Daniel Dennett - What is the Mind-Body Problem?

How is it possible that mushy masses of brain cells, passing chemicals and shooting sparks, can cause mental sensations and subjective feelings? How can brain chemistry and electricity be 'about' things?

[cromwellfluffington]

Did he randomly run into with Dennett with a camera crew?

[allenmorgan]

I would never had made any kind of distinction between mind and body if that concept had never been introduced to me. To believe there is an immaterial mind takes a degree of faith because it cannot be disporven or proven. Personally I don't believe we can divide up ourselves or the world and, make what is one thing into a duality and still be an accurate description of reality. In nature, the natural world, reality, there are no dividing lines.

[CloserToTruthTV]

Would love to see everyone join us at ClosertoTruth.com and engage the community there with these great comments & input!

[SeanMauer]

I don't think that computers have really made a dent in the understanding of the human mind.

[neonpop]

I feel these scientists can’t actually define consciousness. It’s not simply the mind or brain or even thinking, it’s much simpler than any and all and us the basis for them as well. Consciousness is the viewership to the substance we call mind that holds our inner world and from which thought arises. It is the most you you can ever be. Behind the image and thoughts you have of the world and of yourself, is the viewer you call “I”.

[puluzo]

This guy found the bug of the system. He calls everything illusion or doesn't exist. Lol.

[Rotceev]

this is very interesting, does anyone know how to find the full interview? I would appreciate so much.

[sgt]

So the mind body problem is still a problem. Dennett is suggesting that we ought to look at each others subjectivity from an objective point of view. It would be nice if that could be accomplished. I sincerely hope that by this he is not suggesting that brain scans currently do the job. This would not be looking at someone else's subjectivity. One would simply be looking at their brain and how it correlates with certain reported brain states. Basically we are still only observing objective matter (neurons) from which we infer subjectivity - but we're not observing subjectivity. We're simply not observing each other's subjectivity when we look at brain scans. Anyway I presume Dennett is not suggesting this Ludicrous idea. Given this, and presuming the answer to the mind body problem must be solved by science, how on earth can we even conceive of objectively observing someone else's subjectivity?

[tedgrant]

Drinking 8 pints of Guinness seems to reduce my consciousness.
I find it very difficult to drive in a straight line.
Or play Beethoven's opus 27 #2

[JeffBedrick]

Imagine a horse. Now imagine a horse galloping. Noun and verb. A thing and the action performed by that thing. Simple. We don't conjure some tortured concept of galloping as a second thing. Without the horse, there's no galloping.It's simply a process. So then why should we think of brain and mind as any different than this? Brain = thing. Mind = process performed by brain.

[alEx-isca]

For me, there is no mind-body problem. It is just a reminiscence of an old conception of who we are. I don't say what I don't know doesn't exist. I'm saying that at the moment, we are too early in the comprehension of ourselves to elaborate on things we have no data

[luizr.]

Materialism is what makes sense with the data we have. Dualism dies hard even in the mind of steel-eyed scientists.

[namesameasu]

Dennett's view on the mind is that of a minority of one.

[xasancle]

I didn't know Santa philosophies... 🎅

[havenbastion]

There is no problem unless you inaccurately assume they're distinct and separable. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.

[BugRib]

Is Dennett a philosophical zombie? Quite possibly. 🧟‍♂️

[theophilus]

Privileging the third person is certainly a strategy but it is hardly neutral. Mind just has both third and first person aspects. It is the latter that raises what is called the 'Mind-Body Problem'. The question is this: how can something  describable, explicable and understandable in purely mechanical terms actually _be_ a conscious entity? Description and explanation of mechanism is solely a third person strategy. By its nature it excludes the first person. Thus, the problem will outlive Dennett and even his strategy.

[hannibaldelephantrider]

Good conversation. But why was Dennett sitting in front and facing the back? Doesn't feel like a very comfortable setting to have an interesting conversation.

[jamesruscheinski]

Maybe subjective awareness and feeling about future time, how experience and perception will move into the future?

[Mohamed-bmyk]

there is no spirituality at a weak body thats an introspective of what i experienced as living in my weak body