.

His argument against the "Mary the color scientist" thought experiment is so clueless, I don't even know what to say.

He's new to me,,,I loved how he answered those 3 " apparent " quandary's. I totally agree,,,why they use those arguments to show the non physical aspect of consciousness is baffling. Surely they're buried now aren't they ? Consciousness is physical. Get used to it.

10:21 then you have to investigate the idea of free will, or lack thereof, imo we live in a lightly deterministic system where we have free will only over reaction to urges/drives and external stimuli.

It's not possible because the words we use to say the colors are the response. We never any color, the stimuli to the visual cortex of the occipital lobe. What we perceive is a possible response. So if not one has called a possible action Blue Banana then Mary would not know that response. Over time she will call bananas blue. It's extremely counter intuitive. For example if you see a black wall with a red door, the person does not perceive the sensory stimuli. The black is where the person will not walk and the red is where the person will try to open a door. The colors are potential responses. If someone says, "I will give you a thousand dollars if you walk into that wall. The black mean walk here and expect pain.

But it is not the point of the Mery thought experiment. The point of it is that she experienced something that was not possible reading books. She learned how it is to experience colour. That's what that experiment is about. Not about differentiation between colours. Mister Dennett caught a very interesting problem, but did not abolish "Mery experiment". Mery experiment shows, there are subjective experiences that cannot be learned other way. Her hipothethical knowledge of "blue banana" also comes from that source.

Because we don't have a mechanism for it.

So basically you are saying that the system understands, but not it's component parts?

It seems that we have two opposing views by the two leading philosophers of our time. For Dennett, consciousness is a "bunch of tricks"; for Searle, unfathomable mystery at the center of life. I suggest devoting a full session of Closer To Truth to finally let the two debate it!

What is baffling to me, is that there is an existence here at all. As opposed to nothing. So it must be imperative to exist, and that this existence leads to consciousness (here we are!). Only for us as conscious beings after about 14.5 billion years to look back and says "nope, none of that means anything. Consciousness is just a trick..." A trick? A trick on whom? for what? Dennett knocks everything down well enough, but then his explanation of consciousness leaves me wanting.

I thought Dennett didn't think consciousness was a hard problem. Has he changed his mind?

I have problems with the term "illusion" when discussing consciousness. Perhaps that is one way to look at it but it's not very satisfying. For one, and I consider it the most troubling, is an "illusion" cannot exist without an observer. If so, what exactly is being fooled by the illusion? Perhaps he may have had a better term in mind? Illusion simply goes over ground, albeit in a different way, that DesCartes went before, long ago; he imagined we could be victims of a demon's hoax (shades of Plato's cave) and so what could we do to know otherwise? His famous answer, "I think, therefore I am" (I'm being brief here) seems weak on first reading but there is something very profound in the statement. Consciousness as its own first cause. Perhaps it is emergent, something that did not exist before, I do not know, but "illusion" is only a skip and jump to "delusion" and I doubt many who take the subject seriously will consider it an adequate answer. You still have the problem if it is an "illusion", as to why it was necessary? Enjoyable series you've created. Every one is thought-provoking.

It depends, of course, on how you define "conscious". I would say that to be conscious is to think. So it is thoughts that make us conscious. So a human and an insect may be alive in much the same way but only we are actually conscious. This is why I believe materialist evolution will never explain consciousness. How does an evolutionary process produce a thought? Thoughts are real tangible things that have no basis in a physical material. Thoughts can leave our minds and influence other minds and shape the phsycial world. Our consciousness is a prisoner in our skulls. Consciousness comes from the physical brain and might be derived from a physical material. But Thoughts come from consciousness. So thoughts are one step removed from the physical world. How can evolution produce something that has its basis in something immaterial?

Do the zombie, isolated, and AI examples lack sixth sense of emotion?

it seems obvious, but is it?

Moral responsibility for decisions is lacking in zombies

"The most striking feature of...mainstream philosophy of mind over the past fifty years...seems obviously false." - John Searle The world is in crisis and our false assumptions of reality have to be implicated, surely.

Did Dennett say anything in this interview that adds to the body of knowledge of the human race?

My new understandings of what many call 'God' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us. My autobiography explaining how I, and others I've told, have used this chant to change our poisons into medicine titled: 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within', is now available at Amazon Books for 99cents (the lowest Amazon allowed me to price it) To read more about Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo please read Tina Turner's new book: Happiness Becomes You -- or Google 'Let go, and let God' by Olivia Newton-John.

11:17 well, how can you understand something :p

This is very funny. Mary wouldn't know what any color correlates to visually until she is confident the information she has is sound and that the first color was labeled correctly. Always fun to listen.

Love his reasoning. I am the joke. My CPU aka brain doesn't crash.

The reason consciousness is so baffling is that we don't understand the principles behind it. You can look at an airplane, fly in one, pilot one, even be a mechanic that can repair every part of one or build one and still not understand why it can fly. So we can examine the structure of the brain down to the last atom, know all of the chemical and electrical activity in it and still not understand why it is conscious. I didn't say intelligent, I said conscious. What is intelligence? I don't know. When I meet someone who is intelligent I might recognize it, or maybe I don't have the intelligence to. Tell me one animal that is not conscious to at least some degree.

I don't agree with his arguments at all. From someone who has had Out of Body Experiences and Lucid Dreams (and who used to be a skeptic), I now understand how unique consciousness is, and how important it is to be open minded.

I do not play video games. I came across the idea of non player characters who are in the background and such but they are not avatars. I think this concept applies to the philosopher's zombie. I have had this concept for quite awhile and of course people like stuff that reinforces their beliefs.

Why are they sitting like this

IBM Truenorth is a cognitive neuromorphic processor which simulates brain neurons. It currently simulates a mIllion neurons (tiny by comparison to the brain) but it functions like a programmed synapse. Combine Truenorth with IBM's Eagle, a 127 qubit quantum processor, and you potentially have the basis of a self learning artificial super brain! Quite possibly conscious.

In my experiment, Dennett learns the final physics about being punched in the face- knows everything about it. Is he confident that he will gain nothing from the experience of being punched in the face?

Hes very close just eventually have to realize things go beyond understanding. If you keep the same inquisitive mind but explore deeper consciousness through lucid dreaming and symbols will learn a lot more, but science wont be able to explain it just like the slit experiment and other details about quantum physics.

We have a good description of consciousness from life to death then again except you are cleaned of any of any prior information you experienced all you could at that moment then you come into existence again

Consciousness is not baffling. It is entirely natural and primary. It is our experience in 3+1 spacetime that is truly baffling.

NTS U/8

If consciousness requires any sort of energy expenditure, then what purpose does it serve? A more efficient organism would just respond to its environment in a manner that preserves itself and offspring with no need for awareness.

Great channel, cooking up old stuff again, sorry....

I'm weird. I am aware of my consciousness and more. I step outside myself alot. Divine Intervention It's my story and it is true. It is the story of all of us. I am not a zombie..granted sometimes I wish I was brain dead. Fortunately I'm nof.

All he is saying is logic permits alternative explanations; this being an attempt to defeat the a priori nature of these thought experiments. But he pits his own a priori belief ie in logic - a system of thinking - to suggest these counter hypotheses. It reminds me of people in US when asked if they had proof of a rigged election - they would respond well can you prove the election wasn’t rigged. I also thought it a weak analogy equating someone predicting a triangle over a square to predicting a hitherto unseen colour based on all known facts about colour. Simple maths would enable someone to distinguish a square from a triangle. But to predict a colour without any point of reference - I say the onus is on him to unseat that as a natural conclusion - ie a priori correct. I was expecting a little polite push back but no.

(4:38) *DD: **_"Why are we so sure, in the case of color, it's different?"_* ... Because merely having _knowledge_ of inanimate structure and its internal characteristics will never match the level of information provided by *sensory perception* via Consciousness. There is a pecking order for levels of knowledge with *subjective experience* ranking much higher than basic *knowledge* and everything else below it. The universe already had nearly 10 billion years of inanimate structure to work with. If inanimate structure was all that was necessary, then sentient life would never have emerged. ... _Existence wanted more!_ The arrival of _Homo sapiens_ brought a whole new dynamic to "Existence!"

Maybe consciousness works on another frequency of reality entirely. Then we can assume that we can't measure it in this reality yet. So when we achieve the technology to measure across dimensions we can better define it. I still believe that consciousness is only separated from the body upon death of some sort. The body is a tool it uses as a sensory device to experience this reality.

Arrogant man . Nothing more to say.

I disagree with Dennett on this one- I think there's a better, easier to understand way to prove their theory is incorrect- ask Mary to write down what she learned. She can't - which is why she couldn't learn it in her black and white world- it can't be put into words. We lack the vocabulary to accurately describe in some objective sense what it's like to see a color, or hear a sound, or smell a smell- in other words, we lack the ability to convey with words what subjective experience is like. That's not a failure to describe reality- that's' a failure to describe our subjective experience of reality- and it's of zero consequence to objective reality- which is what science seeks to explain. This proves nothing accept- that these ppl confuse actual reality and the lens through which we view it- they try to make them one and the same, when it's very clear they're not.

Consciousness is only baffling for metaphysical naturalists. Something comes from something.

Suppose the b&w girl is colorblind. We've all seen the videos of people seeing color for the first time, people of all ages end up crying. #qualia

Consciousness *is* different. It is unlike anything else.

A pinpoint of momentary self-awareness in an infinite soup of randomness.

A conscious being comes from a conscious being. Trace that all the way back. I wonder where it leads…a conscious uncreated being.

Having no weight, no mass and no volume, consciousness is not quantifiable. This is why it is baffling.

Consciousness is not baffling at all. Except to philosophers. It's just a state of mind of an intelligence dealing with awareness, perceptions & responsiveness to the surrounds or existence. There are just two existences: Physical(Universe) & Abstract(Mind of an intelligence). Thought is the elemental construct for anything coming from the mind of an intelligence. Consciousness is a type of thought that can be deconstruction into awareness, perceptions & responsiveness to the surrounds or existence. There is nothing remotely baffling about Consciousness.

Because you are baffled!

He can't explain the first thing about what subjective experience is. He is only good for throwing away a few bad ideas. Much more style than substance from him. A great talker. Very thin ideas.

Replace the word consciousness with the word water? We live in a watery vapour, water runs through all living beings, albeit at varying speeds.

Defective irrational logic they arguing each other and give each other titles! too They have their own irrational world “it is their paradise” Only human give something valuable without waiting anything in return. The irrationals only good at: irrational meanness, greediness, grudge, hatred, thievery, killing each other, cheating each other, ….. Even, one of the irrationals works on deceiving other irrationals by promising them to take them to other planet to protect them from the unknown! But actually he plans to steal other irrationals money. The planet of the apes is unique of its kind, isn’t it !

Green blue...Green blue....Green blue....AI is shut dowm

X-Files Metaphysics For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant black holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love). That coyote (greed) is a crazy clown... The roadrunner is the state bird of the Land of Enchantment. The land of magic (love).

Now Dan resorts to zombies instead of his original philosophy of magic. He should admit he has no clue, rather making futile efforts to attract attention.

Dennet, a good natured and smart fool, defeats his own polemic. Either consciousness is identical with “intelligence”, i.e., problem solving, such as of finding a response to a conversational input in Chinese, or consciousness is an ineffable “extra”. Dennett argues himself into a corner. He thinks he is contradicting Searle. Searle’s whole point is that solving a problem is not the same as consciousness- that comprehension of “meaning”, a qualia, escapes computation. That there is the mechanical and ideal manipulation of data and logic to solve defined (and emergent) problems. And then there is awareness. That these two are FUNDAMENTALLY disparate. Dennett implicitly invokes a deux ex machina - he has no clue WHAT about the “whole system” creates consciousness. He just invokes such an emergence. That is an effin intuition! The dude is too arrogant to credit that… that EVERYONE engaging with the problem of consciousness is saying that consciousness is not explicable in material-ideal terms. That it is an entity of a third kind. Saying that, “the whole is somehow doing it” is identical to saying that there is a “we don’t know what” that creates the consciousness. We know matter and we know ideas (logic and numbers, etc.). The “we don’t know what” is not material, nor is it ideal. THEREFORE it is a new physical category. That which is solving the problem of Chinese conversation- the instructions (logic and numbers, or “ideas”) and the computer hardware (matter, energy)- is not possessed of consciousness. It is this idea-machine combo that Searle is replacing. That is Searle’s point. Dennett, in invoking a ghostly gestalt, is just trying to fool us. Or himself.

Why does consciousness have to be baffling? Or awareness as I like to name it as that other word just seems pretentious. It seems to me that evolution simply evolved awareness as to make sure they aren't being eaten alive and to be aware of their surroundings. If they did not have awareness, they'd starve.

_Cogito ergo sum._ That's not true on the day you are born. Self awareness begins the moment the neural network in the cerebral cortex completes sufficient development.

Let me take the example of God. God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'. Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind on their own. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.

Baffling? Because you refuse to accept what the God of Israel and of the Gentile world has had to say on the matter.

Didn't humanity ask the same thing about flying? Disease? Space...? 'Why is being able to fly so baffling?' We didn't/don't understand it till we applied all the crazy thoughts about flight into physical application. Even then, it took many failures till we finely achieved flight... Near death experiences, regression experiences are our crazy thoughts and applications. Consciousness is just humanities awareness...till we become aware of experiences after we die (NDE's/Regression...) do we start to ask the question about consciousness. If consciousness was about life...death and that's it. Consciousness would be a one paragraph epitaph on someone's tombstone, The End! Religion, NDE's, Regression, Paranormal are now bringing humanity to ask more questions. Is there consciousness after death, which brings us to what is consciousness and where does consciousness go to after we die? Question: If it wasn't for Religion, NDE's, Regression ...experiences. Would humanity even be asking the questions of consciousness and why? If humanity/everything is made up of energy. Where does all that energy go and when will humanity really learn to fly?

A Zombie is essentially soulless. Well, Dennett would certainly describe himself that way. Welcome to atheism folks!

More than once, WE have tried to listen to this conversation. WE see no consciousness in this conversation. Consciousness comes in 3 . It is not a whole. There is also the subconscious and unconsciousness. There are 3 layers. Everything has to come from the unconscious through the sub to consciousness. What you speak of has to do with the working of the mind/brain. Consciousness is ME (outer ego), Subconscious is my SELF ( inner ego), Unconscious is I.D. (inner divine). At least that is what WE call it, lol. It fits. Like an egg, the shell represents the physical reality, then you have the whites, a clear amniotic fluid, which is separated by a thin web like substance between the shell and whites. WE call that the firmament. As you make your way through the whites, you come to the yolk. There is a saying, "Pick up thy yolk." All is symbolic. Funny thing, the description of the egg is also of the human mind/brain. The human brain has a thin web like substance dividing it in to 3 sections. The right (feminine), left (masculine), and cerebellum(trunk of the tree). Everything outside of you relates to you inside. Just as much as consciousness is outside of us, it is also inside. One needs to walk their path. Very symbolic. E.G.O. WE call it Emotional Growth Opportunity. Just walking OUR path. What comes in 3. As one walks their path, they begin as a sleeper, heading into waking, becoming aware. Awareness is so much more.

These are old

It's baffling, but it couldn't possibly be from Intelligent Purpose or Mind, right?

what the hell is this poor seating arrangement. especially for dennett

Do you think two p-zombies would be sitting there having a conversation about consciousness?

*Dennett attacks a straw man.* The philosophers of whom he disapproves are not simply consulting 'intuitions' or having 'hunches' and then saying "therefore consciousness is radically different". They first isolate some facts about consciousness and then point out that these facts cannot be obviously accommodated within any physicalist perspective. Moreover, they give argued reasons in support of this conclusion. Even if such philosophers could still be shown to be wrong, they would be wrong in having made more substantial philosophical mistakes. But how much easier it is just to trump up some charge, then attack that.

Consciousness and creation are Ying and Yang...the ultimate secret that should and will never be known to mankind...end of story.

consciousness is nothing special..

Brilliant