I just bought Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness Explained and was excited because it was the first time I read a book about the mind and so on.

But then I watched a video where Dennett said that he doesn't think (anymore) that the mind is a usual computer and a Von Neumann machine but a much much different thing (still computer), and it was a mistake of him. Now I wonder if his book is still relevant or if I can throw it in the garbage can.

You can also find the text here: https://edge.org/conversation/the-normal-well-tempered-mind

  • 3
    I find people's mistakes can be as educational as their successes. – Cort Ammon Aug 25 '15 at 5:08
  • Every kind of computer would operate with the principles of managing memory, having a limited capacity, processing logic, and so forth. Whether it is a quantum computer of personal desktop computer. I think it is still a good read. After all, what does the text mean to you? Do you find truth in it you can relate to. Then the book is of value to you, I would say. – Mike de Klerk Aug 25 '15 at 16:12
  • "Consciousness, Explained" is from after the period he is apologising for. It does not argue for decomposition or functionalism, but for a sort of statistical holism of the mind. Different parallel processes try to speak for the whole, and they converge as a whole, instead of each element converging on a purpose, like humans presume when they decompose a problem for progressive refinement. – jobermark Aug 25 '15 at 17:10
  • I just thought that he now dismisses his model in the book, but of course still thinks that the mind is a computer but with a different model than in his book. – JonnyPython Aug 26 '15 at 16:24
  • If you still feel like trowing the book in the garbage, let me know and I will send you my mailing address and pay for the shipping. Thanks. – Guill Aug 31 '15 at 21:08

Where does Dennett claim in Consciousness Explained that the mind is a Von Neumann machine? I think that in the book he calls his model a Joycean machine; but by claiming that the mind amounts to a computation he subscribes to the consequence that it may be implemented in principle by any universal computation device, be it a quantum computer, a Von Neumann computer, or a mechanical implementation of a Universal Turing Machine built from cog wheels and running on steam, and it does not matter if the specific architecture that he is contemplating now has changed in the last 20 years; ask him in 20 years and he may have another theory in mind;

there is a lot of other good and bad stuff in the book that make it worth while reading, or at least going over; for example how not to treat other opinions (Dennett is often ridiculing and patronizing colleagues, sometimes it seems that he does it as a technique to make his arguments seem more convincing), and on the other hand his writing is always a beautiful example for communicating philosophy and interesting ideas clearly without using cryptic and highly technical jargon. and finally, especially if you disagree with him, it is good to read it as a challenge for ones ideas.

  • I added the links. – JonnyPython Aug 25 '15 at 9:57
  • Alright thx. I thought that he dismisses the model in his book, but of course still thinks that the mind is a kind of computer but that his model is just wrong. – JonnyPython Aug 26 '15 at 16:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.