TED2003
Dan Dennett: The illusion of consciousness
Filmed:
Readability: 3.2
3,868,782 views
Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.
Dan Dennett - Philosopher, cognitive scientist
Dan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes. Full bio
Dan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:26
So I'm going to speak about a problem that I have
0
1000
3000
00:29
and that's that I'm a philosopher.
1
4000
3000
00:32
(Laughter)
2
7000
2000
00:34
When I go to a party and people ask me what do I do
3
9000
3000
00:37
and I say, "I'm a professor," their eyes glaze over.
4
12000
5000
00:42
When I go to an academic cocktail party
5
17000
2000
00:44
and there are all the professors around, they ask me what field I'm in
6
19000
4000
00:48
and I say, "philosophy" -- their eyes glaze over.
7
23000
3000
00:51
(Laughter)
8
26000
2000
00:53
When I go to a philosopher's party
9
28000
3000
00:56
(Laughter)
10
31000
3000
00:59
and they ask me what I work on and I say, "consciousness,"
11
34000
4000
01:03
their eyes don't glaze over -- their lips curl into a snarl.
12
38000
5000
01:08
(Laughter)
13
43000
1000
01:09
And I get hoots of derision and cackles and growls
14
44000
6000
01:15
because they think, "That's impossible! You can't explain consciousness."
15
50000
5000
01:20
The very chutzpah of somebody thinking
16
55000
2000
01:22
that you could explain consciousness is just out of the question.
17
57000
4000
01:26
My late, lamented friend Bob Nozick, a fine philosopher,
18
61000
4000
01:30
in one of his books, "Philosophical Explanations,"
19
65000
4000
01:34
is commenting on the ethos of philosophy --
20
69000
5000
01:39
the way philosophers go about their business.
21
74000
2000
01:41
And he says, you know, "Philosophers love rational argument."
22
76000
4000
01:45
And he says, "It seems as if the ideal argument
23
80000
2000
01:47
for most philosophers is you give your audience the premises
24
82000
6000
01:53
and then you give them the inferences and the conclusion,
25
88000
5000
01:58
and if they don't accept the conclusion, they die.
26
93000
4000
02:02
Their heads explode." The idea is to have an argument
27
97000
3000
02:05
that is so powerful that it knocks out your opponents.
28
100000
4000
02:09
But in fact that doesn't change people's minds at all.
29
104000
3000
02:12
It's very hard to change people's minds
30
107000
1000
02:13
about something like consciousness,
31
108000
2000
02:15
and I finally figured out the reason for that.
32
110000
5000
02:20
The reason for that is that everybody's an expert on consciousness.
33
115000
4000
02:24
We heard the other day that everybody's got a strong opinion about video games.
34
119000
4000
02:28
They all have an idea for a video game, even if they're not experts.
35
123000
3000
02:31
But they don't consider themselves experts on video games;
36
126000
3000
02:34
they've just got strong opinions.
37
129000
1000
02:35
I'm sure that people here who work on, say, climate change
38
130000
5000
02:40
and global warming, or on the future of the Internet,
39
135000
5000
02:45
encounter people who have very strong opinions
40
140000
2000
02:47
about what's going to happen next.
41
142000
3000
02:50
But they probably don't think of these opinions as expertise.
42
145000
4000
02:54
They're just strongly held opinions.
43
149000
2000
02:56
But with regard to consciousness, people seem to think,
44
151000
4000
03:00
each of us seems to think, "I am an expert.
45
155000
3000
03:03
Simply by being conscious, I know all about this."
46
158000
3000
03:06
And so, you tell them your theory and they say,
47
161000
2000
03:08
"No, no, that's not the way consciousness is!
48
163000
1000
03:09
No, you've got it all wrong."
49
164000
2000
03:11
And they say this with an amazing confidence.
50
166000
4000
03:15
And so what I'm going to try to do today
51
170000
2000
03:17
is to shake your confidence. Because I know the feeling --
52
172000
3000
03:20
I can feel it myself.
53
175000
2000
03:22
I want to shake your confidence that you know your own innermost minds --
54
177000
6000
03:28
that you are, yourselves, authoritative about your own consciousness.
55
183000
5000
03:33
That's the order of the day here.
56
188000
3000
03:36
Now, this nice picture shows a thought-balloon, a thought-bubble.
57
191000
3000
03:39
I think everybody understands what that means.
58
194000
2000
03:41
That's supposed to exhibit the stream of consciousness.
59
196000
3000
03:44
This is my favorite picture of consciousness that's ever been done.
60
199000
2000
03:46
It's a Saul Steinberg of course -- it was a New Yorker cover.
61
201000
3000
03:49
And this fellow here is looking at the painting by Braque.
62
204000
5000
03:54
That reminds him of the word baroque, barrack, bark, poodle,
63
209000
4000
03:58
Suzanne R. -- he's off to the races.
64
213000
2000
04:00
There's a wonderful stream of consciousness here
65
215000
4000
04:04
and if you follow it along, you learn a lot about this man.
66
219000
4000
04:08
What I particularly like about this picture, too,
67
223000
2000
04:10
is that Steinberg has rendered the guy
68
225000
2000
04:12
in this sort of pointillist style.
69
227000
3000
04:15
Which reminds us, as Rod Brooks was saying yesterday:
70
230000
3000
04:18
what we are, what each of us is -- what you are, what I am --
71
233000
4000
04:22
is approximately 100 trillion little cellular robots.
72
237000
6000
04:28
That's what we're made of.
73
243000
2000
04:30
No other ingredients at all. We're just made of cells, about 100 trillion of them.
74
245000
4000
04:34
Not a single one of those cells is conscious;
75
249000
2000
04:36
not a single one of those cells knows who you are, or cares.
76
251000
5000
04:41
Somehow, we have to explain
77
256000
2000
04:43
how when you put together teams, armies, battalions
78
258000
4000
04:47
of hundreds of millions of little robotic unconscious cells --
79
262000
4000
04:51
not so different really from a bacterium, each one of them --
80
266000
4000
04:55
the result is this. I mean, just look at it.
81
270000
4000
04:59
The content -- there's color, there's ideas, there's memories,
82
274000
4000
05:03
there's history. And somehow all that content of consciousness
83
278000
4000
05:07
is accomplished by the busy activity of those hoards of neurons.
84
282000
5000
05:12
How is that possible? Many people just think it isn't possible at all.
85
287000
4000
05:16
They think, "No, there can't be any
86
291000
2000
05:18
sort of naturalistic explanation of consciousness."
87
293000
4000
05:22
This is a lovely book by a friend of mine named Lee Siegel,
88
297000
3000
05:25
who's a professor of religion, actually, at the University of Hawaii,
89
300000
3000
05:28
and he's an expert magician, and an expert
90
303000
2000
05:30
on the street magic of India, which is what this book is about,
91
305000
4000
05:34
"Net of Magic."
92
309000
2000
05:36
And there's a passage in it which I would love to share with you.
93
311000
3000
05:39
It speaks so eloquently to the problem.
94
314000
6000
05:45
"'I'm writing a book on magic,' I explain, and I'm asked, 'Real magic?'
95
320000
5000
05:50
By 'real magic,' people mean miracles,
96
325000
2000
05:52
thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers.
97
327000
2000
05:54
'No,' I answer. 'Conjuring tricks, not real magic.'
98
329000
4000
05:58
'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real;
99
333000
4000
06:02
while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic."
100
337000
5000
06:07
(Laughter)
101
342000
4000
06:11
Now, that's the way a lot of people feel about consciousness.
102
346000
4000
06:15
(Laughter)
103
350000
1000
06:16
Real consciousness is not a bag of tricks.
104
351000
2000
06:18
If you're going to explain this as a bag of tricks,
105
353000
2000
06:20
then it's not real consciousness, whatever it is.
106
355000
3000
06:23
And, as Marvin said, and as other people have said,
107
358000
6000
06:29
"Consciousness is a bag of tricks."
108
364000
3000
06:32
This means that a lot of people are just left completely dissatisfied
109
367000
5000
06:37
and incredulous when I attempt to explain consciousness.
110
372000
3000
06:40
So this is the problem. So I have to
111
375000
3000
06:43
do a little bit of the sort of work
112
378000
3000
06:46
that a lot of you won't like,
113
381000
4000
06:50
for the same reason that you don't like to see
114
385000
2000
06:52
a magic trick explained to you.
115
387000
2000
06:54
How many of you here, if somebody -- some smart aleck --
116
389000
4000
06:58
starts telling you how a particular magic trick is done,
117
393000
3000
07:01
you sort of want to block your ears and say, "No, no, I don't want to know!
118
396000
3000
07:04
Don't take the thrill of it away. I'd rather be mystified.
119
399000
3000
07:07
Don't tell me the answer."
120
402000
3000
07:10
A lot of people feel that way about consciousness, I've discovered.
121
405000
3000
07:13
And I'm sorry if I impose some clarity, some understanding on you.
122
408000
6000
07:19
You'd better leave now if you don't want to know some of these tricks.
123
414000
5000
07:24
But I'm not going to explain it all to you.
124
419000
4000
07:28
I'm going to do what philosophers do.
125
423000
3000
07:31
Here's how a philosopher explains the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick.
126
426000
6000
07:37
You know the sawing-the-lady-in-half trick?
127
432000
2000
07:39
The philosopher says, "I'm going to explain to you how that's done.
128
434000
4000
07:43
You see, the magician doesn't really saw the lady in half."
129
438000
5000
07:48
(Laughter)
130
443000
2000
07:50
"He merely makes you think that he does."
131
445000
4000
07:54
And you say, "Yes, and how does he do that?"
132
449000
1000
07:55
He says, "Oh, that's not my department, I'm sorry."
133
450000
2000
07:57
(Laughter)
134
452000
5000
08:02
So now I'm going to illustrate how philosophers explain consciousness.
135
457000
3000
08:05
But I'm going to try to also show you
136
460000
3000
08:08
that consciousness isn't quite as marvelous --
137
463000
3000
08:11
your own consciousness isn't quite as wonderful --
138
466000
2000
08:13
as you may have thought it is.
139
468000
2000
08:15
This is something, by the way, that Lee Siegel talks about in his book.
140
470000
4000
08:19
He marvels at how he'll do a magic show, and afterwards
141
474000
4000
08:23
people will swear they saw him do X, Y, and Z. He never did those things.
142
478000
4000
08:27
He didn't even try to do those things.
143
482000
2000
08:29
People's memories inflate what they think they saw.
144
484000
4000
08:33
And the same is true of consciousness.
145
488000
3000
08:36
Now, let's see if this will work. All right. Let's just watch this.
146
491000
7000
08:43
Watch it carefully.
147
498000
1000
08:56
I'm working with a young computer-animator documentarian
148
511000
3000
08:59
named Nick Deamer, and this is a little demo that he's done for me,
149
514000
5000
09:04
part of a larger project some of you may be interested in.
150
519000
3000
09:07
We're looking for a backer.
151
522000
3000
09:10
It's a feature-length documentary on consciousness.
152
525000
4000
09:14
OK, now, you all saw what changed, right?
153
529000
2000
09:20
How many of you noticed that every one of those squares changed color?
154
535000
5000
09:25
Every one. I'll just show you by running it again.
155
540000
4000
09:34
Even when you know that they're all going to change color,
156
549000
5000
09:39
it's very hard to notice. You have to really concentrate
157
554000
4000
09:43
to pick up any of the changes at all.
158
558000
3000
09:46
Now, this is an example -- one of many --
159
561000
5000
09:51
of a phenomenon that's now being studied quite a bit.
160
566000
2000
09:53
It's one that I predicted in the last page or two of my
161
568000
4000
09:57
1991 book, "Consciousness Explained,"
162
572000
2000
09:59
where I said if you did experiments of this sort,
163
574000
3000
10:02
you'd find that people were unable to pick up really large changes.
164
577000
3000
10:05
If there's time at the end,
165
580000
2000
10:07
I'll show you the much more dramatic case.
166
582000
3000
10:10
Now, how can it be that there are all those changes going on,
167
585000
5000
10:15
and that we're not aware of them?
168
590000
3000
10:18
Well, earlier today, Jeff Hawkins mentioned the way your eye saccades,
169
593000
5000
10:23
the way your eye moves around three or four times a second.
170
598000
3000
10:26
He didn't mention the speed. Your eye is constantly in motion,
171
601000
3000
10:29
moving around, looking at eyes, noses, elbows,
172
604000
3000
10:32
looking at interesting things in the world.
173
607000
2000
10:34
And where your eye isn't looking,
174
609000
2000
10:36
you're remarkably impoverished in your vision.
175
611000
3000
10:39
That's because the foveal part of your eye,
176
614000
3000
10:42
which is the high-resolution part,
177
617000
2000
10:44
is only about the size of your thumbnail held at arms length.
178
619000
3000
10:47
That's the detail part.
179
622000
2000
10:49
It doesn't seem that way, does it?
180
624000
3000
10:52
It doesn't seem that way, but that's the way it is.
181
627000
2000
10:54
You're getting in a lot less information than you think.
182
629000
4000
10:58
Here's a completely different effect. This is a painting by Bellotto.
183
633000
6000
11:04
It's in the museum in North Carolina.
184
639000
2000
11:06
Bellotto was a student of Canaletto's.
185
641000
3000
11:09
And I love paintings like that --
186
644000
1000
11:10
the painting is actually about as big as it is right here.
187
645000
4000
11:14
And I love Canalettos, because Canaletto has this fantastic detail,
188
649000
3000
11:17
and you can get right up
189
652000
3000
11:20
and see all the details on the painting.
190
655000
3000
11:23
And I started across the hall in North Carolina,
191
658000
5000
11:28
because I thought it was probably a Canaletto,
192
663000
2000
11:30
and would have all that in detail.
193
665000
2000
11:32
And I noticed that on the bridge there, there's a lot of people --
194
667000
3000
11:35
you can just barely see them walking across the bridge.
195
670000
3000
11:38
And I thought as I got closer
196
673000
1000
11:39
I would be able to see all the detail of most people,
197
674000
3000
11:42
see their clothes, and so forth.
198
677000
2000
11:44
And as I got closer and closer, I actually screamed.
199
679000
4000
11:48
I yelled out because when I got closer,
200
683000
2000
11:50
I found the detail wasn't there at all.
201
685000
4000
11:54
There were just little artfully placed blobs of paint.
202
689000
4000
11:58
And as I walked towards the picture,
203
693000
3000
12:01
I was expecting detail that wasn't there.
204
696000
3000
12:04
The artist had very cleverly suggested people and clothes
205
699000
5000
12:09
and wagons and all sorts of things,
206
704000
3000
12:12
and my brain had taken the suggestion.
207
707000
3000
12:15
You're familiar with a more recent technology, which is -- There,
208
710000
6000
12:21
you can get a better view of the blobs.
209
716000
2000
12:23
See, when you get close
210
718000
2000
12:25
they're really just blobs of paint.
211
720000
5000
12:30
You will have seen something like this -- this is the reverse effect.
212
725000
6000
12:44
I'll just give that to you one more time.
213
739000
3000
12:47
Now, what does your brain do when it takes the suggestion?
214
742000
7000
12:54
When an artful blob of paint or two, by an artist,
215
749000
5000
12:59
suggests a person -- say, one of
216
754000
6000
13:05
Marvin Minsky's little society of mind --
217
760000
2000
13:07
do they send little painters out to fill in all the details in your brain somewhere?
218
762000
5000
13:12
I don't think so. Not a chance. But then, how on Earth is it done?
219
767000
5000
13:17
Well, remember the philosopher's explanation of the lady?
220
772000
5000
13:22
It's the same thing.
221
777000
3000
13:25
The brain just makes you think that it's got the detail there.
222
780000
3000
13:28
You think the detail's there, but it isn't there.
223
783000
3000
13:31
The brain isn't actually putting the detail in your head at all.
224
786000
3000
13:34
It's just making you expect the detail.
225
789000
3000
13:37
Let's just do this experiment very quickly.
226
792000
3000
13:40
Is the shape on the left the same as the shape on the right, rotated?
227
795000
5000
13:45
Yes.
228
800000
2000
13:47
How many of you did it by rotating the one on the left
229
802000
2000
13:49
in your mind's eye, to see if it matched up with the one on the right?
230
804000
3000
13:52
How many of you rotated the one on the right? OK.
231
807000
4000
13:56
How do you know that's what you did?
232
811000
2000
13:58
(Laughter)
233
813000
3000
14:01
There's in fact been a very interesting debate
234
816000
2000
14:03
raging for over 20 years in cognitive science --
235
818000
3000
14:06
various experiments started by Roger Shepherd,
236
821000
2000
14:08
who measured the angular velocity of rotation of mental images.
237
823000
5000
14:13
Yes, it's possible to do that.
238
828000
2000
14:15
But the details of the process are still in significant controversy.
239
830000
7000
14:22
And if you read that literature, one of the things
240
837000
3000
14:25
that you really have to come to terms with is
241
840000
3000
14:28
even when you're the subject in the experiment, you don't know.
242
843000
2000
14:30
You don't know how you do it.
243
845000
2000
14:32
You just know that you have certain beliefs.
244
847000
3000
14:35
And they come in a certain order, at a certain time.
245
850000
3000
14:38
And what explains the fact that that's what you think?
246
853000
2000
14:40
Well, that's where you have to go backstage and ask the magician.
247
855000
4000
14:44
This is a figure that I love: Bradley, Petrie, and Dumais.
248
859000
4000
14:48
You may think that I've cheated,
249
863000
2000
14:50
that I've put a little whiter-than-white boundary there.
250
865000
5000
14:55
How many of you see that sort of boundary,
251
870000
2000
14:57
with the Necker cube floating in front of the circles?
252
872000
3000
15:00
Can you see it?
253
875000
2000
15:02
Well, you know, in effect, the boundary's really there, in a certain sense.
254
877000
5000
15:07
Your brain is actually computing that boundary,
255
882000
3000
15:10
the boundary that goes right there.
256
885000
5000
15:15
But now, notice there are two ways of seeing the cube, right?
257
890000
2000
15:17
It's a Necker cube.
258
892000
2000
15:19
Everybody can see the two ways of seeing the cube? OK.
259
894000
4000
15:23
Can you see the four ways of seeing the cube?
260
898000
4000
15:27
Because there's another way of seeing it.
261
902000
2000
15:29
If you're seeing it as a cube floating in front of some circles,
262
904000
3000
15:32
some black circles, there's another way of seeing it.
263
907000
3000
15:35
As a cube, on a black background,
264
910000
2000
15:37
as seen through a piece of Swiss cheese.
265
912000
2000
15:39
(Laughter)
266
914000
3000
15:42
Can you get it? How many of you can't get it? That'll help.
267
917000
6000
15:48
(Laughter)
268
923000
2000
15:50
Now you can get it. These are two very different phenomena.
269
925000
5000
15:55
When you see the cube one way, behind the screen,
270
930000
6000
16:01
those boundaries go away.
271
936000
2000
16:03
But there's still a sort of filling in, as we can tell if we look at this.
272
938000
5000
16:08
We don't have any trouble seeing the cube, but where does the color change?
273
943000
4000
16:12
Does your brain have to send little painters in there?
274
947000
3000
16:15
The purple-painters and the green-painters
275
950000
2000
16:17
fight over who's going to paint that bit behind the curtain? No.
276
952000
3000
16:20
Your brain just lets it go. The brain doesn't need to fill that in.
277
955000
4000
16:29
When I first started talking about
278
964000
3000
16:32
the Bradley, Petrie, Dumais example that you just saw --
279
967000
4000
16:36
I'll go back to it, this one --
280
971000
4000
16:40
I said that there was no filling-in behind there.
281
975000
7000
16:47
And I supposed that that was just a flat truth, always true.
282
982000
3000
16:50
But Rob Van Lier has recently shown that it isn't.
283
985000
5000
16:55
Now, if you think you see some pale yellow --
284
990000
5000
17:00
I'll run this a few more times.
285
995000
2000
17:02
Look in the gray areas,
286
997000
4000
17:06
and see if you seem to see something sort of shadowy moving in there --
287
1001000
5000
17:11
yeah, it's amazing. There's nothing there. It's no trick.
288
1006000
7000
17:18
["Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes" slide]
289
1013000
6000
17:24
This is Ron Rensink's work, which was in some degree
290
1019000
2000
17:26
inspired by that suggestion right at the end of the book.
291
1021000
4000
17:30
Let me just pause this for a second if I can.
292
1025000
2000
17:32
This is change-blindness.
293
1027000
2000
17:34
What you're going to see is two pictures,
294
1029000
2000
17:36
one of which is slightly different from the other.
295
1031000
2000
17:38
You see here the red roof and the gray roof,
296
1033000
3000
17:41
and in between them there will be a mask,
297
1036000
2000
17:43
which is just a blank screen, for about a quarter of a second.
298
1038000
4000
17:47
So you'll see the first picture, then a mask,
299
1042000
2000
17:49
then the second picture, then a mask.
300
1044000
2000
17:51
And this will just continue, and your job as the subject
301
1046000
4000
17:55
is to press the button when you see the change.
302
1050000
3000
17:58
So, show the original picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank.
303
1053000
8000
18:06
Show the next picture for 240 milliseconds. Blank.
304
1061000
6000
18:12
And keep going, until the subject presses the button, saying,
305
1067000
4000
18:16
"I see the change."
306
1071000
2000
18:18
So now we're going to be subjects in the experiment.
307
1073000
3000
18:21
We're going to start easy. Some examples.
308
1076000
9000
18:30
No trouble there.
309
1085000
2000
18:32
Can everybody see? All right.
310
1087000
3000
18:35
Indeed, Rensink's subjects took only a little bit more
311
1090000
4000
18:39
than a second to press the button.
312
1094000
2000
18:46
Can you see that one?
313
1101000
1000
18:55
2.9 seconds.
314
1110000
2000
19:04
How many don't see it still?
315
1119000
3000
19:07
What's on the roof of that barn?
316
1122000
2000
19:09
(Laughter)
317
1124000
3000
19:20
It's easy.
318
1135000
2000
19:46
Is it a bridge or a dock?
319
1161000
2000
19:52
There are a few more really dramatic ones, and then I'll close.
320
1167000
4000
19:56
I want you to see a few that are particularly striking.
321
1171000
4000
20:00
This one because it's so large and yet it's pretty hard to see.
322
1175000
7000
20:07
Can you see it?
323
1182000
3000
20:10
Audience: Yes.
324
1185000
2000
20:12
Dan Dennett: See the shadows going back and forth? Pretty big.
325
1187000
3000
20:23
So 15.5 seconds is the median time
326
1198000
4000
20:27
for subjects in his experiment there.
327
1202000
2000
20:29
I love this one. I'll end with this one,
328
1204000
3000
20:32
just because it's such an obvious and important thing.
329
1207000
3000
20:37
How many still don't see it? How many still don't see it?
330
1212000
6000
20:43
How many engines on the wing of that Boeing?
331
1218000
3000
20:46
(Laughter)
332
1221000
1000
20:47
Right in the middle of the picture!
333
1222000
6000
20:53
Thanks very much for your attention.
334
1228000
1000
20:54
What I wanted to show you is that scientists,
335
1229000
5000
20:59
using their from-the-outside, third-person methods,
336
1234000
4000
21:03
can tell you things about your own consciousness
337
1238000
2000
21:05
that you would never dream of,
338
1240000
2000
21:07
and that, in fact, you're not the authority
339
1242000
2000
21:09
on your own consciousness that you think you are.
340
1244000
2000
21:11
And we're really making a lot of progress
341
1246000
2000
21:13
on coming up with a theory of mind.
342
1248000
3000
21:16
Jeff Hawkins, this morning, was describing his attempt
343
1251000
6000
21:22
to get theory, and a good, big theory, into the neuroscience.
344
1257000
4000
21:26
And he's right. This is a problem.
345
1261000
5000
21:31
Harvard Medical School once -- I was at a talk --
346
1266000
2000
21:33
director of the lab said, "In our lab, we have a saying.
347
1268000
4000
21:37
If you work on one neuron, that's neuroscience.
348
1272000
3000
21:40
If you work on two neurons, that's psychology."
349
1275000
3000
21:43
(Laughter)
350
1278000
4000
21:47
We have to have more theory, and it can come as much from the top down.
351
1282000
3000
21:50
Thank you very much.
352
1285000
2000
21:52
(Applause)
353
1287000
4000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Dennett - Philosopher, cognitive scientistDan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.
Why you should listen
One of our most important living philosophers, Dan Dennett is best known for his provocative and controversial arguments that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes in the brain. He argues that the brain's computational circuitry fools us into thinking we know more than we do, and that what we call consciousness — isn't. His 2003 book "Freedom Evolves" explores how our brains evolved to give us -- and only us -- the kind of freedom that matters, while 2006's "Breaking the Spell" examines belief through the lens of biology.
This mind-shifting perspective on the mind itself has distinguished Dennett's career as a philosopher and cognitive scientist. And while the philosophy community has never quite known what to make of Dennett (he defies easy categorization, and refuses to affiliate himself with accepted schools of thought), his computational approach to understanding the brain has made him, as Edge's John Brockman writes, “the philosopher of choice of the AI community.”
“It's tempting to say that Dennett has never met a robot he didn't like, and that what he likes most about them is that they are philosophical experiments,” Harry Blume wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 1998. “To the question of whether machines can attain high-order intelligence, Dennett makes this provocative answer: ‘The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves.'"
In recent years, Dennett has become outspoken in his atheism, and his 2006 book Breaking the Spell calls for religion to be studied through the scientific lens of evolutionary biology. Dennett regards religion as a natural -- rather than supernatural -- phenomenon, and urges schools to break the taboo against empirical examination of religion. He argues that religion's influence over human behavior is precisely what makes gaining a rational understanding of it so necessary: “If we don't understand religion, we're going to miss our chance to improve the world in the 21st century.”
Dennett's landmark books include The Mind's I, co-edited with Douglas Hofstaedter, Consciousness Explained, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Read an excerpt from his 2013 book, Intuition Pumps, in the Guardian >>
Dan Dennett | Speaker | TED.com