well, i got to page 75 of 175. usually i don't give up until page 100, but i'm particular these days, especially because i'm skittish about philosophy in general. in the beginning i was supremely entertained by dennett's clever musings on sentience (he's a wonderful writer, much like douglas hofstadter), but in the end the semantics (as usual!) broke me down. "is x sentient or is it merely sensitive to certain inputs?" my answer: well, it depends on how you define "sentient" and "sensitive". my "problem" with much of this sort of discussion always is that you can define words however you like -- the fact that any term or topic bears discussion indicates that communication isn't perfectly efficient. we have to elaborate on a topic to get our point across because uttering one, two, or three words just doesn't get the meaning across.

perhaps dennett addresses the ADD tics of readers like me later on, but i have too many other books i'm excited about to stick with this and find out. :)

There's been a boom in "armchair"-style cognitive pop-science books lately but you really have to be familiar with what the long-standing landscape of the topic was; before jumping at every latest fad title. Start with something like this. Anytime any new discovery happens, a spate of books ensues by anyone even remotely involved; the lamers who write science-feature articles for Yahoo are all looking to get their first book out. Remain calm and don't get excited at every little 'startling development'. A book like this helps you gain a sense of perspective.

I liked this book a great deal. Approachable philosophy, not full of jargon and buzzwords either to obscure or because of enough understanding to explain the complex simply. Dennett doe a terrific job going over an immense amount of material from many different sources and bringing it together in plain language and perceptive and clarifying examples to make his points.

I recommend this book unreservedly to anyone wanting to know more about the human mind.

Dennettova knjiga Vrste umova: k razumijevanju svijesti provokativna je od prve do posljednje stranice. Ona nas poziva da o problemu uma i svijesti razmišljamo na potpuno drugačiji način od onoga tradicionalnoga prema kojemu su um i svijest nešto posebno, nešto potpuno različito od materije i procesa u njoj, te stoga nešto što je izvan dosega znanstvene spoznaje. Dennetov rad na razmeđi filozofije uma, kognitivne znanosti, umjetne inteligencije i biologije, kao i radovi na temu slobode volje i religije, pristupačno su i poticajno štivo za šire čitateljstvo.

https://www.superknjizara.hr/?page=kn...

Fascinating, but offensive if you like dogs. Basically, you start at the bottom and build up---when did the multicellular organism attain the ability to "think"? At some point. Using Dennett's well-argued theories of ever-increasing complexity, he comes to the sticky conclusion that animals, dogs for example, can't feel as much pain as we humans do. Is this true? Maybe.

thank you to tsu for the book !
this is a very intricate book and explains the various wonderful discoveries (which also include those yet to-be discovered) and the wonder of the human brain, evolution and what is so called entitled our minds.

saya selalu membayangkan buku-buku filsafat-sains populer macam ini lahir dari tangan dingin intelektual indonesia. dannet menulis dengan gaya yang begitu sederhana dan menarik, tapi saya tetap saja kesulitan mengikuti pada beberapa bagian (ini karena pengetahuan sains saya buruk, atau nyaris nol). suatu saat, saya sepertinya perlu membacanya ulang. saya harap ada lebih banyak lagi karya dennet diterjemahkan.

Not terrible but nothing really good either. Nothing really profound or new substantively, no particularly good explanation of familiar phenomena or ideas, and no deep impressive thinking like in a Steven Pinker way. Overall just a kind of long book that doesn’t really do much of anything.

Mais um livro fantástico do Daniel Dennett. Para explicar e discutir sua teoria dos tipos de mentes, ele estabelece três tipos de criaturas: Skinnerian creatures, que respondem a estímulos; Popperian creatures, que sobrevivem melhor porque são capazes de fazer escolhas conscientes, não apenas baseadas em instintos e reflexos primitivos; Gregorian creatures, capazes de usar conhecimento prévio e disponível no mundo real para fazer suas escolhas. Fica bem clara a diferença entre o comportamento de animais que aparentemente exibem comportamento humano (porque nós humanos olhamos para esses animais como se fossem humanos e enxergamos neles esse comportamento), e o comportamento dos seres que têm linguagem como forma de se expressar. A linguagem é que faz toda a diferença na questão da formação de conceitos, raciocínio, etc. É uma leitura intrigante, interessante e muito rica, exige esforço intelectual para ir adiante e entender. E como ele mesmo diz no final: "This book began with a host of questions, and - since this is a book by a philosopher - it ends with no answers but, I hope, with better versions of the questions themselves.".

Clearly argued, but I grow tired of philosophers, even ones so empirically and scientifically oriented as Dennett, arguing for human uniqueness. Ultimately, it's a back-patting endeavour which gives rise to nice arguments but nothing radical, nothing at all. Relying on morality as one thread -- when should we care about "pain and suffering" -- is just so self-serving.

The evolution of the human brain is a mystery, but in a different way from how it's usually argued. There's simply not enough evolutionary time for it to be what it is if it is really so uniquely complex. Or stated in another way, the human brain is uniquely unique and the chimp brain is uniquely unique and the bonobo ... you get the idea. Unless we want to claim some sky-bully touched us with its finger and made us special -- and I know Dennett has absolutely no interest in that -- any argument about the specialness of the human brain really truly has to address its realistically constrained evolution. Which is not shitty, half-assed evolutionary psychology, not what Dennett is doing here and a lazy way to pose as if you are doing this kind of work. I want to hear more about what chimps and bonobos and gorillas and orangs are capable of, in realistic contexts, and how that positively relates to what we are capable of. Because of human chauvinism, negative comparisons are easy to construct, and for that reason are just not interesting or insightful.

Carl Safina's Beyond Words is really, really good. I'm not going to be satisfied with a book that considers these questions that doesn't try harder.

I listened to this via audio book format as read wonderfully by Dennett himself. Last night/early morning I woke up abruptly in the grip of a vague sort of existential terror and once I got my footing again, I felt a type of comfort in hearing Dennett's calm yet extremely engaged and enthusiastic voice--explaining complex things about the improbable evolution of sentient beings--emerging from the tiny speakers of my laptop.

At first, I was seized by a thought like, "I don't want to hear about this, I don't wanna die!" but then I stopped acting like a child who thinks the universe is created for them to enjoy, that their life is supposed to never end, and fell back into trying to appreciate the fact that I'm allowed to live at all, to appreciate the astounding confluence of myriad forces holding all that is beautiful and makes life worthy living together.

I see Dennett as an unknowing player in a third wave of existentialism (n  Owen Flanagan incisively identifies three waves of existentialismn), a more proactive period in philosophy which makes real and serious attempts to overcome the "nausea" Sartre spoke of, and all the other variations of this so-called "existential despair."

This would get five stars if I wasn't already so familiar with many of the central ideas in this book from Dennett's other work and lectures. Much of this seems like a rehashing of the (great) ideas found within The Intentional Stance (the name of one of the chapters), Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Freedom Evolves and Elbow Room. Dennett's explanation of and solution to the problem of free will is brilliantly executed, albeit not terribly unique. His position on this is called "compatiblism" and it's been floating around at least since the days of David Hume, but regardless it is explained in a very uniquely understandable and morally edifying way.

Dennett is fast becoming one of my favorite philosophers of all time. I really enjoy his use of metaphor throughout all of his writing. He makes incredibly deep ideas "tangible" through this adept and dare I say "literary" or "poetic" use of language, and his immensely clear and direct wielding of concepts. His work is pretty consistently a wonderful interweaving of multiple fields of philosophy and both the "hard" and "soft" sciences and he also displays a quasi-polymathic understanding of the fine arts as well. Even when those he's pitted against philosophically describe this as an insult, I find it to be a compliment, i.e., Thomas Nagel once glibly referred to Dennett as "Gilbert Ryle meets Scientific American." But I say fuck you, Nagel, and I say three cheers for scientifically informed philosophy and philosophically informed science.

In Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness, Dennett presents a compelling exploration of consciousness, synthesizing insights from cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and evolutionary biology. As a newcomer to his work, I found this book to be a fascinating introduction to his ideas, and I am eager to explore more of his writings.

Dennett challenges traditional views of consciousness, arguing that minds are not unique to humans but exist on a continuum across different species. He builds on evolutionary theory, asking what it means to have a mind and whether intelligence must be tied to biological organisms. With his characteristic clarity and wit, Dennett examines the cognitive abilities of animals, the potential for artificial intelligence, and the nature of self-awareness.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Kinds of Minds is Dennett’s discussion on how minds develop and evolve. He proposes that consciousness is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon but rather a layered, gradual process shaped by evolution. He considers the cognitive capacities of various species, questioning whether language is the defining feature of human intelligence and whether robots or advanced AI could ever truly “think” in the way that humans do.

Dennett raises profound questions, such as: Can we ever truly know what it’s like to be another creature? What separates human consciousness from the minds of animals? If an animal were given language, would its intelligence evolve similarly to ours? He invites readers to engage in deep philosophical inquiry but offers few definitive answers, encouraging a mindset of curiosity rather than certainty.

The book is relatively short and accessible, making it an excellent starting point for those new to Dennett’s philosophy. While some of his arguments require careful thought, his engaging style ensures that even complex ideas remain digestible. Readers interested in consciousness, the philosophy of mind, or the intersection of science and philosophy will find Kinds of Minds a thought-provoking and rewarding read.

As my first exposure to Dennett’s work, this book has left me eager to dive into more of his material. His ability to synthesize ideas from multiple disciplines makes him a compelling thinker, and I look forward to further exploring his contributions to philosophy and cognitive science.