(Потому что наши русские читатели очень важны, мы сейчас в поисках профессионального переводчика. Мы приносим свои извинения, что на данный момент, мы можем лишь предоставить текст на английском языке.)

Are we all zombie robots? Yes! There is no other stuff besides the functional organization implemented on the flesh, blood and fat of your brain, that is responsible for the myriad of computations which are to yield the vastness of experiences: love, hate, anger, pain, yellow, red, lust, the taste of beer and wine, the smell of strawberry. They are all spread in the brain as the software that runs on the fatty-brain-hardware assembled from protons, electrons and neutrons. That’s all we need in order to explain the “phenomenal qualities” or “qualia“.

Bricks have flung straight at the faces of the adherents of the above claims. Bricks? Not really! These bricks were actually more like sponges because all the arguments put forth to debar the claims of functionalism are just plain old nonsense. Try to disprove some theory with the help of scientifically unsupported arguments based on hunches and there you have it: A group of quarrelsome philosophers who think there is more to cognition and consciousness than the structural organization of layers upon layers of functional meat. Yes, there is only meat, neurons organized into complex data structures of which their overall purpose is to yield consciousness in order to mediate the behavior needed for survival. The capability of foresight, forestalling, planing, communicating with others, all these are achieved by the multi-layered organizational structure of neurons from which the brain and the mind emerges.

You might say: “But wait! It can’t be! It couldn’t be just meat!” This basic hunch, the Zombic Hunch, believe it or not, is the only provisioner of counter-arguments that try to disprove the theory of functionalism. Where is consciousness to be found? Beyond the ken of the objective, third-person science like biology, neurology and psychology! Or maybe in the quantum properties of matter. This is how anti-functionalists try to creep their assumptions into the arena of the philosophy of mind. They just want to admit defeat by postulating some figment that exists at the quantum scale, which demands by itself an explanation that is beyond our power of comprehension, from which real consciousness emerges; the game is over they say. There is no more exploratory fun! This is where Dennett’s book comes at rescue.

First of all i want to emphasis the importance of reading Consciousness Explained first. Concepts introduced in that book are in great need if you want to get the grips with the mental exercises presented in this one in which Dennett responds to the criticisms laid down by the mysterians (philosophers who deny that the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences or “qualia” will ever be solved) or the so called qualophiles for which consciousness makes no sense without the extra thing, the figment made from something else but matter.

Imagine entering a mill and observing all the gears, levers, pulleys, girders and components working in unison for the one sole purpose of rotating the milestones that grind and pulverize grain and other raw materials. While apparently, when we analyze only one piece of equipment at a time we might not learn much about the mill as a whole, trying to comprehend the systemic organization of all the pieces from which a working mill emerges might be the right way to look at things. Don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same approach is in need when analyzing consciousness. Instead of pulleys, gears, and levers we’ve got neurons, axons, serotonin, acetylcholine, dopamine and a hell lot of other components that are arranged in functional architectures of organization from which consciousness emerges.

More >

       (Потому что наши русские читатели очень важны, мы сейчас в поисках профессионального переводчика. Мы приносим свои извинения, что на данный момент, мы можем лишь предоставить текст на английском языке.)

In his more recent book, Sweet Dreams, Dan Dennett approaches the problem of consciousness from an interesting angle; in the Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India, Dan argues, Lee Siegel lays a witty passage by preening on the logic of how some people perceive magic:

“I’m writing a book on magic,” I explain, and I’m asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No,” I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic.” Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic (p. 425 – Net of Magic).

The readers of Consciousness Explained should adopt the same logic of reasoning right at the beginning of the book in order to funnel themselves on the right path of comprehending how Dan’s theory is built. True consciousness, meaning real magic, doesn’t exist, in reality being gappy, incomplete, and very often puffed up with qualities that on closer inspection makes “us” wonder what diabolic illusion does the brain makes use of in order to delude “our” naive little minds. Prepare for the destruction of the myth of consciousness’ plenum.

The italics I’ve used for “us” and “our” are not in vain because there is another concession you’ll have to make for a non-shallow passing of Dan’s text. The “us”, the “our”, the Central Meaner which spawns the meanings, the thoughts that sprouts our utterances, and not the least, which enjoys all the pleasures, sensations in a way that only “he” can understand, doesn’t exist.

It is not that we speak the words, think the thoughts, but that the words speak us, the thoughts think us. What we call “us” is an abstraction just like the center of gravity is to a physical object, a narration that looks as if it is spoken by someone (The Immaterial Meaner, The Immaterial Thinker), but in reality it speaks itself through the fight, turmoil, pandemonium between the coalitions of neurons that make our brains.

A useful analogy to make a more solid point might be the following. I’m sure you’ve heard about a lot of cheesy conspiracy theories in your lifetime. UFOs and aliens trapped in top secret military installations, select groups of bankers working on the new world order, crazy scientists concocting the deadly virus that will put an end to all civilization letting only the privileged wealthy ones to go on living. All these conspiracy theories have one thing in common: the small group of international elites that control and manipulate governments, industry, and media organizations worldwide in order to achieve their purpose.

Conspiracy Theories about an infinitesimally small number of cooperating people controlling the slaved whole planet are highly unlikely, therefore the existence of this select group of elites capable of controlling the planet is very improbable. The same logic applies to the debate of whether there is a single central Meaner/Thinker – be it material or not – located somewhere in the brain, responsible for all the deeds and misdeeds of the rest of the brain. Dan’s book will build the sketch of a theory that will prove the non-necessity of such a place in the brain.

What you’ll find out by reading the book will be, among other things, that there is no difference between feeling something, be it emotion (anger, love), sensation (feeling cold, warm), and thinking. In reality we can safely say that all cognitive processes result in some form of thinking. It’s all about thinking. The color red is a thought, the feeling of love is a thought, the emotion of anger is a thought just like adding 2+2 in your head is a thought. The only difference between them is their idiosyncratic functional implementation which transforms these neuronal arrangements into the unique tools useful for carrying their bodies around the “possible to predict” environment in which they will carry their lives.

More >