Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#11

Post by loup-vaillant »

ctdonath wrote: post #10
vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language. Dennett would have you believe that it's that one part that makes us human. That's an interesting position for him, considering (IIRC) his co-author Douglas Hofstadter (The Mind's I) has a sister who is a perfectly normal & functional adult except for her complete incapacity for language.

What "incomplete incapacity for language" means? There is speech, hearing, reading, writing, signs language…

I can't imagine a "normal functioning" human that cannot communicate in any way with others. Surely there are things she can do to express herself and understand others?

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#12

Post by naasking »

vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

> A talking lion would still be a lion.

But it's not. Lions can't talk, almost by definition. A talking lion is necessarily a creature so different from a regular lion that it can't reliably tell you what being a regular lion is like.

It's like how smartphones aren't really phones, they're computers with telephony capabilities. Calling them phones is ridiculous when you really think about it, but we apply that label for historical reasons based on their evolution from early phones. Still, opening up a smartphone won't really tell you anything about how regular phones work.

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#13

Post by 31h »

vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

> We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk

I think you're overstating your case. "although the gorilla learned a large number of signs she never understood grammar or symbolic speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language#Koko

> humans that don't have language

Which humans are those? Language arises pretty spontaneously among humans even if they're deaf or blind - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

Yet no amount of exposure will make a dog or ape understand language.

> There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language.

You mean the entire left hemisphere?

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#14

Post by bbctol »

ctdonath wrote: post #10
vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language. Dennett would have you believe that it's that one part that makes us human. That's an interesting position for him, considering (IIRC) his co-author Douglas Hofstadter (The Mind's I) has a sister who is a perfectly normal & functional adult except for her complete incapacity for language.

To be fair, that is a ludicrous misrepresentation of Dennett's position.

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#15

Post by thevardanian »

naasking wrote: post #12
vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

> A talking lion would still be a lion. But it's not. Lions can't talk, almost by definition. A talking lion is necessarily a creature so different from a regular lion that it can't reliably tell you what being a regular lion is like. It's like how smartphones aren't really phones, they're computers with telephony capabilities. Calling them phones is ridiculous when you really think about it, but we apply that label…

Talking lions are just lions with trans-species communicating capabilities. Lion communicate with each other instinctively. They at the very least understand each other, whether we understand lions is a different point.

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#16

Post by metaphorm »

31h wrote: post #13
vinceguidry wrote: post #2

> “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” That's just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animal…

> We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk I think you're overstating your case. "although the gorilla learned a large number of signs she never understood grammar or symbolic speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language#Koko > humans that don't have language Which humans are those? Language arises pretty spontaneously among humans even if they're deaf or blind - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_S…

> There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language.

> > You mean the entire left hemisphere?

probably not that, that's overkill. there are smaller, more specific areas in the brain directly associated with language faculties. two prominent examples are Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area which are both involved in speech comprehension (but not in control of the physiological apparatus for forming speech sounds).

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#17

Post by andrewflnr »

metaphorm wrote: post #16
31h wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk I think you're overstating your case. "although the gorilla learned a large number of signs she never understood grammar or symbolic speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language#Koko > humans that don't have language Which humans are those? Language arises pretty spontaneously among humans even if they're deaf or blind - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_S…

> There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language. > > You mean the entire left hemisphere? probably not that, that's overkill. there are smaller, more specific areas in the brain directly associated with language faculties. two prominent examples are Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area which are both involved in speech comprehension (but not in control of the physiological apparatus…

Um, Wikipedia says Broca's area is involved in speech production. If you just mean the specific details of working the lips, vocal chords, etc, wouldn't that be the cerebellum's job?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#18

Post by metaphorm »

andrewflnr wrote: post #17
metaphorm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language. > > You mean the entire left hemisphere? probably not that, that's overkill. there are smaller, more specific areas in the brain directly associated with language faculties. two prominent examples are Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area which are both involved in speech comprehension (but not in control of the physiological apparatus…

Um, Wikipedia says Broca's area is involved in speech production. If you just mean the specific details of working the lips, vocal chords, etc, wouldn't that be the cerebellum's job? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area

yes, it is involved in the neurological processing of speech production w.r.t to grammar and syntax. that's a separate function from fine control of muscles used to produce speech sounds.

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#19

Post by naasking »

thevardanian wrote: post #15
naasking wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A talking lion would still be a lion. But it's not. Lions can't talk, almost by definition. A talking lion is necessarily a creature so different from a regular lion that it can't reliably tell you what being a regular lion is like. It's like how smartphones aren't really phones, they're computers with telephony capabilities. Calling them phones is ridiculous when you really think about it, but we apply that label…

Talking lions are just lions with trans-species communicating capabilities. Lion communicate with each other instinctively. They at the very least understand each other, whether we understand lions is a different point.

> Talking lions are just lions with trans-species communicating capabilities.

In other words, completely different brains than regular lions. So, not lions.

Re: Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul

#20

Post by duncancarroll »

I think my problem with Dennett boils down to the fact that he's a wet blanket =) His attitude would be fine if it really did seem like there was nothing more to be learned about consciousness.

To me his perspective seems a lot like our primitive ancestors looking at the stars and calling them holes poked in the sky--case closed. But you don't have to believe in a soul or anything like that to suspect that there's something significant about self-awareness that we haven't figured out yet. I feel like Dennett is the odd man out here. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if anyone can prove him wrong.

Post reply on HN