Consciousness Explained (Penguin Science)

A person less sure of themself might have titled this work, A Theory of Consciousness. Not so Daniel Dennett. Here flat out he says Consciousness Explained. That alone demands you read this book if you are the least bit curious. Your curiosity will be rewarded.

While the text is dense it is not ponderous. It is filled with examples, details, and descriptions. All are well reasoned and thoroughly researched. As one from the humanities with a deep interest in science, this philosophical work bridges my cognitive gap and stimulates the synapses. Or if you will, it struts and frets across my non-cartesian stage in multiple drafts.

Is it explained and the issue resolved? I recommend you read Consciousness Explained and make up your own mind.

The good news is, this is a thought-provoking book, and anyone reading it will walk away feeling they know a little more about what makes humans conscious. The bad news is he doesn't come close to fulfilling the promise of the title. Dennett presents a pretty simple theory that could be explained in a few pages and a nice diagram. The theory is this: `Basically, instead of a tiny "soul" that represents consciousness, our mind is composed of many simple task-specific processes'. He could have presented this concisely and dug deeper into the components of the theory. Instead he seems to want to stretch it out unnecessarily for about the first 200 pages of the book, and he's not even clear in explaining it! He also overstates the impact of this theory repeatedly - commenting that it "might seem outrageous" and that it's "counterintuitive". Actually, it's neither of those things, so it just seems like he's trying to over inflate the theory. Usually when reading these types of books I get that "Aha!" feeling now and then, but I didn't get it once reading this book.
He also builds up a straw man in the form of "the Cartesian theater" and repeatedly bashes it. I don't know why it's so important to him to put this theory to rest - probably this is something important in philosophical circles. If this Cartesian Theater is a big force in philosophy, I must say I'm a little disappointed in the whole philosophical field. They should learn about programming. I would much rather see him building on his existing model, digging deeper into the specifics, cataloguing and explaining what some of these "mini-homunculi" or automatic functions might be. Instead he repeatedly beats a dead horse.
Most programmers have the mindset that complex behavior can be built up from many simple functions. It's what we all do day in and day out when programming. This is exactly what Dennett argues about the human mind, so it is nothing new. Then he starts arguing against the theory of the Cartesian Theater, which posits that the mind has a "center" or pineal gland, or soul, or one of many names it is given. As an atheist, this argument is also pretty much unnecessary to me, and probably to a lot of other readers out there. So it's similar to arguing to an astronaut that the earth is round. For 300 more pages! After a while you just want him to move on.
He also didn't explore very much the role that emotions play, and how these might make our own consciousness seem slightly magical. I would have been interested in hearing him ponder that. He also talked about how words are important to thought, but then never bothered to mention how meditation (the absence of words/pictures/thoughts in the mind) is related to all this. If words are so important, is it possible to do thought without their use? I don't know - he never mentioned it.
It may sound like I didn't like this book, but actually it is extremely thought provoking. Dennett is firmly in the materialist camp, so anyone with a scientific mind towards nature will agree with pretty much everything he says. The chapter on the evolution of consciousness is especially delicious. But it's like reading an astronomy book about the latest theories of the origins of the universe, and every five pages the author builds another straw man in the form of the earth being flat, then gleefully bashes the man down. Too much defense, not enough offense! He should have been braver and included more specifics. I think he was a little fearful of being proven wrong if he mentioned too many details. But a worthwhile read anyway.

I have to wonder if the critics giving Dennett one star read the same book I did. I will grant that the book is very wordy and slow-moving in places. It is the kind of read where you need to put it down and think about what you've just read. The arguments are sometimes very tedious, but then the notion of a central observer and Cartesian Theater are hard to shake.

As a former computer specialist now happily retired, I particularly resonated with his parallel processor with serial software idea. My own master's work was in AI and I was fascinated by neural networks and the (few) attempts at duplicating them (Thinking Machines comes to mind.)

I'm eagerly looking forward to reading some of Mr. Dennett's other books and will gladly set aside the time needed!

I have read a few books on consciousness and cognitive science, and find it incredibly interesting, but this book was the first, and probably the best I have ever read on the topic, for one simple reason:
You do experiments on yourself. Instead of describing a concept and leaving it up to you to apply it and proof it, Dennett demonstrates, using the readers own mind, his ideas on consciousness. I had never encountered a writer like that, and I haven't since, and for this reason, Consciousness Explained is a captivating book.

Daniel Dennett does an exceptional job explaining the workings of the human brain, and debunking a lot of conventional myths like the Cartesian Theater. I won't rehash the amazing job he does because it's already been done in so many other reviews. Having a graduate degree in computer science definitely helped with many parts of the book, like the parts on the Joycean machine.

What this book did do is make me come to a realization. The realization was that pure materialism is insufficient to explain conscious experience. This is despite Dennett's repeated assertions toward the end of the book that it is sufficient.

Simply put, I've come to realize that experience is the first and primary thing we have to go on, and the whole existence of the physical world is in fact an inductive inference derived from experience. The universe displays remarkable consistency as to the rules of how objects interact, as the success of physics can testify. But the idea that experience itself can be fully explained by the interactions of non-conscious particles and energy, when the existence of these particles and energy are inferences from experience, does not hold water, as this book shows essentially via process of elimination. The book pretty much explores every nook and cranny of the brain's workings and their correlates in conscious experience. But in spite of it all, the experience itself remains an enigma.

Why do I give it 5 stars?

In addition to being an incredibly insightful book that demolishes so many fallacies, it's the book that made me realize (in spite of itself) that there's more than meets the eye. And the fact that I disagree with its fundamental premise does not change the meaning it has had for me and my life and its influence on my fundamental worldview. This is truly the book I had been waiting for.

I have no reason in particular to like Dennett, and honestly I wasn't expecting much from him when I picked up "Consciousness Explained." I was wrong. Dennett does us a great service in introducing us to a range of discoveries and debates in neuroscience, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence, that we would simply otherwise not have access to unless we spent all day buried in books at the university library. "Consciousness Explained" is a compendium of interesting case studies. The science is sophisticated, and the philosophy is sophisticated, as well.

Has Dennett's book lived up to its title? Of course not, and it's a fair question whether it's possible to live up to such a title. On the other hand, would it have become a bestseller if it were entitled: "A Multiple Drafts Model of Consciousness in Opposition to the Cartesian Theatre, Supported by the Methodology of Heterophenomenology"? When you look at what the man has actually accomplished and the grace, intelligence, broad learning and wit with-which he accomplished it. Four stars.

In the question of consciousness one assumes that there must be "something more", some soul or immaterial force, and any explanation of consciousness which does not include this "something else" must be incorrect. Dennett likens this to explaining magic. Real magic (objects literally disappearing) doesn't exist - all "real" magic (ie performance magic) is fake. If you can get your head around this analogy then you get an insight into how Dennett approaches this subject.

This book is full of jargon, and may not be accessible to the lay person. As a scientist I appreciate Dennett's continual advocacy of neuroscience and how it is helping to illuminate our understanding of consciousness and I found his arguments generally plausible, if sometimes uncomfortable. The interface between neuroscience and philosophy will dominate modern understanding of consciousness and I believe Dennett has laid a firm foundation on to which future theories will build on.

Has Daniel Dennett explained consciousness? Maybe...maybe not. It depends if you think there is real magic or not.

Dennett's book mainly serves to present his theory of consciousness, the Multiple Drafts Model. It should be called "The Multiple Drafts Model, and footnotes" rather than "Consciousness Explained." It is worth noting that his model is not based on empirical evidence. It is also worth noting that the majority of modern cognitive scientists do not think it is correct.
The good:
I am an aspiring cognitive scientist, and the first chapter brought tears to my eyes. It considers the issue of "Should consciousness be studied?" in a pleasing way. The book is generally well written and hidden in it are interesting thought experiments and scientific gems.
The bad and the ugly:
Dennett would lead you to think the ideas presented in this book are his own, considering the tiny number of times he mentions other researchers or groups in his text. This is the worst kind of arrogance!
Other times, he states results and ideas with such firmness that you would think they are facts, when they aren't. For instance, he rejects the idea of "strong hallucinations" by saying there's no evidence for them. Some people would think this isn't true, for instance, atropine based chemicals are known to cause what some would say are "strong hallucinations." His treatment of blindsight is atrocious, for skewing the facts in the face of the layperson, and ignoring the literature in the face of the scientist.
Finally, the book is ENORMOUS and consciousness is not "explained." Don't waste your time. Read the first chapter to get the warm fuzzies, skim chapter five to understand his Multiple Drafts model, and ignore the rest. The rest is a deceptively one sided presentation of results which is too arrogant and too long and doesn't give any credit where credit is due.
Dennett must have some friends at the New York Times if this book made their top ten list for the year. For an overview of the current status of consciousness studies, see David Chalmer's Online Papers on Consciousness at university of arizona (google search it). You will discover more than a thousand articles. And Dennett thinks he can solve it in a book...

Contrary to other reviewers, I believe Dennett has a very powerful definition of Consciousness. Having studied this subject for over 12 years I found this book to be truly original. It was a breakthrough - even for Dennett himself (having read many of his other works).
His theory is that there is NO central meaner. No homunculus sitting in our heads that "understands" us or exists separate from our body. We are all narratives of our own existence. No more or less real than a character in a story, and like a story our experience is drafted - the blanks are filled in with the most reasonable explanation. Self is the center of narrative gravity of a body. Not something separate from it.
Dennett goes to great length to discredit other theories before presenting his own. Thus Dennett holds out from explaining his theory until the end of the book. This may cause many readers to loose interest. If you enjoy reading philosophy you will enjoy this book.
IMHO - There is a good chance that 100 years from now Dennett's view of Consciousness will be widely held.

How is it possible that billions of interconnected brain cells account for all the extraordinary powers of a human mind?

In this fascinating book, Dennett introduce us his "multiple draft" model to replace "material dualism" as an explanation of consciousness. Nevertheless, you should not expect a definitive proof of some model of consciousness in this book, as the discussion is still highly philosophic but certainly with a strong scientific background. No doubt that the strength of the "multiple draft" model resides more in its explanatory and predictive powers through the fields of neurology and cognitive psychology.

Vital for Dennett's model is the concept of the "heterophenomenologist's fiction" that allow us to discriminate between the narrative of a person's conscious experience and the real perception. This distinction is a major step in the process of consciousness demystification.

Particularly interesting in this book is Dennett's description of the human brain (the hardware) as a parallel-working machine where consciousness was "installed" for "running" as "serial-working" software! Also fascinating is the chapter on evolution of consciousness where Dennett explains how no-conscious agents could have evolved to produce a conscious organism.

Definitely this is a must-read book for everyone trying to understand the biggest puzzle of science: consciousness.

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).

This book is extremely hard to follow and the author assumes you have a huge vocabulary including Memes, Cartesian theater, etc. This is probably easier reading for some one with a masters in pychology.I agree with the 1 star reviewer that said the writing style did not carry the point across and that I felt like chapters were started in the middle of a thought with out establishing a context. I picked up a few key learnings, but what I learned could have been reduced to about 20 pages. This was VERY tedious reading and hard to finish. Pick another book on consciousness very little is explained.

If it is the interaction of material structures that create the illusion of consciousness (and that consciousness is, in fact, non-existent) and it is by and through a non-existent faculty that we have come to discover and study these very structures that are said to be generating the illusion, then it would follow that these material structures (particles, molecules, neuro-chemicals, the brain) are also non-existent.

Let me say this again: If the faculty of consciousness is non-existent, then all information/experience gleaned by and through said non-existent faculty is, by logical necessity, also non-existent. If consciousness does not exist, then the content of consciousness (sensory experience, for instance) likewise, does not exist. Thus, all phenomena presumably experienced by and through consciousness (including any and all features of the material world) would not, in fact, exist.

The universe does not exist. The earth does not exist. You and I don't exist. Neither does Daniel Dennett, his book or any of the ideas contained within his book.

If consciousness does not exist, then all mental phenomena- thought, observation, analyzation, reason, logic, etc- do not exist, including the very thought that consciousness doesn't exist. I can't help noticing the glaring irony of something supposedly without existence making an assertion regarding the existence of anything, including itself.

If Dennet is correct, then he has demonstrated that nothing exists. And if so, we must reevaluate what it means to exist. For if nothing exists, what is commenting on non-existence.

If he is wrong, then it was an interesting and provocative but ultimately unfruitful thought experiment.

Ironically, it is Dennett's very theory itself that causes its own unraveling. This book is what happens when a knife tries to cut itself.

3 stars for a valiant and verbose effort.

What a joke! A desperate attempt at making the mind a computer and fitting everything into the known --- by those arragant main stream unconscious academic mind --- which is explained very clearly by this book (for which I gave it 3 stars).

Dennett is a brilliant scholar, and his book shows how careful analysis can go a long way towards explaining consciousness. His approach is scientific as well as philosophical, and draws on a great deal of previous research and theory to support his claims.

And as for reviewers who think this book is bad because it doesn't agree with their own (often vague and uninformed) theories of consciousness: please leave your oppinions out of it. The fact is, Dennett is a legitimate scholar; he doesn't make any rediculous claims or makes assumptions without careful scrutiny. He even affirms that his theory of consciousness is not a complete theory. But what he does come up with is grounded in extensive research and empirical evidence, and the result is excellent academic writing. I highly recommend this book, and the same high level of scholarship can be found in Daniel Dennett's other works.

And so is any book that purports to "reduce" consciousness to something else. If you enjoy handwaving, you'll enjoy watching Dennett try to deny the very existence of obvious features of experience (in his chapter "Qualia Disqualified"). His work is surely the *reductio ad absurdum* of all attempts to "explain" mind in terms of matter. If this is how a religion-hating "philosopher" like Dennett "explains" consciousness, give me religion any day; it requires a lot less faith than this junk!

Dennett understands so little about human consciousness, that he denies that we have qualitative mental states at all. Any sane person recognizes that thinking, feeling, sensations, desire elements, memories, nostalgia etc. all have their particular quality of specific stream of resonance, which can easily differentiate it from other aspects of our psychological experience. Not only does he NOT EXPLAIN consciousness, he has talked himself out of the sheer fact that he experiences it at all. I find Dennett's works as a whole to be worthless. Choose Deleuze not Dennett.

The book's title is promising. This promise is nowhere fulfilled. Dennett does not explain consciousness, he does not even try to. He decides by fiat, which phenomena are to be called conscious "scientifically". He then attempts to explain them.
His "explanation" amounts to DEFINING consciousness as what can be explained in non-conscious terms. Needless to say, the essence of consciousness, which is the personal experience, is not touched upon. Its mere mention brings accusations of Cartesianism or unscientific attitude. His multiple drafts idea is an atempt to use the unconscious and its mystery in order to hide the shortcomings of the undefendable idea that mind is a programme.
The main reason I am reviewing this book is that I was tricked from the hype into reading it.

It's absolutely baffling to me how Dennett's theory has been completely misunderstood and mis-characterized by his critics and some of his readers.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that results from us being able, not only to see things and notice things, but to notice we notice. And we notice that too. We notice we see red, and this "noticing" is what we confuse as qualia. Of course, it's much, much more complex than this, and this is why he has devoted an entire book to it. Thus, people who complain that this book is too "long" or "wordy" also appear ridiculous under scrutiny. Does one really expect to properly lay the foundations of a consciousness theory in something shorter? It should also be emphasized that this is the foundations, not the explicit and detailed explanation of every inner working that gives rise to emotions. Thus, people who were looking for this impossible feat will also be disappointed.

My only criticism is that sometimes his treatment of qualia seems to dwell too much on the ineffable quality of it: no, I don't think we could ever describe red to someone who hadn't seen it before, but this isn't a proper problem for physicalism, if treated properly. Additionally, his Chinese room response is a bit more baffling than helpful.

This book, as has been often said, might better have been titled "Consciousness Explained Away." However, it does have its merits, particularly in the line of empirical evidence regarding neurophysiological activity. The main problem, though, is that this book actually says _nothing_ of consciousness itself. As with nearly every other approach--whether philosophical, theological, psychological, empirical-scientific, etc.--this book describes very well a whole mess of phenomena arising _within_ consciousness (from synapses to thoughts to human beings) but utterly fails to investigate the nature of awareness itself. It is an analysis of phenomena rather than noumenon, appearances rather than the witness of appearances, and the author, like nearly every other human being, fails to grasp this incredibly simple point.
No amount of study and discourse on the nature of neurological activity, computational models, philosophies, thoughts, feelings, memories, experiences, and psychological pathologies is going to give you the slightest understanding of what is aware of all those things. Consciousness--pure, ever-present, expansive awareness--is not a thing, not an object, not an experience, not a phenomenon capable of being observed. Rather, it is the infinite context in which all things, all phenomena, or all experiences arise, stay a bit, and pass away. Never does consciousness itself come or go, and this can be directly verified by everyone. (It is the mind and body--aggregate thoughts, feelings, memories, perceptions--that change, turn off and on, and come and go; never does consciousness itself turn off and become "unconscious." If you mistakenly identify yourself with the mind or body, however, rather than with awareness itself, "you" will naturally seem to fade out along with those things.)
In truth, there is only one consciousness, one awareness, and it is the same in all beings, in all places and times. It is the infinite clearing, the vast emptiness, the unmoving space within which all people, places, and things come and go. But the emptiness itself never comes or goes, or even changes or moves at all. It is beyond time, beyond change, beyond spatiotemporal phenomena altogether, and it is what we truly are. Aware of time, you are timeless. Aware of space, you are spaceless. Aware of forms, you are formless. And when you discover the truth of this, the immediately, undeniably verifiable Fact of this, you will know what this world really is, and you will know exactly what you are doing here.

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 methods of science, gets in the way of a truly serious and open-minded search for answers.

Although he pays lip service to the notion that consciousness is a mystery, nothing in Dennett's presentation suggests that he truly believes that. In reducing qualia -- one of the thorniest and most challenging objections to the materialist approach -- to the status of data to be processed by the brain's hardware, he trivializes the very mystery he claims to appreciate. In insisting on explaining "every puzzling feature of human consciousness within the framework of contemporary physical science," he arbitrarily limits his inquiry to the conceptual constraints of materialism, effectively guaranteeing the outcome.

Because he views the mind as little more than a thinking machine, Dennett never seriously considers the value of emotion or intuition or the potential for deeper understanding that lies within these important realms of human experience. Instead, he indulges his penchant for long, meandering thought excursions which, though diverting and entertaining, only obscure more fundamental questions. Just how comfortably he settles in is clear from the fact that a full 281 pages go by before Dennett 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. In doing so he dodges the only question which, in the end, really matters -- the hard question of metaphysics: how consciousness could ever arise on its own from a collection of lifeless chemicals; or, stated more fundamentally, how the notion of physical existence itself has any meaning in the absence of a conscious observer who experiences it. Having ignored these essential questions and dwelled instead on side issues, Dennett makes it impossible for his book to shed any real light on what consciousness is or how it came to be.

A suitable book for obtaining a general idea of the philosophical debates over consciousness. However, the title is misleading. Rather than explaining consciousness, the subject is avoided. No clear definition of consciousness is ever given; rather, the author provides a list of what consciousness is not.

Dennett still doesn't understand that consciousness is the perceptions by
the first person singular. Dennett can't explain what consciousness is because he
is stuck with using analytic philosophy, which can only deal in descriptions
of consciousness, not the experience of consciousness. For that you need
some form of platonism such as that of Leibniz. Here's the issue:

The death of analytic philosophy and the birth of consciousness

Consciousness, which is experience by the first person singular,
is by definition outside of the scope of analytic philosophy, which
is limited to be able to only deal in descriptions of experience.

Definition of ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
" a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems
in the analysis of propositions or sentences ?alled also philosophical analysis
compare ordinary-language philosophy. "

Analytic (British) philosophy (Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew. etc.)
limits philosophy to word and logic puzzles and thus legitimizes
atheism and materialism. This has given rise to a semi-religious
cult or atheism and materialism that cannot tell us about
experiential human issues such as consciousness, religion, and true ai.
Or meaningful issues such as ethics or aesthetics.

However, continental philosophy and Indian philosophy can.
(Leibniz, Kant, Indian philosophers).

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
[...]

As a teacher in Consciousness, the only word in the book relating to consciousness was 'Pineal' which refers to the Pineal Gland. The brain isn't the foundation of 'Consciousness' and unless the mental center is stirred into activity there is no brain activity...relating to consciousness. Consciousness is an inner awareness which leads an individual into enlightenment...this only happens when an individual functions in Higher Consciousness. The entire focus of the book was supposed to be...WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? From my view point it wasn't answered. If the author of the book knew what consciousness was. . . his book would have taken on an entirely different theme.
Rosalie Quattrocchi

Time and again authors write books by making sweeping statements just to make a few bucks. when I am looking and hearing as well as feeling the floor under my foot what exactly is happening Dennett? Sure its all parallel processing going on but there is unmistakably a unified experience of it. Let me put it this way.. neurons fire and experience happens. Wow! Its that simple eh? I want you to stick a few processors on the board, one for a camera, one for speaker and one for pressure and then "create" an experience. I want to know where and how these rules for these experience are stored and in what forms so that these neurons know how to experience the experience. When we talk of consciousness we are talking of the awareness of the senses. Just because you do not know how to represent this awareness on paper and in words, doesn't make your theory correct and I consider such theories the least scientific. Somehow scientists made a pact not to take anything subjective into consideration and the keep on explaining things in this objective terms knowing fully well that they are leaving out a whole lot of truth. There is something seriously wrong with this approach.

John Searle demolishes Dennett in his book, The Mystery of Consciousness. Dennett denies the existence of inner mental states so that his book is really not about consciousness, but labors mightily to deny it. Don't waste your time or money.

I gave this book two stars only because I realize that writing over 400pgs, about anything, definitely isn't easy. My basic problem with this book is its title, because an explanation of consciousness is precisely the problem that Dennett evades. I must admit, I didn't quite finish it. I just couldn't imagine that he would miraculously solve the riddle after 350 pages of circomlocution.

I want to keep this short. Ultimately, I don't feel this was rewarding. I am educated. I am a grad student, who has studied at an ivy league university and abroad, and have taken at least a couple cognitive science courses. I say this only because in today's world, pretense goes a long way. DO NOT BE MYSTIFIED. The basic ideas in this book are very simple, despite's Dennett's attempt at obfuscation.

First, his refutation of the "Cartesian Theatre" is totally unenlightening. He argues that there is nowhere located in the brain a central point where 'everything comes together'- basically, that continuity of consciousness is 'illusion'. There is no one stage, nor single spectator, but many stages and spectators happening all at once, because this is what happens in the brain, the so-called "Multiple Drafts Theory". But really, SO WHAT? Who didn't already know this? Consciousness is still there, and that perception is still there. What seems to be implied is that this theory will change our consciousness, as one reviewer was so proud of boasting, but that is absurd. I still experience that artificial continuity. The problem still remains: even if we knew every firing of every neuron, and mapped it out, we still wouldn't have an explanation of why we are conscious, or more appropriately, why we are conscious of being conscious, and of how this internal narratized space was born. How do we get from the brain to the consciousness, internal, metaphorical space?

Dennett keeps confusing concepts. For example, reactivity is not consciousness. I am reacting to objects and stimuli constantly, without being aware of them. But consciousness is also not a recording of experience, since it consists of such imagination and mental projection. Nor is it even necessary for learning, or thinking for that matter. So what is it, and how does consciousness of consciousness, this internal fabricated space that we project into our heads come about? Dennett also ignores this issue in his account of the evolution of consciousness, conflating it with an evolution of behavioral capability, all the while missing the link between the two.

One simple point is that, consciousness is NOT NECESSARY for nearly all of the capabilities that our species possesses. This idea is obviously that of Julian Jaynes, and his historical approach to the origins of consciousness is still, one of the best and most courageous and innovative studies I have ever encountered, despite the silence with which academia has met it. I highly recommend, as I am re-reading it now. He hypothesizes that consciousness as we know it today arose a few thousand years ago, arising out of a sort of schizophrenic 'bicameral mind' in which we were aware, but not really conscious of being aware, without having this internal mind stuff born from authority and metaphors of language. I am really butchering a synopsis here so I will refer to the book itself.

Also of interest, new research at the University of New Mexico, DMT "the Spirit Molecule" has been shown to have an integral role in consciousness- this occurs naturally in the brain, and will satisfy those hungering for materialist explanations. DMT hallucinatory trips also provide examples of the rare "strong hallucinations" that Dennett dismisses.

There is also a more fundamental problem. Dennett argues that 'dualism' is tantamount to 'giving up' but then reduces consciousness to mere 'matter'- but there are two problems. Again, first he can't explain the link between the brain and the mind (while of course using pretentious jargon like "heterophenomenology"- which basically means listening to what other people's experiences are) and second, MATTER is itself an anachronistic and ill defined concept! Its ironic, to say the least, that he lays the foundation for this 'theory' on a materialism which is itself in disrepute among physicists. Anyone who has read David Bohm, for instance, knows that our ideas about what constitutes the real, material world, may be far from adequate. Isn't matter just interfering waves?

And what about consciousness' affect upon shaping that nebulous material world? Of course, we all know of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but what about more agressive research, like that of Dr. William A. Tiller at the University of Stanford, who showed that sustained intention can actually impinge upon reality and have robust affects upon space, like a thermodynamic potential? Some of you will have already dismissed me as a mystic, but such dogmatic dismissals have nothing to do with science. The results are there, and I merely an raising questions which Dennett happily ignores.

I also hope I have not brought all these authors into the same camp. They are in many cases totally unrelated, I bring them up only for the curious, with Jaynes being the most pertinent to the subject matter at hand. Basically, Dennett's book exemplifies some of the worst elements in academia. It is pretentious, unrewarding, unenlightening, uninteresting, unchallenging, and unmotivating.

I expected to find this book stimulating and informative, but came away feeling that Dennett is vastly overrated and quite ordinary in his thought process, logical skills, and writing. This book does not explain or offer a theory on -- as its title promises -- what consciousness is; it merely offers a lot of random observations on and stories about consciousness. Dennett seems to start everything he writes somewhere in the middle of a conversation he has been having with himself; he doesn't know how to properly introduce a topic to the reader. He begins the book not with an overview of his subject or a presentation of a thesis, but with a chapter on hallucinations -- a very specific area of consciousness. I indulged it with the expectation that it would provide an entry point into a broader argument he wished to advance; instead it was just the first in a random string of narratives.

I suggest that in lieu of Dennett's writings on consciousness, one read John Searle or Robert Ornstein. Or if you want an engaging, conversational style of writing on the subject, look into Oliver Sacks.

Though I think Dennett made an error when he acknowledged the possibility of the existence of split-personality disorder, Dennett is otherwise right on.

Atheism, the destruction of epiphenomonology and a naturalist rational interpretation of consciousness as well as the explanations of artificial intelligence are put foreward all culminating in an explanation of human consciousness.

The book is difficult for someone not acquainted with philosophy, psychology, some higher mathematics and robotics. The book is not for people who have lttle background in critical thinking and generally not for people with below average intelligence.

The book finally comes together half-way through and from then on you have a better grasp f Dennett's views, but it is an uphill climb until half-way through the book.

It is a difficult but well-reasoned, rewarding work.

In an interesting way, Dennett integrates concepts of different areas of the cognitive sciences to propose a possible model that helps to understand the complexity of the conscience, not leaving aside the scientific rigor.

Since this book has received such a proportionally large amount of attention, I assumed it would be well-argued and solidly constructed.
The argumentation is weak and sloppy, and the book is ultimately trying to explain away - rather than explain - consciousness.
We are never really told how, in fact, the 'Joycean machine' that is "the stream-of-consciousness virtual machine"(p. 276) (which is the main reason most of us bought this book) works!
Halfway through the book, he says (p. 275) "...if my theory of the Joycean machine is going to shed light on consciousness at all, there had better be something remarkable about some if not all of the activities of this machine, for there is no denying that consciousness is, intuitively, something special."
In the remaining 200+ pages of the book, he mentions (not explains) the phrase 'Joycean machine' on only 7 additional pages.
Read John Searle's book "Mystery of Consciousness" instead. There Searle reviews many authors including Dennett. As do I, Searle also consider's Dennett "imprecise and evasive" (p.115), and as he says "I regard Dennett's denial of the existence of consciousness not as a new discovery or even a serious possibility but rather a form of intellectual pathology."(p.112)

I'm afraid this book doesn't explain consciousness. It doesn't explain how inanimate matter can understand anything. It doesn't explain how Dennet understands anything.
I was more than disappointed. Buy it by all means, but only to laugh at it with your friends. Deary me.

If you look in the dictionary under "turbid," you'll find a photograph of the cover of this book (to intentionally misquote Rodney Dangerfield). I have an M.A. in philosophy and a long-standing interest in this subject, but if you can learn even one thing from this book, then you're a far more perceptive reader than I. Recommended only for masochists.

This book was very difficult to get through. As others have said, the author's attitude is
why use a few words where a paragraph will do? This gets rather obnoxious after a while. He also is in favor of using what I like to refer to as $2 words, making this a very rich book, and difficult to read.

Ultimately, I'll admit, I started skipping pages because I just couldn't even begin to follow what he was saying, and then I put it down after I was about a third of the way through. His writing is not accessible. Stay away!

This book contains a great many words. Unfortunately, it contains only a very few ideas. This book could very well be contained in a 15 page white paper. Indeed it has. The same ideas have been published in the paper 'Time and the Observer - The Where and When of Consciousness in the Brain' by the author (Dennett) and Kinsbourne. Even in that case the 15 page paper is contained in a 33 page text. To use the cliché, Dennett will not use a paragraph when several chapters will suffice
I would advise anyone who wishes to understand the ideas contained in this book to read the paper. You will not have to waste your time in plowing through hundreds of pages of superfluous explanation. The paper is anthologized in 'The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates' that was edited by Block, Flanagan and Gazeldere, which is also available from the store. You will get the same ideas as contained in this book plus many many more.
Another strategy would be to read one of Gerald Edelman's books which contains many fewer words in much better expositions of a great many more ideas that are much more trenchant and insightful.

This book was written over 20 years and billions of dollars in investment neuroscience ago. One gets the sense that Dennett bought all the neurohype and was anticipating major breakthroughs in the near future. That never arrived. We know no more about consciousness today than we did hundreds, maybe even thousands of years ago.

So here we sit, with materialist philosophy of the mind at a point of deep crisis. Even ardent materialists are starting to give at least a modicum of respect to non-materialist conceptions of consciousness. One sense that we might be arriving at another revolution point for scientific metaphysics, in the same way heliocentrism, evolution, and quantum theory changed everything.

This book seems almost sad, poignant in a way. Like a relic from another time

hmm...there is no central place in the brain where consciousness resides...duh. but this doesn't really explain consciousness at all does it? you might like this if you want to read a flighty book that goes off in different directions but doesn't really get down to the matter at hand.

An interesting read about the subject is Ramachandran's article: "Filling in Gaps in Logic: Some Comments on Dennett", easilly found on the intenet.
Ramachandran underlines some of Dennetts factual an logical mistakes.

MIXES PHILOSOPHY WITH SCIENCES AS IT SHOULD BE, DEEP LINGO, AT TIMES OFF TOPIC TRYING TO PROVE WHAT CANT B PROVEN BUT HAS GOOD POINTS, OTHERWISE THEORY NOT DISPROVEN, ONLY SOME PARTS BUT THOSE ARE HIS CREATIONS!