Choose a topic

.. Society
We Live in the Present

10 Views of Landscape
Affect and Effect
Culture is Ordinary
I pay rent.
Listening to Corn
The Reform vs Revolution Paradox
What is Public Schooling For?

AI and Art
Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Is this picture real?
NonFungible Tokens
Public Art
Tearing Down Statues
What is Art?
Working With Reality

Artificial Intelligence and the Collingridge Dilemma.
Bird Brains
Bounded Rationality
Competence Without Comprehension
Consciousness is More Like Fame Than Television
Developmental Processes
Emergence and Cognition
I Lost My Knife
Incomplete Information and Stories
Is free will an illusion?
Natural Law
Necessary Illusions
On Affordances
Pencil and Paper
Post Phenomenology
Reflective Equilibrium
Return of the Law of Forms
Shifting Meanings
Taking Things on Faith
The Hard Problem
The I Love You Gesture
The Imagined Order
The Phenomenology of Swim Bladders.
Thinking about medical procedures
Thinking About Risk
Underdetermination and Redundancy
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
What Does Google Know?

A Country Is Not Like A Company
Alternate ideas lying around waiting for disaster
Blood and Money
Can Capitalism Survive?
Do Our Minds Own Our Bodies?
Everyday Communism
Invisible Hand
Job Creators
Job Destroyers
Money and Value
Money is Different
National Accounts
Necessary Production
Paper Wealth
Post Capitalist Society
Profit Motive Fails
Rentier Capitalism
Social Wealth vs Surplus Value
Spending Money Into Existence
The Metaphysics of Money
The Ontology of Debt
Thinking about Money
Wealth is What Money Buys

Blowing Up Pipelines

Absolute Knowledge
I do not know everything
Rethinking Knowledge
Rethinking Knowledge
The Curious Ineffectiveness of Facts
The Past and the Future.
Uncertainty and Unpredictability

Competition and Cooperation
Dr Malthus would be pleased
Error Correction
Evolution Defended
Evolution is not Religion
Evolution of Cars
Forces of Nature
Is Natural Selection Obsolete?
Politics and Evolution
The Evolution of Purpose.
The Problem with Natural Selection.
The Source of Bad Behavior
Thinking about Tails
Why Does a Leopard Have Spots?

Free Speech in the age of Twitter
Freedom and Badness
Freedom and Morality
Freedom From and Freedom To
Freedom in the Age of Convoys
Libertarian Coercion

Levels of Abstraction
Levels of Abstraction and Minds
What is a newspaper?

As Much As Possible
Zipfs Law

Emotional Plague
Memes: Imitated Behavior.
The Problem with Memes
What is a replicator?

Beyond Rules Based Morality
Freedom and Morality
Moral Realism.
What do we owe animals?


Maps and Territories
Metaphysics Without Absolutes
Philosophy Buds
Sincerely Held Beliefs
Sorites Paradox
Stereoscopic Vision and The Hard Problem
The Gorilla in the Room of Science
The Purpose of Science
What is Going On?

If It Walks Like a Duck
Right Wing Freedom
The Sovereign Citizen
Tyranny of the Majority


Constructed Life
Correlation Wins
Quack Doctors
The Great Shattering
The Material Space
Thinking about Interconnection
Too Small to See
Watching Pigeons
Weirdness in Physics

A society needs a government.
Belly of the Beast
Cultural Appropriation
Family Values
Griefers and Misinformation and Disinformation
Open Society and Falsification
Rules in a Knife Fight?
Sex and Gender
Society and The State
Spheres of Influence
The Care and Feeding of Free Speech
The Collingridge Dilemma
The Dual Meaning of Power
The Homeless
The Problem with Hedonism
To the Moon
Work - Productive, Useful, Worthless, and Bad.

Implications of Very Productive Technology
Modest Proposal
Problems with Universal Basic Income
Tormenting Unlucky People
Why there are oligarchs

Consciousness is More Like Fame Than Television


Daniel Dennett is famous (even notorious) for his thinking about consciousness.
He is dismissive of ways of thinking that presents consciousness as a "Cartesian Theatre". The Cartesian Theatre is an outgrowth of Cartesian Dualism. This is a dualism whereby the universe is composed of physical stuff and mental stuff.

It was just obvious to Descartes and others of his time (for example Liebniz) that physical stuff could not possibly be conscious.

Many contemporary philosophers still think it's just as obvious, though most don't give direct allegiance to dualism anymore. Some talk about the Hard Problem whereby no matter how much we learn about brain processes we won't have even begun to scratch the surface of the mysteries of consciousness or perception. Others invoke philosophical zombies; creatures just like us down to the finest physical details, who act just like us, but by the hypothesis are not conscious. Many thinkers take it as just obvious that such creatures are conceivable and since they are conceivable that conscious is distinct from our physical body.

Other thinkers talk about qualia. Qualia might be thought of as the what it's like of perception.

Dennett deals with these ideas at some length to show why they are totally inadequate. A sort of barking up the wrong tree. But I won't go into the details of that here. I recommend his book Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Conscious for a fairly thorough treatment of these ideas in layman's terms written in his lucid and amusing style.

What I want to do now is leap to his conclusions about just what is involved when we think and perceive and feel and are conscious. First, he explains that we have many interacting processes going on in the brain. For instance, seeing something red causes a certain set of neuronal processes to occur and he maintains that those processes don't cause (say) a qualia of red to be presented to consciousness as if presented on television.
They ARE the experience.
And they aren't qualia in the philosophic sense (a notoriously unexplained sense by the way).
They ARE the experience and they inform the rest of the brain that something red is our field of vision.

Other parts of the brain are recognizing octagons with white writing on them. Other parts of the brain are interpreting the writing. Other parts of the brain respond to all this information. If we are driving towards the STOP sign we step on the brake and stop. But if we are walking in a crosswalk we may keep walking knowing that the approaching car (seen to be slowing) will stop.

And we respond differently again if the car isn't seen to be stopping.

So what's happening is that of all the processes happening in the brain at any one moment, some processes come to influence the whole brain for a time. That's what we perceive and are conscious of Dennett has called this "fame in the brain" or "cerebral celebrity".

It's not that the famous coalitions of processes are presented on a screen that we are conscious of; instead they just influence us directly. We aren't conscious of them. They ARE consciousness. And like fame, their influence can be transient. Once we are past the stop sign we have other thing to think about and respond to. Note that at any one moment there are very many such process going on in the brain.

Dennett writes on page 161 of Sweet Dreams:

What a theory of consciousness needs to explain is how some relatively few contents become to this political power, while most others evaporate into oblivion after doing their modest deeds in the ongoing projects of the brain. Why is THIS the task of a theory of consciousness? Because that is what conscious events DO. They hang around for a time [influencing us until other events take us over] . . .

So why do one set of processes become consciousness and others don't?
It depends.
It depends on the current state of the brain. We can think of the brain as a sort of ecosystem that changes from moment to moment. And not all processes prosper in any one such ecosystem.

For instance, if I'm shopping for a new computer I may not notice the wall of TV's right there in the same room and visa versa. Or if I'm talking on my cell phone while driving I may not notice subtle changes in the traffic pattern that portends trouble ahead.

I admit I like Dennett's approach to consciousness I find it satisfying and beautiful and useful.

Whatdo you think?

Star I present regular philosophy discussions in a virtual reality called Second Life. I set a topic and people come as avatars and sit around a virtual table to discuss it. Each week I write a short essay to set the topic. I show a selection of them here.

I've been thinking and reading about philosophy for a long time but I'm mostly self taught. That is I've had the good fortune to read what interests me rather than follow a course of study. That has it's limits of course but advantages. It doesn't cost as much and is fun too.

My interests are things like evolution and cognition and social issues and economics and science in general.