previous latest addition
you're a machine. a very carefully crafted machine. you've been shaped by evolution into the smartest thing we know. your brain takes in information from the surroundings, processes them, makes decisions, you act accordingly.
more than that, your brain is you.
dennett argues that, while many people have argued for determinism - the scenario described above - the arguments over its validity have been fought under the assumptions of mind/brain duality: with your brain whirring away doing that horrible, dirty, mechanical work, your mind is free to sit back, take a look around and realise, in horror, that it's trapped in a cage, with no control, prisoner to the deterministic machine below. but it's not like that at all, because your mind is your brain. you are doing that decision making. you. you can't shift the blame off on to some mechanistic machine because there's nothing else left to be innocent. you're right in there, wrapped up in the process.
ok, but so what? deterministic is still deterministic, right? back comes dennet with the question - so what do you want instead? you want to make irrational decisions? you want to be crazy? is that freedom? it's not, of course. you want the freedom to wander round, processing information, making decisions, taking actions, just as you do every day.
it's not the most inspiring vision, but it's probably right. and if someone's got to tell you that making decisions is just making decisions, with no great philosophical dilemna to keep you awake at nights (writing bad poetry), then it might as well be dennett. he's funny, smart, wise, and, ultimately, convincing (much of dennett's argument is that opposition to determinism is based on rhetorical slight of hand and he's quite happy to fight fire with fire. i believe the book started as a series of lectures. it would have been an excellent series.)
i've read this book twice now. first time round i felt that the arguments about responsibility, morals, punishment and law were missing the mark somehow. on the second reading, in contrast, they seemed to be a pretty clear example of the same kind of circular process (rather different from a circular argument) that dennet is arguing for in the brain. hmmm. maybe i need to read it again.
anyway - now you've read my opinion - are you going to read this book or not? there's only one way to decide: get thinking.