more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 7368

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 2. Natural Purpose / b. Limited purposes ]

Full Idea

In the beginning there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing had so much as a function; there was no teleology in the world at all. The explanation is simple: there was nothing that had interests.

Gist of Idea

Originally there were no reasons, purposes or functions; since there were no interests, there were only causes

Source

Daniel C. Dennett (Consciousness Explained [1991], 7.2)

Book Ref

Dennett,Daniel C.: 'Consciousness Explained' [Penguin 1993], p.173


A Reaction

It seems reasonable to talk of functions even if the fledgling 'interests' are unconscious, as in a leaf. Is a process leading to an end an 'interest'? What are the 'interests' of a person who is about to commit suicide?


The 24 ideas from 'Consciousness Explained'

Dualism wallows in mystery, and to accept it is to give up [Dennett]
It is arbitrary to say which moment of brain processing is conscious [Dennett]
Perhaps the brain doesn't 'fill in' gaps in consciousness if no one is looking. [Dennett]
Brains are essentially anticipation machines [Dennett]
Originally there were no reasons, purposes or functions; since there were no interests, there were only causes [Dennett]
The brain is controlled by shifting coalitions, guided by good purposeful habits [Dennett]
All functionalism is 'homuncular', of one grain size or another [Dennett]
In peripheral vision we see objects without their details, so blindsight is not that special [Dennett]
Blindsight subjects glean very paltry information [Dennett]
Light wavelengths entering the eye are only indirectly related to object colours [Dennett]
We can't assume that dispositions will remain normal when qualia have been inverted [Dennett]
If an epiphenomenon has no physical effects, it has to be undetectable [Dennett]
Visual experience is composed of neural activity, which we find pleasing [Dennett]
The psychological self is an abstraction, not a thing in the brain [Dennett]
We tell stories about ourselves, to protect, control and define who we are [Dennett]
We spin narratives about ourselves, and the audience posits a centre of gravity for them [Dennett]
Selves are not soul-pearls, but artefacts of social processes [Dennett]
People accept blurred boundaries in many things, but insist self is All or Nothing [Dennett]
Words are fixed by being attached to similarity clusters, without mention of 'essences' [Dennett]
"Qualia" can be replaced by complex dispositional brain states [Dennett]
We can't draw a clear line between conscious and unconscious [Dennett]
We can know a lot of what it is like to be a bat, and nothing important is unknown [Dennett]
Conscious events can only be explained in terms of unconscious events [Dennett]
We can bring dispositions into existence, as in creating an identifier [Dennett, by Mumford]