5 ms·

"It's very hard to change people's minds about something like consciousness, and I finally figured out the reason for that. The reason for that is that everybod

by acqq 7y ago

"It's very hard to change people's minds about something like consciousness, and I finally figured out the reason for that. The reason for that is that everybody's an expert on consciousness. (...) With regard to consciousness, people seem to think, each of us seems to think, "I am an expert. Simply by being conscious, I know all about this." And so, you tell them your theory and they say, "No, no, that's not the way consciousness is! No, you've got it all wrong." And they say this with an amazing confidence." "A lot of people are just left completely dissatisfied and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness. So this is the problem. So I have to do a little bit of the sort of work that a lot of you won't like, for the same reason that you don't like to see a magic trick explained to you. How many of you here, if somebody -- some smart aleck -- starts telling you how a particular magic trick is done, you sort of want to block your ears and say, "No, no, I don't want to know! Don't take the thrill of it away. I'd rather be mystified. Don't tell me the answer." A lot of people feel that way about consciousness." https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_the_illusion_of_consciousness https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_the_illusion_of_consci... "in fact, you're not the authority on your own consciousness that you think you are." The paper: "Explaining the "magic" of consciousness", Daniel Dennett, 2003: https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/explainingmagic.pdf https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/explainingmagic...

mannykannot 7y ago
On reading what was then the top comment on this article, I saw that it asserted as undeniably true a highly debatable proposition. I was about to reply, when I saw that the second did the same. The third was more of an aphorism that looked profound until you thought about it... There do seem to be a lot of people who want our consciousness to remain a mystery. I guess that it is vitalism's last stand. FWIW, I think there is a 'hard problem' (more than one, in fact), but not the one Chalmers identifies; perhaps the hardest is 'how come we (think we) have free will?'
- acqq 7y ago
  > how come we (think we) have free will?' That’s easier than you think: what those who use that term for discussions understand that term to mean is mostly based on work made by religious apologists through the centuries. So the answer to “how come” is “to somehow excuse the concept of having all-mighty all-knowing god while people still do whatever.” Thus so constructed “free will” is the limit over which that all mighty can’t cross. That’s why it’s so emotionally defended.
xamuel 7y ago
I think this is why the Socratic method is so effective. When Socrates would debate with someone, he would almost never just state claims as if he knew the answers. Rather, he would always act as if his audience was the expert and he himself knew nothing. Acting in that way, he would probe the audience. Invariably, the audience would begin answering questions as if they knew all the answers; and invariably, Socrates would lead them around until they tripped over their own feet and realized they didn't know what they were talking about.

by acqq 7y ago

mannykannot 7y ago

On reading what was then the top comment on this article, I saw that it asserted as undeniably true a highly debatable proposition. I was about to reply, when I saw that the second did the same. The third was more of an aphorism that looked profound until you thought about it... There do seem to be a lot of people who want our consciousness to remain a mystery. I guess that it is vitalism's last stand. FWIW, I think there is a 'hard problem' (more than one, in fact), but not the one Chalmers identifies; perhaps the hardest is 'how come we (think we) have free will?'

acqq 7y ago
> how come we (think we) have free will?' That’s easier than you think: what those who use that term for discussions understand that term to mean is mostly based on work made by religious apologists through the centuries. So the answer to “how come” is “to somehow excuse the concept of having all-mighty all-knowing god while people still do whatever.” Thus so constructed “free will” is the limit over which that all mighty can’t cross. That’s why it’s so emotionally defended.

xamuel 7y ago

I think this is why the Socratic method is so effective. When Socrates would debate with someone, he would almost never just state claims as if he knew the answers. Rather, he would always act as if his audience was the expert and he himself knew nothing. Acting in that way, he would probe the audience. Invariably, the audience would begin answering questions as if they knew all the answers; and invariably, Socrates would lead them around until they tripped over their own feet and realized they didn't know what they were talking about.