Vad skall man säga?

Ställer frågor, men kommer inte fram till några tydliga svar.

Intressantast blir boken när han diskuterar djurens eventuella medvetande/lidande kopplat till etik. En lätt vidröring av ämnet djurrätt även om det inte på något sätt är bokens fokus.

Känns ibland som han drar förhastade slutsatser...utan att det leder någonstans.

A mind-boggling book, full of mind-boggling theories about various levels of cognition, in humans and in animals, many of them already proven in laboratory tests. I feel as though I have stretched my mind just by reading this book.

110 - 2021

This is a very accessible book, which is probably why I didn't enjoy it much. It raises a lot of questions, answers almost none, and deals with it in a very easy to understand language and never gets too technical. I feel that the simplicity in which he expressed his ideas is not a good way to deal with the complexity of the themes underneath.

For a first book on consciousness, starting to explore the themes, it's a good book. If you have read some more about it, I wouldn't recommend it. "Godel, Escher, Bach" followed by "I Am A Strange Loop" would be much more enlightening.

I found the book at a thrift store a few weeks ago while on vacation from work so I thought I would give this Dennett book a read.

In all honesty this book wasn't written for me. The past four years I've been pouring over philosophy of mind articles/books, reading some books in cognitive science, and even diving deep in phenomenology, so I would say this book was a little elementary for my purposes.

However with all this being said the book itself is not bad at all and if anything a great book for people that are interested in getting into the philosophy of mind or the other cognitive sciences.

This book is easy to read, but hard to digest. Because of Dennett's deceptively easy style, there is absolutely nothing that you cannot understand in this book. However, you must ask yourself whether the question you had when you opened the book, that is, about what can be called a mind and what can't, is answered when you finished the book. For me, it wasn't.

And I think this is because Dennett actually did not answer the question. At the opening of the book, he poses two questions before us: 1) what kinds of minds are there (ontological question), and 2) how do we know it (epistemological question). Dennett kind of answered the first question, but not the second question.

He starts with the three stances we can employ in predicting what is going to happen, i.e. physical, design, and intentional. To predict what's gonna happen with a falling apple, we employ the physical stance. (Our ancestors did employ the intentional stances, notably in Animism.) To predict what a machine will do, we take the design stance. To tell what an animal will do, we employ the intentional stance.

But intentionality simply means one thing is about something else. Intentionality is aboutness. Despite the word employed, it does not include any intention. While mere intentional system is sensitive, true minds are sentient. To define mind from the perspective of functionalism, we must define what the mind does. Mind does process information.

Finally, in chapter 4, we are introduced to the four kinds of creatures (minds). Darwinian creatures acts as their genes are designed. A Skinnerian creature follows the tactic of trial and error. A Popperian creature employs inner simulation instead of blind trial and error tactics, thus letting its simulation die in the stead of its actual body. Finally, a Gregorian creature uses mind tools to augment its DB, thus enlarging the capacity of its mind lab. Of course, the best mind tool is language.

However, I am confused about Dennett's conclusion on the scope of minds. Determining the scope of minds is important because it bears moral implication. If we treat a creature with a mind as if it is a mindless creature, it is a sin, as Dennett declares. So, does our dogs have minds? I think Dennett's answer is no. If so, it follows that animal tests are morally acceptable. A fish with a hook in his mouth will not feel the pain we imagine.

This is a super interesting book with a fantastic reading experience. However, we might end up with our thirst unquenched. At least, my questions were not answered.

My final verdict is that you must read this book once or twice. I read it twice, because I could not grasp the whole structure with just one go. I believe I will be reading it for the third time soon enough. And in the meantime, I will be reading another Dennett with relish.

Great subject, famous author truly intriguing beginning and then you are just flooded by the wave of words, threads going nowhere… a true disappointment for me.
If you are interested in other mind better read Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness by Peter Godfrey-Smith which is has all Bennett’s work lacks.

I’m not sure I agree with or even understand the entire argument presented in this book, but it certainly gave me a lot to think about. It made me want to read more about animal consciousness.

On aina mukavaa lukea kinkkisiä asioita käsitettävässä muodossa, mutta usein tulee sellainen olo, että jotain tärkeää jätettiin kertomatta. Tulee hyväntahtoisesti huijattu olo; kuin olisi katsonut taikurin esiintymistä. Niin tässäkin. Kaikki tuntui kovin selkeältä ja yksinkertaiselta. Asioista edettiin nopeasti seuraaviin jumiutumatta minkään yksittäisen seikan pohdintaan kovin pitkäksi aikaa. Rattoisaa, mutta ei kovin tyydyttävää. Tämä ei tietenkään ole negatiivista kun puhutaan selkeästi yleistajuiseksi tarkoitetusta teoksesta. Pikaruokamaisuus kuuluu homman nimeen.

Kyseessä on (sikäli kuin osaan arvioida) pätevä mutta pinnallinen yleiskatsaus tietoisuuden tutkimukseen evolutiivis-materialistisen paradigman näkökulmasta. Dennett hahmottelee tutkimuksen päälinjat, mainitsee joitain ongelmia ja ratkaisuehdotuksia, mutta ei lopulta vie lukijaa minnekään. Ei ainakaan minua. Tästäkään Dennettiä ei kuitenkaan voi syyttää, sillä hän itse - sekä teoksen alussa että lopussa - painottaa olevansa filosofi, jonka tehtävän�� on tehdä parempia kysymyksiä, ei antaa vastauksia. Dogmaattisuuden uupuminen on lähes aina positiivista, mutta kun Dennett ei ole edes radikaali kyseenalaistaja, jää teoksen anti (ainakin kaltaiselleni vihaiselle nuorelle miehelle) kyseenalaiseksi. Ei tästä ole edes yleistajuiseksi oppaaksi tietoisuuden tutkimuksen perusteisiin, niin ohut se on.

Daniel Dennett describes the types of minds there are and makes an argument for whether or not they are conscious. Specifically he argues that we have no way of knowing what it's like to be something for which we question its consciousness.

Była całkiem spoko, fajnie potraktowany temat historii tworzenia się umysłu i to czym jest umysł, jednak obawiam się, że niedługo o niej zapomnę, bo jakaś szczególna nie była.

I really enjoy the clarity and well crafted line of argument in this book. I was of the impression that Dennett denied sentient consciousness, but here he presents a rather interesting point that it is not as special as others want to argue that it is. I still think that he is wrong with that, for I think it certainly is a central point for our morality over all. It is however a very tricky business how to interpret other beings' consciousness. The link between sentient consciousness and language is very interesting here. A further interesting thing is that Dennett does not come across as essentialist as I thought he would be. In this I think he is somewhat different from, for example, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. I think I need to read more of Dennett to see more precisely how he would relate to those for example (and they are not philosophers so the comparison might not work). Of course, if I was really diligent I should compare what he says with David Chalmers, Churchland, Searle and others, but I don't really have the energy for that, and I am sure others have done that already in a much more comptent way than what I could. But really, I suppose one should read Chalmers before one make up one's mind about the mind. Good book that provokes thinking.