I know that this title might disturb some of you who did not attend Daniel Dennett’s presentation today called “How Can the Brain be the Seat of Consciousness?”, so let me clarify. The claim that he is the Devil was made by one of Dennett’s critics and fellow philosophers in the year 2000. In this post I wish to present my personal evaluation of his stance on the presence on consciousness using my best interpretation of his presentation. However, I apologize in advance if I get some of the information wrong because I did find the lecture a little hard to follow toward the end. With that having been said, I wish to agree with some of his premises but not the overall conclusion that he reaches.
Professor Dennett began his presentation by suggesting his personally developed premise that the depction of fiction is parasitic on nonfictional dipictions. In other words, the only means by which fiction can exist is through the existence of nonfiction. This is so, he says, because the very definition of fiction is a twisting or bending of real and actual events. From this he concludes that in the same way percetions and images and such are parasitic on consciousness. Following from above, this means that consciousness can only exist through the manipulations of exterior perceptions (as far as I understand). This premis seems very logical and I agree with it but then the question arises: where (in the brain) is this consciousness stored? Next, Dennett used a few illusions to prove the next premis that I agee with. He showed the picture of the green and black American flag and after starring at it when the picture goes away we can perceive a normal red, white, and blue American flag but it does not actual exist on the white background. Dennett asks where we see the red stripes because there is no real red stripes on the board. Thus there can be no image of red stripes in our cortex (brain). So where is this magical image of red that we see because it is not in our brains. This is the basis that Dennett used to get to his ultimate conclusion that the brain is not the seat of consciousness.
As far as the rest of his lecture went I am not so sure because because I got a little confused. To the best of my understanding Dennett claims that the brain is full of a bunch of small “registers” that each contain a number that is merely a function of other registers. Thus the hundreds of billions of registers in our brains make up our consciousness?!?!?!? This premis confused me and as far as I can understand I do not agree with it. Therefore, even though I do not totally agree with his premises that lead to his ultimate conclusion, I also do not think that Dennett is so wrong in any way to be called the Devil. Overall it was a very enlightening experience.
John Creger | 26-Apr-07 at 8:51 am | Permalink
only means by which fiction can exist is through the existence of nonfiction.
Is this to say there is one ultimate truth and I can only divert truth into lies if already fully known the truth?
I understand that nonfiction isn’t necessarily a bunch of lies, but it is made up from what we know as to be truth. We compile our thoughts of the real word and apply it to a story with characters and scenarios that actually don’t exist. I can never think of a scenario as nonfiction if i have never thought or experience it as real. This notion is related to Descartes and dreams. That we can never think or dream of something (even if it isn’t true or nonfiction) unless we have a real truthful depiction of it in our conscious already. Like a unicorn- take a cone and a horse and you have a unicorn. One would never think of this unless they knew what a cone and horse were.