An Analysis Of Daniel Dennett 's ' Consciousness

Thus, one may further conclude that the only difference between a "normal" individual and Dennett's hypothetical case is the great temporal gap that exists between the brain and the body in Dennett's case. A difference that one may believe does not have clear philosophical implications. Therefore, it can be suggested that Dennett, in setting up his scenario in this way, does not contribute much more insight into the ‘self'-phenomenon than many

How does Daniel Dennetts argument make sense? Understanding the biological components that make up consciousness or our idea of consciousness is far from showing the complete picture, but it did reveal to me a whole new world of understanding. Looking into the complexity of the forms and the beauty of the connections neurons made me marvel at the cohesiveness of the self. The indiscriminate “I am”. The individual that can connect to the stimuli around us. Neuroscience is a beauty in itself. Showing how we are the most complicated machines out there, and millions of years of evolution and change has made each of us stand out as beings able to interact with our own environment with understanding. Now, how does neuroscience make me content with death beyond the field’s indiscriminate beauty? A different foundation. My foundation is no longer mounted in the future—that death is approaching, immanent and unavoidable. I look to the past, that our neural connections took essentially billions of years to develop, and we are the most intricate beings that we know of. Our circuits are wired just well enough for us to enjoy the time we have here on earth, and I am grateful that my mind can sustain itself in its current intricate, sensitive state. When my time comes, I am content with my neural connections subsiding and my impulses ceasing to be, because I know it took billions of years to get here, and I better enjoy the hell out of this

In Where am I?, Daniel Dennett goes through a series of operations and life changing experiences that involves separating his brain and body, having his body buried alive, and then shares a body between his brain and an ‘identical’ brain. The topic of the paper is the discussion of where and when Dennett exists throughout the narrative. It is an interesting topic because it forces the reader to consider the the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to exis. In this paper, I will argue that Daniel Dennett exists as Yorick (brain by itself) or the combination of Yorick/Hamlet or Yorick/Fortinbras. Dennett still existing as Yorick or as the combination of Yorick/Hamlet or Yorick/Fortinbras is lockean theory. This means that having a body is neither a sufficient or necessary condition for being a person.This is how Dennett is able to survive until the end of the story.

Dennett belief is that he is separated from his own brain which conflicts with the physical view of the mind giving that his thoughts are some place inside his own brain. One argument he makes is that he is located in a place wherever his thoughts are he describes when a person is a mental substance rather than a physical substance it make no sense what so ever to ask the question where am I? because your mental doesn't have an exact location. Dennett second argument is whether your're the brain instead of the body he makes an arguemnt about you are where your body is but thats not exactly always true because of brain transplants basically if you were to tranfer your brain into another human beings body your not where your body is instead you are in another person's body. However you can be disconnected from your body also disconnected from your brain because your memories is very crucial to who you are.

Daniel Dennett thinks that we are our body and our brain and that is it. His response to the mind body problem is Physicalism, because he believes that we are only made up of matter and that there is no spiritual part like the soul, for example included. He thinks that “what you can’t see, isn’t there and what isn’t there, doesn’t have to be explained. Correspondingly, Dennett has another philosophy, which overall, states that our lives would be nothing if we didn’t have a brain. He explains how, if we didn’t have a brain, we would not be able to feel emotions, or pain or be able to classify something as beautiful or ugly. We would not be able to see, smell, taste or touch anything as we need a brain to process everything.

Secondly, it must be assumed that our subject is what Dennett calls a ‘rational agent’. Meaning, simply that X will act upon some internal connection between its beliefs and desires. That faculty of reason does not need be as developed as in the Vulcan sense, but must show some connection between beliefs and desires along the lines of desires based on beliefs and action based on desires. Moreover, one could not begin to try and predict the behaviour of an irrational being unless it is on the basis of why it is acting irrationally or why it is broken. Through this stance Dennett can treat almost any given subject as an intentional one, down to the beanbag chair, which has the desire to mould itself to my body when I sit on it. However, it is the subject of another paper to distinguish between subjects, which truly possess belief, and those that do not.

The seconds answer Dennett consider is that he is with his body- The problems with this theory is no matter what body you have, would it affect one’s identity?

The debate in the academic study of mysticism between Steven Katz and Robert Forman consists of Katz’s argument that, “There are NO pure (i.e. unmediated) mystical experiences” (Katz, 26). Further, Katz affirms that mystical experiences are difficult to interpret and are impossible to verify. Comparatively, Robert Forman argues for the existence of what he refers to as Pure Consciousness Events (PCEs) whereby mystical experiences extend beyond language and culture.

The Physical Stance as stated in the reading, “… if you want to predict the behavior of a system, determine its physical constitution (perhaps all the way down to the microphysical level) and the physical nature of the impingements upon it, and use your knowledge of the laws of physics to predict the outcome for any input.” Let's take, for example, even though light switches aren’t made to shock people, we might know that if you were to touch the switch with your wet hand, you’ll get shocked.

Starting with the Scientific Revolution, humanity has adhered to the supposedly well-reasoned and infallible rationalist philosophy, characterized by the preference for reasoning over experience, which inevitably accompanies impersonal fields such as the sciences. Although the scientific approach avoids preternatural speculation, its implications altered the fundamental way in which we understand that which is on a quantum level, and such a revelation transcends any reifications perpetuated by preceding generations. Fortunately, English philosopher Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances transcends temporally restricted notions of reality, and this novel serves as a template by which we begin to comprehend the potential for consciousness as reality’s impetus, and through which individual consciousness acts to create reality. With this in mind, New Age philosophers such as physician Deepak Chopra advocate consciousness precedes matter’s presence in the chronology of reality. Comparatively, social scientist Willis Harman and, to an extent, biologist Rupert Sheldrake, adopt a more radical hypothesis: human consciousness creates reality. Presently, iconoclastic New Age theories suggest human consciousness creates reality and hypothesizes our ability to manipulate abstracts, such as time and bodily systems, in order to prolong one’s life or increase one’s health. Through conscious awareness, we can discern how consciousness creates reality; this awareness thusly enables us to

Since the Scientific Revolution, humanity has adhered to a supposedly reasonable rationalist philosophy—characterized by a preference for reasoning over experience—which inevitably accompanies impersonal fields such as the sciences. Although science avoids preternatural speculation on principle, quantum theory’s implications alter the fundamental way in which we understand what is at a quantum level, and such a revelation transcends any reifications participated by preceding generations. Fortunately, English philosopher Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances transcends temporal reality, bridging 1965 and 2015, while his novel serves as a template through which we begin to comprehend the potential of consciousness as reality’s impetus and how, by way of individual consciousness, we act to create reality. Keeping this in mind, New Age philosophers such as physician Deepak Chopra advocate that consciousness precedes matter’s presence in the chronology of reality. Similarly, social scientist Willis Harman and, by extension, biologist Rupert Sheldrake, adopt a radical hypothesis: human consciousness creates reality. Present iconoclastic theories suggest human consciousness creates reality and also hypothesize our ability to manipulate the abstract—such as time and bodily systems—in order to prolong life or increase health. Through conscious awareness, we parse how consciousness creates reality; this awareness thusly enables us to better scrutinize reality and examine which

An extremely interesting thought experiment conducted by philosopher Daniel Dennett is used to stimulate philosophical possibilities about personal identity. Dennett is to retrieve a radioactive warhead, and must have his brain taken out for the period of the excursion due to the possibility of damaging his brain tissues. Upon wakening from the surgery, the underlying question appears for the first time: “Where am I?” – In the brain, or out here in my body, looking at my brain? Throughout the experiment, he considers four different possible options of where he might be: his brain, his body or his point of view. He later realizes that a combination of both his brain and body is the most plausible theory. I, myself, tend to agree with this theory. However, there are certain philosophical ideas we will need to pull apart in order to further understand Dennett’s logic.

A question that has been plaguing humans for years is the question: is the world that I know reality or a figment of my imagination? Or do I exist enough to have imagination in the first place? Am I trapped in the Matrix and everything I see is an illusion? Philosopher Rene Descartes addressed the question in his meditations. He had distinct ideas concerning reality and illusion. Descartes believed in “Cartesian Dualism” - a relationship between the body and mind. In his meditations, he goes through the process of discarding all of his previously held beliefs and reevaluating them. However, some philosophers - such as George Berkeley disagreed with Descartes. Berkeley believed that there is only the mind. He believed that there may be no physical realm. He believed that to exist, one must be perceived. And since he is perceived by God, he exist. In this paper I will evaluate the major arguments in Descartes and Berkeley’s philosophies pertaining to consciousness and whether or not I may be trapped in the Matrix. I will show that for all I know, I am trapped in the Matrix.

Consciousness allows a person to recognize their existence, and subsequently, to form their essence. The

Daniel Dennet’s short story Where Am I, focuses on the metaphysical, and physical dilemma in where the idea of the self truly supervenes, in which there is a displacement of the self, which is broken into four possible locations at the end of Dennets story. Furthermore this paper will firstly summarize his story, afterwards view each possible location and explain why it’s possible. Thirdly I will thereafter interpret these ideas further with a philosophical view in how they cope, or violate them, and than refute why Dennet is none of these locations.