TED Talks | Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds?

[Mark Lapierre]

Dan Dennett giving a talk challenging our strong opinions of consciousness, and our belief that we know what's going on in our mind (and that includes whatever you might consider mind, consciousness, ego, etc).

TED | Talks | Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds? (video)

[Shamou]

Those TED talks are fantastic... much to be learned there....

Thank for sharing that one Mark...

.
.

[ellie]

Yes really interesting

[Marcus]

Really interesting video. Except for the guy is talking about Awareness, not Consciousness...

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Except for the guy is talking about Awareness, not Consciousness...

I think he's talking about both.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Really interesting video. Except for the guy is talking about Awareness, not Consciousness...

What's the difference?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think he's talking about both.

No, he is only talking about awareness. The difference is...

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What's the difference?

Consciousness: The experience of existing.

Awareness: Understanding, knowledge, perception and interpretation of that experience.

The professor is talking about our interpretation of our consciousness and environment. When we look at something, or feel something we then interpret it via our sense. That is awareness.

We also interpret our consciousness via our awareness. This is why everyone has a different take on what consciousness is.

It continues to surprise me that modern academia struggle with this distinction when people like Rudolf Steiner did much more detailed works nearly 100 years ago.

[Michael Chui]

Isn't understanding, perception, and interpretation also, in and of itself, an experience?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It continues to surprise me that modern academia struggle with this distinction when people like Rudolf Steiner did much more detailed works nearly 100 years ago.

Dennett is also capable of detailed works. That doesn't necessarily mean he or Steiner is accurate. Dennett didn't make the distinction because it wasn't important to do so. And even if he had, if his definitions were not the same as Steiner's that would not necessarily mean that either he or Steiner is correct, nor that one or the other is stuggling.

[Brutha]

Dannetts argument is basically, you don't know what goes on inside your mind because stories that you tell yourself about your mind are wrong.

His conclusion is that the stories about consciousness are probably also wrong.

Since he doesn't believe in real consciousness, it is natural that he doesn't talk about real consciousness

[Michael Chui]

This

Originally Posted by Brutha

Since he doesn't believe in real consciousness, it is natural that he doesn't talk about real consciousness

does not follow from this:

Originally Posted by Brutha

Dannetts argument is basically, you don't know what goes on inside your mind because stories that you tell yourself about your mind are wrong.

His conclusion is that the stories about consciousness are probably also wrong.

[Uplift]

The video is one dated view of awareness function and illusion. Bruce Lipton's cutting edge work on cells, information and DNA is more up date and interesting.

Robots, I wonder what he means by robots, considering:

CBC News In Depth: Robotics - definition.

I had an identical experience, only this time it demonstrated that conditioning and belief will also totally deny simple fact, explaining it as illusion when it chooses to. Around 30 years ago I attended the first Alpha Dynamic seminar in Adelaide, run by Andrew Matthews. It horrified the general public, experts, scholars and authorities who branded it as a dangerous fraud...tricksters and charlotans decieving poor, unwitting fools. The papers printed dramatic hyped up front page warnings. I had frantic family and friends warning me, even citing hypnosis, cults, drugging and brain washing, as per the newspapers.

Alpha Dynamic gave an introductory night involving a memory demonstration. 20 random members in the audience wrote down a way out thing each and told Matthews, who later accurately recalled all of them, any of them, in any exact requested order. Continually throught the night. This is common now, the use of 'memory pegs', but was fairly unknown back then. So in their clamour to disrepute Matthews, people unwittingly made it easier for him to recall. The more 'way out' the thing they wanted remembered, the easier it was. Most of the people were there to debunk, and many claimed to know exactly how the 'trick', the 'illusion', was done. Newspaper reports gave detailed descriptions and demonstrations of how such 'frauds' were set up. I even began really doubting the whole thing. But, I like to experience for myself, and trust my self, despite what the 'authorities' assert. More to life than meets the eye...but that's a humungous topic...water...cells full of water...one of the most reactive substances known...enough digressing.

It proved to be hilarious, absolutely, utterly hilarious. The memory thing is completely above board, anyone can do it with impressive results, quite easily. Everyone at the course did, even two 'plants', a reporter and psychiatrist. Yet the masses of doubters still insisted it was a magician's trick, a con. Both plants admitted their roles towards the end or the course, having both experienced much more amasing things also. Do you reckon the newspapers reported that? And how the memory thing actually happened? That their whole premise was wrong...no illusion exsisted. No. The masses already had what they wanted.

Andrew Matthews was portrayed as a con man, crook, and so on. I got to know him very well over several years. He was an open book. One of the most honest, persistant, brave people I have ever met. Pure of intention, character and heart, yet was libelled and portrayed as many things. Didn't sway him though. Impressive.

This is just me, but I question the reasoning power of people, even professors, who become challenged and exhausted merely shuffling and breathing, so considering brain cells use the same supply systems as the rest of the physical organs, wonder how well the the things can work under those circumstances. But thats just my conditioning and beliefs.

By the way, did he manage to round up the funds he was after?

[Sunnybayes]

He mentions Jeff Hawkins twice in the video... my signature has some ideas that builds off of Jeff's ideas... in case anyone is interested (besides the usual bunch, y'alls already seen it... but for new commers).