Note: On Poetics is a critical text for students of literature and philosophy. This text manages to find its way into our lives even today because from poets to writers- be it fiction, adverts or movie scripts- this book, is their ultimate formula!
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Coming up next...
Note: On Poetics is a critical text for students of literature and philosophy. This text manages to find its way into our lives even today because from poets to writers- be it fiction, adverts or movie scripts- this book, is their ultimate formula!
EVALUATING NED BLOCK’S AND DANIEL DENNET’S CONVERSATIONS ON CONSCIOUSNESS
Before the classes on consciousness had begun, I used to often wonder why the Department of Psychology was offering a course on “boring” consciousness. The Unconscious was more exciting to me. But how wrong I was! The study of consciousness is not easy, firm, or a given. Consciousness was not any of that!
On the completion of our course, we have been asked to analyze at least two interviewees from Susan Blackmore’s book – Conversations on consciousness. For the above mentioned purpose, I have chosen the interview of Ned Block and Daniel Dennett.
* * *
Daniel Dennett is known for his rejection of the Cartesian theatre in favor of his theory of multiple drafts. The theory of
Multiple drafts views the mind in terms of information processing. It supports the possibility of Artificial Intelligence. Dennett is influenced by Darwin’s evolutionary perspective and this becomes obvious in the following lines-
“We have been created by the process of evolution, both genetic and cultural.”(Pg. 83)
I agree with him on the problem with consciousness- We are things with a point of view, and with the capacity to reflect on that point of view and talk about it. We are trapped within that point of view.
Therefore, our first problem is that ability to know more about our own nature. Also, so many people have intuitions about consciousness, that it has become a struggle to get people working in consciousness to start abandoning their views.
Ned Block is known for his critic on functionalism (arguing that a system with the same functional states as a human is not necessarily conscious), thought experiments like Chinese nation/ China brain and distinction between access and phenomenal consciousness.
He takes the hard problem head on! He feels the problem is “what is consciousness?” The other problem according to him is that there is no progress in studying phenomenology. Phenomenology is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and analysis of the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness.
Dennett says he has given up the idea of zombie hunch. Ned Block on the other hand believes in one type of the philosopher’s zombie- therefore he came up with the idea of China brain- a zombie that functions like the human brain but physically looks nothing like it. On the other hand, he does not believe in the kind of zombie David Chalmers believes in.
We can also notice that Dennett is very clear and confident of his answers. He is lucid and takes time to explain his opinions. Ned Block is not very clear/ expressive/articulate and often gets jumbled when questioned by Blackmore.
Both of them do believe that they have free will. Ned goes on to explain that if we take a deflated idea of free will, he has free will and if we take an inflated idea of free will- he lacks it. Ned block distinguished between Access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness. Dan, however, felt that it was a false distinction and it will disappear.
When questioned whether studying consciousness changed the way they viewed themselves, Ned replied it had while Dennett felt it never came as a surprise to him. Ned advocates Phenomenology which studies subjective experiences. Dennett prefers heterophenomenology- scientific, third person study of consciousness.
It is important to note that both of them reject the idea of a Cartesian theatre.
Ned believes that the physiology of the human brain determines our phenomenology, i.e., he believes that consciousness is generated in the brain. He defines the self as a constellation of states that interact with each other. Dennett defines the self as “the agent” and by that he refers to the whole body.
Dennett mentions the top- down theory of creativity: that it takes a big fancy thing to make a less fancy thing. Potters make pots, pots don’t make potters. Therefore, we must be made by something more wonderful still, which is God. He feels the only possibility of a life after death is through being popular even after death, especially in the case of celebrities. He feels his best work is his move towards counter-intuitiveness. In relation to qualia, he feels that we have to recognize that however unanalysable, indissoluble, however intrinsically present that all seems to us, what has to be explained is that it seems to us and not that it is really so.
“Those are two halves you have got to explain. And people – wonderfully conveniently for them, and inconveniently for the truth – forget that it seems that way to the zombie too.”
When he uses the word truth, I have a problem there. He somehow forgets the philosophical debate surrounding the idea of “truth” (borrowing from Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche). Dennett masterfully uses elements from the field of arts and science (referring to C.P Snow’s essay “Two Cultures”). C.P Snow feels that to make developments in human knowledge we have to bridge the gap between the scientist and the artist. When Dennett uses the word “truth” it seems paradoxical because C.P Snow has clearly mentioned that when scientists’ aim to find the truth, they get caught in the moral un-neutrality of science; on the other hand, Dennett is very proud that his heterophenomenology is a very scientific method. According to Dennett the solution to the problem of consciousness lies in making oneself big, really big. The deadly error is to retreat into the self. Dennett is not one of those who believe that after we explain the various processes in the brain like learning, memory, reasoning etc., there will still remain the problem of “you have left something out” – consciousness. That is why he rejects the idea of Cartesian theatre.
The best way (as of now) to deal with both Ned Block and Dennett is to adopt the eclectic position i.e. to use the best they both have to offer. I do feel more connected with Dennett’s stance regarding consciousness and I believe we should take the route of heterophenomenology. Ned Block’s distinction between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness is very useful in removing confusions regarding phenomenology of consciousness and I am in favor of it.
On the completion of our course, we have been asked to analyze at least two interviewees from Susan Blackmore’s book – Conversations on consciousness. For the above mentioned purpose, I have chosen the interview of Ned Block and Daniel Dennett.
* * *
Daniel Dennett is known for his rejection of the Cartesian theatre in favor of his theory of multiple drafts. The theory of
Multiple drafts views the mind in terms of information processing. It supports the possibility of Artificial Intelligence. Dennett is influenced by Darwin’s evolutionary perspective and this becomes obvious in the following lines-
“We have been created by the process of evolution, both genetic and cultural.”(Pg. 83)
I agree with him on the problem with consciousness- We are things with a point of view, and with the capacity to reflect on that point of view and talk about it. We are trapped within that point of view.
Therefore, our first problem is that ability to know more about our own nature. Also, so many people have intuitions about consciousness, that it has become a struggle to get people working in consciousness to start abandoning their views.
Ned Block is known for his critic on functionalism (arguing that a system with the same functional states as a human is not necessarily conscious), thought experiments like Chinese nation/ China brain and distinction between access and phenomenal consciousness.
He takes the hard problem head on! He feels the problem is “what is consciousness?” The other problem according to him is that there is no progress in studying phenomenology. Phenomenology is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and analysis of the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness.
Dennett says he has given up the idea of zombie hunch. Ned Block on the other hand believes in one type of the philosopher’s zombie- therefore he came up with the idea of China brain- a zombie that functions like the human brain but physically looks nothing like it. On the other hand, he does not believe in the kind of zombie David Chalmers believes in.
We can also notice that Dennett is very clear and confident of his answers. He is lucid and takes time to explain his opinions. Ned Block is not very clear/ expressive/articulate and often gets jumbled when questioned by Blackmore.
Both of them do believe that they have free will. Ned goes on to explain that if we take a deflated idea of free will, he has free will and if we take an inflated idea of free will- he lacks it. Ned block distinguished between Access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness. Dan, however, felt that it was a false distinction and it will disappear.
When questioned whether studying consciousness changed the way they viewed themselves, Ned replied it had while Dennett felt it never came as a surprise to him. Ned advocates Phenomenology which studies subjective experiences. Dennett prefers heterophenomenology- scientific, third person study of consciousness.
It is important to note that both of them reject the idea of a Cartesian theatre.
Ned believes that the physiology of the human brain determines our phenomenology, i.e., he believes that consciousness is generated in the brain. He defines the self as a constellation of states that interact with each other. Dennett defines the self as “the agent” and by that he refers to the whole body.
Dennett mentions the top- down theory of creativity: that it takes a big fancy thing to make a less fancy thing. Potters make pots, pots don’t make potters. Therefore, we must be made by something more wonderful still, which is God. He feels the only possibility of a life after death is through being popular even after death, especially in the case of celebrities. He feels his best work is his move towards counter-intuitiveness. In relation to qualia, he feels that we have to recognize that however unanalysable, indissoluble, however intrinsically present that all seems to us, what has to be explained is that it seems to us and not that it is really so.
“Those are two halves you have got to explain. And people – wonderfully conveniently for them, and inconveniently for the truth – forget that it seems that way to the zombie too.”
When he uses the word truth, I have a problem there. He somehow forgets the philosophical debate surrounding the idea of “truth” (borrowing from Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche). Dennett masterfully uses elements from the field of arts and science (referring to C.P Snow’s essay “Two Cultures”). C.P Snow feels that to make developments in human knowledge we have to bridge the gap between the scientist and the artist. When Dennett uses the word “truth” it seems paradoxical because C.P Snow has clearly mentioned that when scientists’ aim to find the truth, they get caught in the moral un-neutrality of science; on the other hand, Dennett is very proud that his heterophenomenology is a very scientific method. According to Dennett the solution to the problem of consciousness lies in making oneself big, really big. The deadly error is to retreat into the self. Dennett is not one of those who believe that after we explain the various processes in the brain like learning, memory, reasoning etc., there will still remain the problem of “you have left something out” – consciousness. That is why he rejects the idea of Cartesian theatre.
The best way (as of now) to deal with both Ned Block and Dennett is to adopt the eclectic position i.e. to use the best they both have to offer. I do feel more connected with Dennett’s stance regarding consciousness and I believe we should take the route of heterophenomenology. Ned Block’s distinction between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness is very useful in removing confusions regarding phenomenology of consciousness and I am in favor of it.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Why Read?!
I remember sitting in my Culture and Gender class for weeks together barely understanding what was happening.The classes were being conducted by CSCS(Center for the study of Culture and Society) Bangalore.But eventually a time came when I started understanding things- I even upgraded my course to BA Honors in English studies. I later attended other courses like Psychology after Foucault and What makes us think (Consciousness).It was only last year that I turned in an absolutely wonderful piece of critical essay and it was only then that my confidence grew. Since then, I've been in love with theory! Yes, you heard it right. I know, everyone complains-"But I don't get it! It's so annoying!" My answer is-"Precisely! We should engage in reading critical theory and philosophy because it makes us think and our strength, our basis for claims over a higher order species is precisely because of our ability to reason. So why back off from theory?" Think of it as a little game- a piece of writing is asking you to eat it whole (you can spew it later too!) and is questioning your ability to think! You want to accept defeat so soon?
For beginners(most people who extensively read theory have a system of their own), I have here a four step approach to any written text.
I started reading theory and philosophy three years ago. Yes, I remember. Don't we all, if something significant happens? I do hope, this reading journey is something you will come to treasure... And welcome to the blog!
Happy reading!
Love,
Ash
- If you don't understand, read the sentence a few more times. Reading aloud and being patient helps.If you still don't get the meaning, read the entire paragraph. If you are still unhappy, read the entire text even if it makes no sense. Comeback and read again.
- Make notes- no not elaborate ones. Use bullet points and don't exceed 4-5 words per point.You can use this as a ready reckoner too. This will make sure that by the end of an essay or chapter, you are still aware of the writer's chain of thought.
- Plain reading is no good. Give examples, think of scenarios where you could put to use these ideas you just read about. Try to understand what you think of the text. Do you agree with the writer or you feel that it is old fashioned or do you think you could use some and lose some from what you have learnt? Add this to your notes.
- THIS IS THE STRICTEST RULE OF THEM ALL: DO NOT-EVER, EVER-USE SUMMARIES OF THE TEXT. Read the original text, form your own opinion. Later, for extra help, you could use summaries or notes.
I started reading theory and philosophy three years ago. Yes, I remember. Don't we all, if something significant happens? I do hope, this reading journey is something you will come to treasure... And welcome to the blog!
Happy reading!
Love,
Ash
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)