Daniel

All posts tagged Daniel

I’m currently reading (very slowly!) Daniel Dennett‘s Consciousness Explained. Given that he’s one of the Four Horsemen I have, naturally, listened to Dennett speak on a number of occasions, largely on the subject of atheism. Until now, however, I’d never actually picked up one of his books, and I’m kind of glad that I didn’t — because now I have all that wonderful stuff ahead of me.

Understanding consciousness is something I previously would only have attempted back in my drinking days. Contemplating such apparent unfathomables is something I wouldn’t have dared attempt without a large whiskey or three inside me. With Dennett holding my hand like the philosophical Father Christmas that he is, however, I now feel that I can ponder the non-dualistic, materialistic explanations with admirable sobriety!

It’s a tough subject nevertheless. What is consciousness? What is the “mind”? What differentiates it from “the brain”? If it’s merely the product of cellular processes, does that mean that my consciousness is the same as your consciousness? These — and many others — are the questions that we’ve all asked ourselves, I’m sure, in one form or another at some time in our lives. And they go to the very heart of who we are and, more to the point, perhaps, what we are. Yet, it is a subject that so many people feel we can never understand or, even worse, are afraid of even attempting to understand it. If we understand consciousness, will it somehow change us? And will any changes be for the better or for the worse?

Dennett bravely tackles these questions and thus far Consciousness Explained is proving stimulating, demanding and utterly fascinating. I’d recommend it.

For those interested in such questions, the Dennett lecture below should provide a reasonable and entertaining introduction.

Enjoy! (And, incidentally, how does enjoyment actually work?!)

© 2008 Gary William Murning

Having finally completed Tolstoy’s War and Peace — I approached it with much trepidation, paced myself far more sensibly than I normally would, found some of the final battle sections and philosophising rather tedious and unnecessary, but, on the whole, thoroughly enjoyed it — I today started reading By the River Piedra, I Sat Down and Wept by Paolo Coelho. I bought it on a whim after ordering Jostein Gaarder’s The Orange Girl via Amazon and having their service recommend it to me (quite often a good idea, I find, if you want to discover something you might otherwise have missed), and I have to say that, so far, I find it rather unimpressive. Coelho, whilst not exactly proselytising, seems intent on pushing his own religious/spiritual views on life — and whilst I don’t especially object to this, I find, because of the simplicity of the novel, the sketchily drawn characters, that it’s quite overpowering.

With novels like this, and with my own particular position on such matters being so… well, founded in the rational, and even though I do have those “spiritual” moments of connection with the world around me (usually when I’m out in the countryside), it’s very difficult not to let the author’s agenda develop more weight than he might have intended. I’m very conscious that it may well be my own bias that is spoiling the work for me, though I truly don’t think that it is. There’s a naivete about it that I feel I should like, but somehow it doesn’t feel quite sincere.

It isn’t a difficult read, though, so I’ll give it a chance and try to keep an open mind.

Other books waiting to be read:

  1. Elvis and the Memphis Mafia — by Alanna Nash.
  2. The Orange Girl — by Jostein Gaarder.
  3. Consciousness Explained — by Daniel Dennett.
  4. The Meaning of It All — by Richard Feynman.
  5. The Tin Drum — by Gunter Grass.

© 2008 Gary William Murning

I am currently in summer mode — so while this warm UK weather persists (probably no more than a day or two!), my posts may not be quite up to their usual standard.

Today, however, I do have something especially interesting I’d like to share with you. In this piece, Daniel Dennett is effectively discussing “the magic of consciousness” — how we think of consciousness as a single “thing” in need of explaining rather than a collection of mental components. His point is that our naming it as a single “thing” is at the root of the problem.

There are other lessons to be learned from this excerpt, however, but I’ll let you work them out for yourselves — more fun that way ;)

The tempting idea that there is a Hard Problem is simply a mistake. I cannot prove this. Or, better, even if I can prove this, my proof will surely fall on deaf ears, since CHALMERS, for instance, has already acknowledged that arguments against his convictions on this score are powerless to dislodge his intuition, which is beyond rational support. So I will not make the tactical error of trying to dislodge with rational argument a conviction that is beyond reason. That would be wasting everybody’s time, apparently. Instead, I will offer up what I hope is a disturbing parallel from the world of card magic: The Tuned Deck.

For many years, Mr. Ralph Hull, the famous card wizard from Crooksville, Ohio, has completely bewildered not only the general public, but also amateur conjurors, card connoisseurs and professional magicians with the series of card tricks which he is pleased to call “The Tuned Deck”…

Ralph Hull’s trick looks and sounds roughly like this:

Boys, I have a new trick to show you. It’s called ‘The Tuned Deck’. This deck of cards is magically tuned [Hull holds the deck to his ear and riffles the cards, listening carefully to the buzz of the cards]. By their finely tuned vibrations, I can hear and feel the location of any card. Pick a card, any card… [The deck is then fanned or otherwise offered for the audience, and a card is taken by a spectator, noted, and returned to the deck by one route or another.] Now I listen to the Tuned Deck, and what does it tell me? I hear the telltale vibrations, … [buzz, buzz, the cards are riffled by Hull's ear and various manipulations and rituals are enacted, after which, with a flourish, the spectator's card is presented].

Hull would perform the trick over and over for the benefit of his select audience of fellow magicians, challenging them to figure it out. Nobody ever did. Magicians offered to buy the trick from him but he would not sell it. Late in his life he gave his account to his friend, HILLIARD, who published the account in his privately printed book. Here is what Hull had to say about his trick:

For years I have performed this effect and have shown it to magicians and amateurs by the hundred and, to the very best of my knowledge, not one of them ever figured out the secret. …the boys have all looked for something too hard [my italics, DCD].

Like much great magic, the trick is over before you even realize the trick has begun. The trick, in its entirety, is in the name of the trick, “The Tuned Deck”, and more specifically, in one word “The”! As soon as Hull had announced his new trick and given its name to his eager audience, the trick was over. Having set up his audience in this simple way, and having passed the time with some obviously phony and misdirecting chatter about vibrations and buzz-buzz-buzz, Hull would do a relatively simple and familiar card presentation trick of type A (at this point I will draw the traditional curtain of secrecy; the further mechanical details of legerdemain, as you will see, do not matter).

His audience, savvy magicians, would see that he might possibly be performing a type A trick, a hypothesis they could test by being stubborn and uncooperative spectators in a way that would thwart any attempt at a type A trick. When they then adopted the appropriate recalcitrance to test the hypothesis, Hull would ‘repeat’ the trick, this time executing a type B card presentation trick. The spectators would then huddle and compare notes: might he be doing a type B trick? They test that hypothesis by adopting the recalcitrance appropriate to preventing a type B trick and still he does “the” trick – using method C, of course. When they test the hypothesis that he’s pulling a type C trick on them, he switches to method D – or perhaps he goes back to method A or B, since his audience has ‘refuted’ the hypothesis that he’s using method A or B.

And so it would go, for dozens of repetitions, with Hull staying one step ahead of his hypothesis-testers, exploiting his realization that he could always do some trick or other from the pool of tricks they all knew, and concealing the fact that he was doing a grab bag of different tricks by the simple expedient of the definite article: The Tuned Deck.