• Likewise, I don’t see how introspection is falsified in this video. I don’t see how introspection should lead us to believe we will not ‘suffer’ “changeblindness” [any more than introspection leads us to believe we can solve spot the difference puzzles instantly]. Dennett is right, I think, in highlighting that we have many incorrect beliefs about our consciousness, but I haven’t seen one that seems to be actually predicated on introspection though. I don’t know where they come from.

  • Touche! I think you win this round – Insofar as careful introspection will not produce the mistakes that Dennett has pointed out, it is immune to the criticisms he presents here. 🙂

    Of course, as you acknowledge, the deeper moral (for Dennett) remains: We are not the authorities we often take ourselves to be on the nature of of our experiences. I’m not sure where the false impressions come from either, but come they do. Third-person study thus might have important things to teach us here.

  • search “i love you austin” to watch my video about the most powerful, meaningful, and beautiful thing you can say.

  • Because he has a personal relationship with Jesus who is inside him as he is in all of us and he made Jesus come twice. But after Jesus second coming it feels like you are in heaven with Jesus.

  • Well, that’s still enough for Dennett. He wants to argue that we aren’t reliable sources of information about our consciousness – whatever source our information comes from, introspection or what have you – it isn’t necessarily reliable. He gives a couple examples.

    Ultimately, his goal is more ambitious. He wants to explain qualia in terms of physical properties and functionality of the brain. He doesn’t do that here. But he does show that we’re often wrong about consciousness.

  • must say, I’m really not sure that is enough for Dennett. Dennett wants to undermine the reliability of ‘first person introspection’ because of the theoretical problems with integrating first person phenomena within a purely physical picture. I believe Dennett wants to say that the brain ‘tricks’ us into thinking we have these qualitative experiences, when actually ‘we know’ that all that is happening is physical activity. This was supposed to be an example of our brain tricking us like so.

  • I don’t see that we’re disagreeing: yes, ultimately his goal is more ambitious than merely showing that we aren’t reliable about the nature of our consciousness. You could admit that we’re sometimes wrong, as he’s establishing here, but maintain that we aren’t wrong about having experiences which are ‘qualitative’ in some special way.

    This is just Dennett’s way of opening the door to the *question* of whether subjectivity is a trick, which people often don’t take as a serious possibility.

  • okay. perhaps i’m taking the unreliability of ‘the first person perspective’ to be more central to Dennett than you are. reliable first person reports are problematic for materialism [and it’s the fact that Dennett doesn’t shy away from this that I respect about him]. i took this as another effort by dennett to try undermine ‘introspection’, thus i thought it relevant to point out that the ‘mistaken beliefs’ were not the result of introspection, but, if you’ll forgive the word, naivety.

  • i mean: does the fact that a lot of people used to think the sun moved round the world, in anything more than a facile sense, imply that ‘their brains were tricking them’? it’s really just hyperbole. perhaps dennett either simply can’t introspect, or isn’t very good at it (i’ve read similar things written about his teacher Gilbert Ryle), thus can’t recognise that it’s something distinct from our ‘naive preconceptions’. perhaps i’m being unfair.

  • For Pizza’s sake, level the audio !! I don’t need to be water boarded each time I play a freaking TED lecture !! x-(

Leave a Comment