Talk:Consciousness Explained

If I remember correctly, Dennett does not use the expression "eliminativist materialism" -- rather, the term was invented as a snarl word by his critics. If this is the case, a better expression could be found for use in this article. --FOo


 * Hello. It was me who put in the term "eliminativist materialism", not realising that it was considered non-NPOV. This chap I know who has recently finished doing an M.A. in Philosophy of Mind uses the term quite a bit, and although he doesn't consider Dennett's treatment of consciousness to be very persuasive, he uses the term in what sounds to me quite a neutral way. I'll ask him about it again. (By the way, I'm trying to get him to write some articles on philosophy here, but so far without success!) -- Oliver P. 02:23 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

He argues from the standpoint of eliminativist materialism, which has resulted in other philosophers accusing him of defining away the problem. I removed this -- eliminative materialism is a term which other philosophers invented to describe their own positions, and which does not apply to Dennett. There are numerous other factual inaccuracies in this article -- maybe I'll correct them soon enough. -- Adam Conover.

Brains in Jars
There is a very (imho) unpersuasive argument in the book that we can't possibly be "brains in jars" because its too complex to fool us with a computer program Dennet could imagine. Erm. Maybe this should be covered (as it is quite at odds with the rest of the book), and I'd be very interested in any responses to it...


 * To me it sounds as though you've only read the first chapter of the book. ;) In all seriousness, though, I think you're misunderstanding Dennett's argument. On the other hand, he probably didn't feel the need to refute solipsism, as that's been adequately done by other philosophers time and time again.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 17:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Where can I find some of these adequate refutations? - Gyan 30 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)`

One good place is Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch


 * You mean its been inadequately dodged by other philosophers time and time again.

Parallelism vs. Serialism
This reminds me very much of Julian Jaynes and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I'm sure there's also similar support from people studying lingusitics and semiotics; especially with regard to Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. First comes the information -- the thinking; then comes your internal modelling of that information -- language / self-consciousness. -- zuzu

Julian Jaynes
I was actually coming here to see if Julian Jaynes would get a mention, as Dennett is somewhat of an admirer and Julian Jaynes work acted as somewhat of a muse for Dennet's later ideas regarding consciousness. Philosophyfellow (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Qualia and Zombies
I have added a paragraph dealing with one of the more important topics of the book, ie qualia. 1Z 12:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

Peter Wilberg
Two external links have been added which appear to be 1) to personal web pages 2) belonging to someone who is not a recognised authority 3) not dealing specifically with the book "consciousness explained" but rather qualia in general.

I will delete if there are no objections.1Z 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Consciousness Explained.jpg
Image:Consciousness Explained.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Issue has been resolved.--Nodrokov (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Supporting statement
A supporting statement for the "multiple drafts" theory is that there is no single point in the brain where all information funnels in. There is not one place in the brain through which all the causal trains must pass, in order to deposit their content in consciousness. This is worded to sound like WP:OR. However, if it can be related to the book or to something a reviewer has said, ti cna go back in. (Preferably somewhere nearer to the discussion of MD).1Z 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Consciousness Explained.jpg
Image:Consciousness Explained.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue has been resolved.--Nodrokov (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Odd paragraph
Under the Inverted Spectrum section, there is a poorly-worded, non-punctual paragraph that tries to delve into specifics which have already been addressed more generally in the body of the article.

"it is of course possible but unprovable that this in fact exists. if what one person sees as the color red, another sees as what the first knows as green, but the second person calls that color red, who will ever know the difference unless they experience what the other does, which is impossible. imagine waking up as another person and seeing red grass and red trees for instance."

I'm not a Wikipedia person, and it will be some time before I take the time to learn all the rules and rationale for edits, so I just wanted to raise the issue and hope that someone else will delete it or fix it somehow.

168.150.253.55 (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Autoreference and the objectivity of subjectivity
This book seems autoreferential to me, in the sense that it can be summed up by the following: "If consciousness is this, then consciousness is this"

Secondly, about the unscientificallity of subjectivity, it must be noted that all science eventually comes from the "subjective" contents of consciousness. All our thinking is happening inside that "subjective" consciousness. It is all that we are eventually aware of. We are never aware of anything else than those "subjective" contents".

And there is a problem with this concept of subjectivity itself. It is unadapted because ambiguous. It designates both the dillemma between measurable and not measurable, and the difference between conscious and non-conscious in its essence. But the fact that consciousness is not measurable, is not its main property - its "conscious property" is. Therefore, because of this merely semantic ambiguity, the "subjective" consciousness can be objective in the sense that its "subjective" (ie. conscious) contents can be "objective" if they represent measured data. If I am conscious tha an object is 1.8 meters long, this "subjective (conscious) content is "in the same time "objective".

This is where the author errs. He happilly mixes the two meanings.

Interestingly, in quantum physics too, a number of things are not measurable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Great criticism, I'm agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.128.89 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consciousness Explained. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226091151/http://www.lucs.lu.se/ftp/pub/LUCS_Studies/LUCS58.pdf to http://www.lucs.lu.se/ftp/pub/LUCS_Studies/LUCS58.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation re. Nagel
Can we get a citation for this passage?

Critics of Dennett's approach, such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, argue that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely redefining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely.

5.148.145.68 (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception is mostly criticisms
I don't think a book that was heralded as as "the book of the year," or whatever, warrants a reception section that is 90% just people taking issues with the philosophy itself. To the best of my knowledge, the book is considered well-written and a good representation of the philosophy it espouses, regardless of the merits of that philosophy. That is more what "reception" is about.

I do acknowledge that the philosophical objections are relevant, but should either be balanced or possibly moved to a separate section.

I say this as someone who dislikes Dennett's philosophy and is always glad to see it torn down. 2603:7081:1603:A300:88DD:6591:E7E:9FF (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)