mszlazak,
Thanks for posting that, although I am not sure it contributes much to the theory of consciousness - the title reads like a change in banking procedures!
There is obviously a desire to get away from a model in which there is a homunculus sitting in the middle evaluating pre-digested data, because it obviously doesn't explain the conscious bit! However, I am not sure smudging the problem out a bit, gets rid of it.
Susan Blackmore asks her students to stop suddenly and report what is in their consciousness at that instant. Because some of them can't answer this question, she seems to consider that the stream of consciousness doesn't really exist. The idea is similar to Dennet's - to explain consciousness by demonstrating that it is somehow less significant than it seems to be!
Quote:
|
That is the point of the multiple drafts model: consciousness is not what it seems to be (a magic show illuminating an inner stage). It is the differential influence of various contents on the processes that control the body of an agent composed of those processes and capable of telling us, retrospectively, about some of them.
|
Suppose you built such a thing - presumably a computer program - does anyone think it would be conscious? Perhaps such software exists already - say the control software for a nuclear power station - does anyone seriously think it is conscious (but it might make a good movie
)
Dennet seems to want to explain Libet's timing results, well how about exploring the presentiment effect and the possibility that consciousness is actually de localised over a period of time of a few hundred milliseconds.
Is there really a theory of consciousness here at all, or is it just another way of saying consciousness doesn't exist?
David