Consciousness: Dennett says it is an illusion (General)

by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2019, 22:44 (1665 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "The subjective world of phenomenal consciousness is a fiction written by our brains in order to help us track the impact that the world makes on us. To call it a fiction is not to disparage it. Fictions can be wonderful, life-enhancing things that reveal deep truths about the world and can be more compelling than reality.Unlike Neo in The Matrix, you shouldn’t want to escape this fictional world; it’s a benign one, designed by evolutionary processes to help you thrive. But you shouldn’t mistake it for reality either."

dhw: This sums up the argument and what I see as the fallacy in the argument. Yes, our perception of reality is subjective, and no, we cannot know what objective reality consists of. But for precisely that reason, people shouldn’t assume that a subjective perception of reality does NOT correspond to objective reality. Let ‘em try my favourite example, and step in front of a bus.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with consciousness being an illusion. Consciousness is awareness. When we are conscious, we are aware of a reality around us – no matter how subjective our perception may be. When we are unconscious, we are not aware of any reality around us. But perhaps our philosophers would be kind enough to define what they mean by consciousness if they do NOT mean awareness. Only then, most of them will probably ask what is meant by awareness, as if they didn't know, and so philosophy turns into an endless game of language.

I certainly agree

xxxx

QUOTE: "...if consciousness is non-physical, how could it evolve? Darwinian natural selection can only act on a physical attribute."

dhw: Evolution means change, and it is neither synonymous with natural selection (which does not create the changes necessary for evolution, but only decides which changes will survive) nor confined to physical attributes! If we accept the definition of consciousness as awareness (what else is it?) then just like biological organisms, it has evolved through an accumulation of factors from the past coupled with present innovations. That applies both to dualistic and materialistic consciousness, as described here:

QUOTE: "There is another possibility. Darwinian theory could account for non-physical consciousness if consciousness were caused by the brain [= MATERIALISM] — that is, if non-physical consciousness were a property of brain activity and thus inextricably linked to brain activity. In that case, the argument is that the brain evolved and consciousness was dragged along because it is linked to brain activity.[…] The problem with this epiphenomenal view of consciousness is that it renders the mind powerless. If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency — no power to cause anything — in itself.”

dhw: What does he mean, then, by the “mind”? It makes no difference whether you believe in a material or an immaterial source of consciousness – the mind is the ability to think, feel, make decisions etc., so in what sense is it powerless? Does Egnor really believe that human awareness, regardless of its source, has not advanced/changed/developed/evolved since the days of our ancestors? The mind is the conscious part of the self. We don’t know what generates it, but we do know that it causes the body to respond to its commands, and it causes the evolutionary changes to language, society, ideas and other immaterial features of life, not to mention our technology. Powerless? Unchanging? I suggest that the powerful ability to think developed/evolved just as the powerful ability to walk and talk developed/evolved.

I'll agree so far as evolution produced our powerful brain which allows it to receive consciousness and mindfulness. But evolution did not produce consciousness which is Egnor's point.