Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Daniel C Dennett

Consciousness explained

The nature of consciousness is one of the 'hard' problems of philosophy. In Consciousness Explained, Daniel C Dennett tackles the problems head on, arguing that one doesn't need the mysteries of dualism in order to make sense of consciousness. The book is in three parts. The first introduces Dennett's arguments, as well as heterophenomenology - how our minds makes sense of experiences which include other minds. The second part describes Dennett's multiple drafts model, as well as looking at the evolution of mind and the relationship between language and consciousness. The third part looks at other philosophies of mind, with, of course, plenty of attacks on dualism.

In the chapter 'Qualia disqualified', Dennett says that if you're kite string gets too tangled, it's better to replace it than try to untangle it, and that it's much the same with trying to make sense of qualia. I can't help feeling that Dennett doesn't follow his own advice - much of his writing is trying to untangle the knots of dualism, and show that consciousness can be explained in a much more straightforward way. Indeed, sometime I wished that he could just let go - state his case and leave it, rather than worrying away at dualism for pages and pages. But the book does have plenty of examples of how the mind plays tricks on itself in order to invent this thing called consciousness, and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to try to make sense of the subject.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 528 pages
ISBN: 0316180661
Salesrank: 20506
Weight:1.39 lbs

Published: 1992 Back Bay Books

Amazon price $12.23

Marketplace:New from $9.03:Used from $6.89

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 528 pages
ISBN: 0140128670
Salesrank: 4972
Weight:0.75 lbs

Published: 1993 Penguin Books Ltd

Amazon price £7.79

Marketplace:New from £5.85:Used from £3.58

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 528 pages
ISBN: 0316180661
Salesrank: 31466
Weight:1.39 lbs

Published: 1992 Back Bay Books UK

Amazon price CDN$ 16.78

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 9.45:Used from CDN$ 12.74

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
Consciousness is notoriously difficult to explain. On one hand, there are facts about conscious experience--the way clarinets sound, the way lemonade tastes--that we know subjectively, from the inside. On the other hand, such facts are not readily accommodated in the objective world described by science. How, after all, could the reediness of clarinets or the tartness of lemonade be predicted in advance? Central to Daniel C. Dennett's attempt to resolve this dilemma is the "heterophenomenological" method, which treats reports of introspection nontraditionally--not as evidence to be used in explaining consciousness, but as data to be explained. Using this method, Dennett argues against the myth of the Cartesian theater--the idea that consciousness can be precisely located in space or in time. To replace the Cartesian theater, he introduces his own multiple drafts model of consciousness, in which the mind is a bubbling congeries of unsupervised parallel processing. Finally, Dennett tackles the conventional philosophical questions about consciousness, taking issue not only with the traditional answers but also with the traditional methodology by which they were reached.Dennett's writing, while always serious, is never solemn; who would have thought that combining philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience could be such fun? Not every reader will be convinced that Dennett has succeeded in explaining consciousness; many will feel that his account fails to capture essential features of conscious experience. But none will want to deny that the attempt was well worth making. --Glenn Branch

Product Description

Consciousness is notoriously difficult to explain. On one hand, there are facts about conscious experience--the way clarinets sound, the way lemonade tastes--that we know subjectively, from the inside. On the other hand, such facts are not readily accommodated in the objective world described by science. How, after all, could the reediness of clarinets or the tartness of lemonade be predicted in advance? Central to Daniel C. Dennett's attempt to resolve this dilemma is the "heterophenomenological" method, which treats reports of introspection nontraditionally--not as evidence to be used in explaining consciousness, but as data to be explained. Using this method, Dennett argues against the myth of the Cartesian theater--the idea that consciousness can be precisely located in space or in time. To replace the Cartesian theater, he introduces his own multiple drafts model of consciousness, in which the mind is a bubbling congeries of unsupervised parallel processing. Finally, Dennett tackles the conventional philosophical questions about consciousness, taking issue not only with the traditional answers but also with the traditional methodology by which they were reached.Dennett's writing, while always serious, is never solemn; who would have thought that combining philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience could be such fun? Not every reader will be convinced that Dennett has succeeded in explaining consciousness; many will feel that his account fails to capture essential features of conscious experience. But none will want to deny that the attempt was well worth making. --Glenn Branch

Lacks focus and clarity of exposition -- Confusion Exemplified **
In this and many of his other books, Dennett tries to merge results and ideas from different fields into a coherent argument but in each book, he fails miserably. In most cases, after a few lines of hopeful introduction, he gets stuck in petty quibbles against other scientists and their arguments. He does not even properly outline the idea he is against. He just quotes passages and tries to come up with puns over the words or expressions they used. This is not scientific argument. This is just silly. Substance of the book is scarce and needs to be dug out from the pile of filling material. Each chapter starts out with promises of cutting edge arguments, continues with their postponements to upcoming chapters and finishes with nothing but confusion over trivial problems. It seems Dennett used a random sentence generator for this book with all the feedback loops and inputs blocked (if you have read the book, you will know what this means; if you have not, do not bother).

Lacks focus and clarity of exposition -- Confusion Exemplified **

In this and many of his other books, Dennett tries to merge results and ideas from different fields into a coherent argument but in each book, he fails miserably.

In most cases, after a few lines of hopeful introduction, he gets stuck in petty quibbles against other scientists and their arguments. He does not even properly outline the idea he is against. He just quotes passages and tries to come up with puns over the words or expressions they used. This is not scientific argument. This is just silly.

Substance of the book is scarce and needs to be dug out from the pile of filling material. Each chapter starts out with promises of cutting edge arguments, continues with their postponements to upcoming chapters and finishes with nothing but confusion over trivial problems.

It seems Dennett used a random sentence generator for this book with all the feedback loops and inputs blocked (if you have read the book, you will know what this means; if you have not, do not bother).

Playing With the Idea of Consciousness ***
Dennett can always be relied on for clever analogies, provocative themes and interesting thought experiments. For a philosopher, he writes colorfully and well. In the end, though, his book leaves the unavoidable impression that he enjoys the game of thinking a little too much. This, together with his insistence on evaluating first-person, subjective experience using the objective, third-person standards of science, gets in the way of a truly serious and open-minded search for answers. Although he acknowledges that consciousness is a mystery, Dennett deliberately avoids material that might help illuminate that mystery. He fails to consider the crucial role of emotion, intuition and other non-quantifiable factors, preferring instead to "try to explain every puzzling feature of human consciousness within the framework of contemporary physical science; at no point will I make an appeal to inexplicable or unknown forces, substances or organic powers." Just how comfortably he settles in is clear from the fact that a full 281 pages go by before he finally says, "...at last it is time to grasp the nettle, and confront consciousness itself, the whole marvelous mystery..." But in spite of raising the reader's expectations, however belatedly, he simply goes on to equate the brain and mind with computer hardware and software, claiming that "Anyone or anything that has such a virtual machine as its control system is conscious in the fullest sense..." Dennett, in falling into the same cyber-trap as Richard Dawkins and other materialists, yields to the temptation to model the exquisitely subtle and multi-faceted human mind after one of mankind's far more limited mechanical creations. Having set the bar so low, Dennett makes it impossible for his book to shed any real light on what consciousness is or how it came to be.

Playing With the Idea of Consciousness ***

Dennett can always be relied on for clever analogies, provocative themes and interesting thought experiments. For a philosopher, he writes colorfully and well. In the end, though, his book leaves the unavoidable impression that he enjoys the game of thinking a little too much. This, together with his insistence on evaluating first-person, subjective experience using the objective, third-person standards of science, gets in the way of a truly serious and open-minded search for answers.

Although he acknowledges that consciousness is a mystery, Dennett deliberately avoids material that might help illuminate that mystery. He fails to consider the crucial role of emotion, intuition and other non-quantifiable factors, preferring instead to "try to explain every puzzling feature of human consciousness within the framework of contemporary physical science; at no point will I make an appeal to inexplicable or unknown forces, substances or organic powers." Just how comfortably he settles in is clear from the fact that a full 281 pages go by before he finally says, "...at last it is time to grasp the nettle, and confront consciousness itself, the whole marvelous mystery..."

But in spite of raising the reader's expectations, however belatedly, he simply goes on to equate the brain and mind with computer hardware and software, claiming that "Anyone or anything that has such a virtual machine as its control system is conscious in the fullest sense..."

Dennett, in falling into the same cyber-trap as Richard Dawkins and other materialists, yields to the temptation to model the exquisitely subtle and multi-faceted human mind after one of mankind's far more limited mechanical creations. Having set the bar so low, Dennett makes it impossible for his book to shed any real light on what consciousness is or how it came to be.

I FILLED THIS BOX BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME SO. ~Shakey *****
Instead of the normal yay or nay review I'll post a few quotes that touch on the underlying theme of this book and the problem it deals with. . . . The problem with consciousness: "I'm writing a book on magic." I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By /real magic/ people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. "No." I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic." ~ Siegel /Real magic/ in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is /not real magic/. " ~Dennett . . . "The brain is just a computer made of meat...no computer has ever been designed that is ever aware of what it's doing; but most of the time, we aren't either." --Marvin Minsky . . . "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~Clarke

I FILLED THIS BOX BECAUSE YOU TOLD ME SO. ~Shakey *****

Instead of the normal yay or nay review I'll post a few quotes that touch on the underlying theme of this book and the problem it deals with.

. . .

The problem with consciousness:

"I'm writing a book on magic." I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By /real magic/ people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. "No." I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic." ~ Siegel

/Real magic/ in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is /not real magic/. " ~Dennett

. . .

"The brain is just a computer made of meat...no computer has ever been designed that is ever aware of what it's doing; but most of the time, we aren't either." --Marvin Minsky

. . .

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ~Clarke

One of the best books with so much inside *****
I'm startled by the number of 1-star reviews this book gets. I think most of them just didn't want to take the time to read this book throughly, with care. This book is really a must-read for everyone interested in philosophy of mind. I spent months, i think almost half a year, reading this book. After page 200 or so, i started again because i lost it. The second time i summarized each chapter in one sentence to keep the overview. This is not a book to think: "I don't understand this part... Whatever, i'll read through it, it probably won't matter". If you do that, the reading will be boring and you will get frustrated and miss a lot. There is so much information and insights in this book, you don't want to read through it fast. Although i do not fully agree with him, Dennett has such a good view on the problems surrounding consciousness. His scepticism towards folk psychology and intuition is very healthy. He gives very good arguments against qualia and the zombie-not zombie distinction. Although you don't have to agree with that, at least they show the basic intuitive views have major problems and may need refinement. I'm probably going to read this book again once i made more progress in the field of philosophy of mind.

One of the best books with so much inside *****

I'm startled by the number of 1-star reviews this book gets. I think most of them just didn't want to take the time to read this book throughly, with care. This book is really a must-read for everyone interested in philosophy of mind.
I spent months, i think almost half a year, reading this book. After page 200 or so, i started again because i lost it. The second time i summarized each chapter in one sentence to keep the overview.
This is not a book to think: "I don't understand this part... Whatever, i'll read through it, it probably won't matter". If you do that, the reading will be boring and you will get frustrated and miss a lot. There is so much information and insights in this book, you don't want to read through it fast.

Although i do not fully agree with him, Dennett has such a good view on the problems surrounding consciousness. His scepticism towards folk psychology and intuition is very healthy. He gives very good arguments against qualia and the zombie-not zombie distinction. Although you don't have to agree with that, at least they show the basic intuitive views have major problems and may need refinement.

I'm probably going to read this book again once i made more progress in the field of philosophy of mind.

I know there are like 100 reviews, but read this! *****
Excelent book. But only one thing bothered me, that I wish I had realized before I started the book. With his "intuition pumps" I think he's confusing 2 things: having a quale, and remembering a certain quale. Don't get me wrong, I think the final answer will go near his lines of thought, but this conflation doesn't help the argument.

I know there are like 100 reviews, but read this! *****

Excelent book.

But only one thing bothered me, that I wish I had realized before I started the book. With his "intuition pumps" I think he's confusing 2 things: having a quale, and remembering a certain quale. Don't get me wrong, I think the final answer will go near his lines of thought, but this conflation doesn't help the argument.

Consciousness dissected, described, but still not explained ***
This rather long and sometimes rambling book achieves at least two thirds of what I expected. Dennett completely demolishes the Cartesian Dualism model, showing through anecdote and experiment that ideas of a separate mind and body are completely out of touch with reality. A large portion of the book is dedicated to dismantling ideas that are built on this model, I found the non-linear, revisionist perception of time to be one of the most powerful and thought provoking revelations. Drawing from many fields of science (computing, psychology, neurology and evolutionary biology to name a few) he then goes on to describe his alternative model for consciousness. His multiple drafts theory is empirical, making falsifiable scientific predictions and I believe his description to be an accurate one. The book is sometimes quite difficult to follow, philosophy is rarely an easy read but I've come to expect popular science writers to speak plainly, where Dawkins coins snappy and self-explanatory words such as "meme" or "concestor" Dennett's "heterophenomenology" is a nine syllable monster. Also it is not a riveting read, it has taken me almost a year to finally finish this book. I enjoyed the experiments, anecdotes, evolutionary biology and computer science much more than the reams of prelude and philosophical reasoning. In my opinion it would have been better as two books, one a highly technical exploration of the philosophy of mind and another popular science for the layman. I would have enjoyed the latter much more. Finally I think that the title is misleading, it did transform my understanding of human consciousness but it raised as many new questions as it answered. I am no closer to understanding what consciousness is, what it means to be, or whether consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent pattern in matter. Perhaps "Consciousness Described" would have been a more fitting title.

Consciousness dissected, described, but still not explained ***

This rather long and sometimes rambling book achieves at least two thirds of what I expected. Dennett completely demolishes the Cartesian Dualism model, showing through anecdote and experiment that ideas of a separate mind and body are completely out of touch with reality.
A large portion of the book is dedicated to dismantling ideas that are built on this model, I found the non-linear, revisionist perception of time to be one of the most powerful and thought provoking revelations.
Drawing from many fields of science (computing, psychology, neurology and evolutionary biology to name a few) he then goes on to describe his alternative model for consciousness. His multiple drafts theory is empirical, making falsifiable scientific predictions and I believe his description to be an accurate one.

The book is sometimes quite difficult to follow, philosophy is rarely an easy read but I've come to expect popular science writers to speak plainly, where Dawkins coins snappy and self-explanatory words such as "meme" or "concestor" Dennett's "heterophenomenology" is a nine syllable monster. Also it is not a riveting read, it has taken me almost a year to finally finish this book. I enjoyed the experiments, anecdotes, evolutionary biology and computer science much more than the reams of prelude and philosophical reasoning. In my opinion it would have been better as two books, one a highly technical exploration of the philosophy of mind and another popular science for the layman. I would have enjoyed the latter much more.

Finally I think that the title is misleading, it did transform my understanding of human consciousness but it raised as many new questions as it answered. I am no closer to understanding what consciousness is, what it means to be, or whether consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent pattern in matter. Perhaps "Consciousness Described" would have been a more fitting title.

Consciousness NOT explained! *
I gave this book one star ONLY because the title of the book is sensationalist. Dennett does NOT know what consciousness is, and so does not even try to explain it. I keep hoping someone will, but each time an individual makes such a claim, I am deeply disappointed. Dennett neatly sums up his thinking in an interview. Whatever we say we are experiencing, Dennett begs to differ. According to Dennett, consciousness is merely a complex interaction of billions of brain cells, nothing more. How we experience what does not exist Dennett fails to explain. It's not so much consciousness explained as consciousness banished. Consciousness, according to Dennett, is merely our unscientific, subjective misinterpretation of the activities of a biological information processing system. We are not scientists, Dennett is claiming, and, therefore, what we say we are experiencing is not what we are actually experiencing. We are, in effect, deluding ourselves, experiencing some kind of mass hallucination, creating a rich experience of feeling alive that really isn't there. How we do this if we are not really conscious, Dennet does not explain. This isn't science! You cannot ignore what others say they experience by claiming they are not intelligent enough to interpret their experience. Having read some research papers on visual consciousness written by academics at London University, I know scientists don't know what consciousness is. All they can say is some brain cells are "conscious" while others are not. They can't explain why some brain cells become "conscious" while other, identical ones, do not, or why we experience what we do, what it is that we are experiencing, or how the brain creates a feeling of self. Unfortunately, consciousness is a mystery, and remains a mystery. Dennett is like a religious person - his mind is made up before the facts are in. He has already decided consciousness is explainable, and so will use every trick in the book to avoid admitting that it is - at present! - unexplainable. Dennett is cleverly arguing away consciousness, not actually explaining it. He claims a computer made sufficiently complex can become conscious - that is, it has acquired a property called "consciousness", but then fails to explain what that property is. An analogy: I ask a scientist what is the colour purple? He or she responds by saying: if you mix red and blue together (cause brain cells to interact!), you get the colour purple (consciousness!). The scientist is right, I do get the colour purple, but this doesn't tell me what the colour actually is: wavelengths of light; and then what light is: energy. In the latest research into split-brain patients (the left side of the brain is effectively detached from the right side), Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California, Santa Barbara, sheds some interesting light on consciousness: "...perhaps even more profound, he explains how, even though split-brain patients have isolated hemispheres, they experience a unified consciousness - that is, feel as though they are of one mind." (Scientific American, June 16, 2008, "Of Two Minds, One Consciousness"). Given our current knowledge, anyone who claims consciousness is explainable is tendentiously interpreting the facts. Not too long ago, consciousness was virtually a taboo topic, but it's gaining prominence again. Unfortunately, scientists are staring THROUGH this object of interest, instead of AT IT! No one is explaining what consciousness actually is. I feel pain - what is it? I see colour - what is it? I feel a sense of self - what is it?

Consciousness NOT explained! *

I gave this book one star ONLY because the title of the book is sensationalist. Dennett does NOT know what consciousness is, and so does not even try to explain it. I keep hoping someone will, but each time an individual makes such a claim, I am deeply disappointed.

Dennett neatly sums up his thinking in an interview. Whatever we say we are experiencing, Dennett begs to differ. According to Dennett, consciousness is merely a complex interaction of billions of brain cells, nothing more. How we experience what does not exist Dennett fails to explain. It's not so much consciousness explained as consciousness banished. Consciousness, according to Dennett, is merely our unscientific, subjective misinterpretation of the activities of a biological information processing system. We are not scientists, Dennett is claiming, and, therefore, what we say we are experiencing is not what we are actually experiencing. We are, in effect, deluding ourselves, experiencing some kind of mass hallucination, creating a rich experience of feeling alive that really isn't there. How we do this if we are not really conscious, Dennet does not explain.

This isn't science! You cannot ignore what others say they experience by claiming they are not intelligent enough to interpret their experience.

Having read some research papers on visual consciousness written by academics at London University, I know scientists don't know what consciousness is. All they can say is some brain cells are "conscious" while others are not. They can't explain why some brain cells become "conscious" while other, identical ones, do not, or why we experience what we do, what it is that we are experiencing, or how the brain creates a feeling of self. Unfortunately, consciousness is a mystery, and remains a mystery.

Dennett is like a religious person - his mind is made up before the facts are in. He has already decided consciousness is explainable, and so will use every trick in the book to avoid admitting that it is - at present! - unexplainable.

Dennett is cleverly arguing away consciousness, not actually explaining it. He claims a computer made sufficiently complex can become conscious - that is, it has acquired a property called "consciousness", but then fails to explain what that property is.

An analogy: I ask a scientist what is the colour purple? He or she responds by saying: if you mix red and blue together (cause brain cells to interact!), you get the colour purple (consciousness!). The scientist is right, I do get the colour purple, but this doesn't tell me what the colour actually is: wavelengths of light; and then what light is: energy.

In the latest research into split-brain patients (the left side of the brain is effectively detached from the right side), Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California, Santa Barbara, sheds some interesting light on consciousness: "...perhaps even more profound, he explains how, even though split-brain patients have isolated hemispheres, they experience a unified consciousness - that is, feel as though they are of one mind." (Scientific American, June 16, 2008, "Of Two Minds, One Consciousness").

Given our current knowledge, anyone who claims consciousness is explainable is tendentiously interpreting the facts.

Not too long ago, consciousness was virtually a taboo topic, but it's gaining prominence again. Unfortunately, scientists are staring THROUGH this object of interest, instead of AT IT! No one is explaining what consciousness actually is. I feel pain - what is it? I see colour - what is it? I feel a sense of self - what is it?

Masterful *****
A fabulous book, exciting to read, which cannot be said of much philosophy. Dennett outlines his Multiple Drafts model of consciousness as an alternative to the traditional model, which he calls the Cartesian Theatre. Most of the philosophical problems of consciousness, Dennett claims, arise because most of us are still (though we would not admit it) attached to the idea of a Cartesian Theatre, the place where everything 'comes together before consciousness'.

Masterful *****

A fabulous book, exciting to read, which cannot be said of much philosophy. Dennett outlines his Multiple Drafts model of consciousness as an alternative to the traditional model, which he calls the Cartesian Theatre. Most of the philosophical problems of consciousness, Dennett claims, arise because most of us are still (though we would not admit it) attached to the idea of a Cartesian Theatre, the place where everything 'comes together before consciousness'.

Consciousness 'explained' **
The book possesses no more explanatory power than its ability to obfuscate the issue. Dennett concludes that 'it seems as if [consciousness] is there', but then concludes that it's some kind of cognitive faculty, something like the 'faculty of a faculty', or to put it bluntly, the 'means of a means'. As Strawson notes, the religious are eminently more justified in their beliefs than the 'Dennettians'--at least a religious fanatic is prepared to admit the existence of consciousness [which if we get right down to it, is just about the only fact we can infer about the world]. Anyone who denies the existence of consciousness needs their head thoroughly examined, preferably from a distance.

Consciousness 'explained' **

The book possesses no more explanatory power than its ability to obfuscate the issue. Dennett concludes that 'it seems as if [consciousness] is there', but then concludes that it's some kind of cognitive faculty, something like the 'faculty of a faculty', or to put it bluntly, the 'means of a means'.

As Strawson notes, the religious are eminently more justified in their beliefs than the 'Dennettians'--at least a religious fanatic is prepared to admit the existence of consciousness [which if we get right down to it, is just about the only fact we can infer about the world].

Anyone who denies the existence of consciousness needs their head thoroughly examined, preferably from a distance.

Conciousness Explained Away ***
As noted in some of the other reviews, Dennett doesn't really explain consciousness, he explains what it isn't. In fact his real view seems to be even more extreme, he believes that consciousness is an illusion and is of purely instrumental value. When he sticks to the science he's a really good populariser, but strangely given that he's a Philosopher he seems to be quite poor at Philosophy! He's never successfully rebutted Searle's ideas or the ideas contained in the thought experiment about Mary the colour blind scientist. It hasn't stopped him trying, though. His theory seems unable to deal with the fact that subjective and scientific knowledge are two different things. So if you want the full story you'll need to read more widely, try Crane or Heil.

Conciousness Explained Away ***

As noted in some of the other reviews, Dennett doesn't really explain consciousness, he explains what it isn't. In fact his real view seems to be even more extreme, he believes that consciousness is an illusion and is of purely instrumental value.
When he sticks to the science he's a really good populariser, but strangely given that he's a Philosopher he seems to be quite poor at Philosophy! He's never successfully rebutted Searle's ideas or the ideas contained in the thought experiment about Mary the colour blind scientist. It hasn't stopped him trying, though. His theory seems unable to deal with the fact that subjective and scientific knowledge are two different things.
So if you want the full story you'll need to read more widely, try Crane or Heil.

The Introduction to Consciousness *****
"Consciousness Explained" is the best place to start if you want to begin the venture into this perplexing area. Dennett's books is well organized, well thought out, and does a wonderful job of explaining difficult concepts in a way that is interesting and relatively easy to understand. Another reviewer titles his review "Consciousness Denied." That is a fair comment. Many people think that Dennett explains away consciousness, rather than explaining it. In fact, I agree with that critism myself -- I think. I tend to agree with John Searle (again -- think). The one star rating, however, is grossly unfair. Consciousness is a very hard problem, to put it mildly, and Dennett's reasoning and opinions are crucial for two reasons. First, they are very well thought out, and well expressed. Moreover, Dennett is one of the key writers in the area, and if you read anything else about consciousness, you will find references and responses to Dennett. Other authors worth reading in this area include John Searle (no friend of Dennett), Susan Blackmore, Steven Pinker, David Chalmers, V. S. Ramachandran and Antonio Damasio.

The Introduction to Consciousness *****

"Consciousness Explained" is the best place to start if you want to begin the venture into this perplexing area. Dennett's books is well organized, well thought out, and does a wonderful job of explaining difficult concepts in a way that is interesting and relatively easy to understand.

Another reviewer titles his review "Consciousness Denied." That is a fair comment. Many people think that Dennett explains away consciousness, rather than explaining it. In fact, I agree with that critism myself -- I think. I tend to agree with John Searle (again -- think). The one star rating, however, is grossly unfair. Consciousness is a very hard problem, to put it mildly, and Dennett's reasoning and opinions are crucial for two reasons. First, they are very well thought out, and well expressed. Moreover, Dennett is one of the key writers in the area, and if you read anything else about consciousness, you will find references and responses to Dennett.

Other authors worth reading in this area include John Searle (no friend of Dennett), Susan Blackmore, Steven Pinker, David Chalmers, V. S. Ramachandran and Antonio Damasio.

Irritating *
Dennett is this pompous author who plunges into the subject without a proper appreciation of the complexities of the matter. If Dennett has explained consciousness, why aren't we building consciousn machines already?

Irritating *

Dennett is this pompous author who plunges into the subject without a proper appreciation of the complexities of the matter. If Dennett has explained consciousness, why aren't we building consciousn machines already?

Blissful ignorance *
I wonder if Dennett has ever truly understood the Kantian dichotomy of noumenon and phenomena. At any rate, nowhere in his book, there is any meaningful reference to this dichotomy, a dichotomy whose significance in the context of consciousness can be missed only by those who are utterly ignorant of the context in question. A sad casualty of my reading this book was my respect for the New York Times. They called it one of the best ten books of the year! I wonder if it was a Jason Blair who gave the book this epithet. In short, Dennett is a philosophical blockhead: he misses the very issue he has tasked himself with tackling.

Blissful ignorance *

I wonder if Dennett has ever truly understood the Kantian dichotomy of noumenon and phenomena. At any rate, nowhere in his book, there is any meaningful reference to this dichotomy, a dichotomy whose significance in the context of consciousness can be missed only by those who are utterly ignorant of the context in question.

A sad casualty of my reading this book was my respect for the New York Times. They called it one of the best ten books of the year! I wonder if it was a Jason Blair who gave the book this epithet. In short, Dennett is a philosophical blockhead: he misses the very issue he has tasked himself with tackling.

Is Consciousness an Impenatrable Mystery? *****
If one chooses, as Dennett explains early on, to think about consciousness as if it were not inexplicable, not indecipherable, then one would look for answers with what's available. Writing software programs as I do, I understand how difficult it is to get a computer to "think", let alone to actually think. People just don't yet understand how revolutionary and ingenious evolutionary software is, nor does the everyday person comprehend the radical impact it will have over time. Dennett is dead on. Get involved with computers, read about genetic algorithms and see the types of problems that genetic programming can solve. When you get what its impact is maybe you'll begin to realize that if you tire of "mystery" and want to understand he's laid the path with real information. A real solution to the question of consciousness. All of the pages he wrote were to lay the necessary foundation to help the layman (or the ignorant intellectual) understand the necessary methods of thinking to see the solution. As he wrote in Darwin's Dangerous Idea people don't yet see just how important the evolutionary algoritm is so vital. It happens everywhere we have replication, mutation, and selection. When one wishes to achieve computer behavior that appears intelligent AND you quit trying to program in every possibility, THEN you have to allow the program to present varied solutions and use some testing algorithm to evalutate the solutions for fitness. His whole book seems to be oriented around the brain's massively parallel structure being set up to do just that at all levels. From interpreting input data to choosing output actions. At all levels the mind uses evolutionary algorithms to present solutions and select them. It's incomprehensible to me, that so many miss just how valuable and essential this fundamental process is. But perhaps you have to spend time writing algorithms for a living before you see how ingenious and basic and incredibly powerful this process is. It's no wonder that the human mind works off of this principle.

Is Consciousness an Impenatrable Mystery? *****

If one chooses, as Dennett explains early on, to think about consciousness as if it were not inexplicable, not indecipherable, then one would look for answers with what's available.

Writing software programs as I do, I understand how difficult it is to get a computer to "think", let alone to actually think.

People just don't yet understand how revolutionary and ingenious evolutionary software is, nor does the everyday person comprehend the radical impact it will have over time. Dennett is dead on. Get involved with computers, read about genetic algorithms and see the types of problems that genetic programming can solve.

When you get what its impact is maybe you'll begin to realize that if you tire of "mystery" and want to understand he's laid the path with real information. A real solution to the question of consciousness.

All of the pages he wrote were to lay the necessary foundation to help the layman (or the ignorant intellectual) understand the necessary methods of thinking to see the solution. As he wrote in Darwin's Dangerous Idea people don't yet see just how important the evolutionary algoritm is so vital. It happens everywhere we have replication, mutation, and selection. When one wishes to achieve computer behavior that appears intelligent AND you quit trying to program in every possibility, THEN you have to allow the program to present varied solutions and use some testing algorithm to evalutate the solutions for fitness.

His whole book seems to be oriented around the brain's massively parallel structure being set up to do just that at all levels. From interpreting input data to choosing output actions.

At all levels the mind uses evolutionary algorithms to present solutions and select them.

It's incomprehensible to me, that so many miss just how valuable and essential this fundamental process is. But perhaps you have to spend time writing algorithms for a living before you see how ingenious and basic and incredibly powerful this process is.

It's no wonder that the human mind works off of this principle.

Dennett's Dangerous Idea *
First of all, this guy's book-title smacks of hubris! He is a pedant posing as a philosopher. Using sophistry to weave a web of verbal convolutions, in which consciousness manages to elude him. I've read a lot on the topic of mysticism, encompassing the last hundred years or so, relating to people from all walks of life and I have found the consistency in these personal reports more convincing than anything that Dennett has produced. I'm not going to be dogmatic, but anyone reading the material that I have read, with an open mind, feels that Dennett has missed something too suble for his logic.

Dennett's Dangerous Idea *

First of all, this guy's book-title smacks of hubris! He is a pedant posing as a philosopher. Using sophistry to weave a web of verbal convolutions, in which consciousness manages to elude him. I've read a lot on the topic of mysticism, encompassing the last hundred years or so, relating to people from all walks of life and I have found the consistency in these personal reports more convincing than anything that Dennett has produced.
I'm not going to be dogmatic, but anyone reading the material that I have read, with an open mind, feels that Dennett has missed something too suble for his logic.