The Edge Annual Question

Written by

in

s and pre-linguistic children, although they can be sensitive, alert, responsive to pain and suffering, and cognitively competent in many remarkable ways–including ways that exceed normal adult human competence–are not really conscious (in this strong sense): there is no organized subject (yet) to be the enjoyer or sufferer, no owner of the experiences as contrasted with a mere cerebral locus of effects.

While Susan Blackmore, with a rigorous Buddhist sensibility, continues the argument she developed in “The Meme Machine“:

It is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will. As Samuel Johnson said “All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience is for it.” With recent developments in neuroscience and theories of consciousness, theory is even more against it than it was in his time, more than 200 years ago. So I long ago set about systematically changing the experience. I now have no feeling of acting with free will, although the feeling took many years to ebb away. […]

As for giving up the sense of an inner conscious self altogether—this is very much harder. I just keep on seeming to exist. But though I cannot prove it—I think it is true that I don’t.

Comments

  1. Mike Hill Avatar

    Thanks. Mr. Dennett seems to be taking the ontology recapitulates phylogeny baton from Julian Jaynes.
    http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Thanks for the Julian Jaynes link, though I’m not sure of the relevance here. Wasn’t it Ernst Haeckel who proposed the “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny” law, 100-odd years ago? – now generally regarded as piffle. As for Jaynes, it’s amazing how many people have read his “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”, considering it’s very likely piffle as well. Highly entertaining piffle though.

  3. Mike Avatar

    Piffle is probably the word, but it made my head explode in high school. I only meant that Jaynes contended that consciousness developed rather later than most people thought. I think he put the event at around 1800 bc. So it was phylogenically analogous to the way Dennett sees us developing individually.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *