What does Veeky Forums think about this book? I'm interested learning about consciousness so is it a good start?

What does Veeky Forums think about this book? I'm interested learning about consciousness so is it a good start?

already disproven

move along

Interesting bullshit

>already disproven
source. Also recommend some books one should read instead.

well it's a science book but the hyperbolic blurb is from a comedy writer. draw your own conclusions.

it's an interesting, unlikely hypothesis
probably not the best place to start if you want to become genuinely knowledgeable about consciousness, but it's a fun read

I'm just 57 pages in and would say that it is definitely fun read. Any entry-level recommendations to learn about consciousness? What you think about Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett?

some copypasta i posted on a different thread i don't feel like painstakingly rephrasing:

he's definitely not shy about expressing unorthodox views. at one point he refers to the "aristotelian writings" (as opposed to just "aristotle"), and in the footnote casually mentions how obvious it is that the manuscripts commonly attributed to aristotle were actually the work of multiple authors. from what i remember, the first couple chapters are devoted to disillusioning the reader of commonsensical but ultimately unfounded notions regarding the nature of consciousness and its role in cognition. to this end, he cites relevant (for 40 years ago) findings from cognitive neuroscience and psych. i enjoyed his writing so much that i didn't care about the fact that a lot of what he said i already knew. i remember thinking that this dude, with his shitty outdated sources, seems to understand more about the neural basis of conceptual representation and behaviour than most people in the field probably do today. there's an authentic tone to his reasoning that made me not even care if he's technically wrong about certain things (especially given how much more we know about the brain) - it's simply intellectually refreshing.

following these preliminaries is his discussion of the archaelogical/anthropological evidence that i believe forms the core of his argument. he's an excellent expositor of others' discoveries, but i found his own insights on how changes in social structures might have lead to changes in psychological characteristics to be fucking fascinating.

>implying verbal exposition will tell you anything about the nature of consciousness

read Thomas Metzinger and if you ever mention Dennet again i’ll send a legion of hungry ghosts into your home

>front cover praise is Douglas Adams
nah ...

>Thomas Metzinger
>In 2003 Metzinger published the monograph Being No One. In this book he argues that no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self.

Okay, this seems really fine because i'm coming to learn about consciousness from long interest in to buddhism.

>i'm coming to learn about consciousness from long interest in to buddhism.

Please fuck off to reddit then. Did you even start with the Greeks?

>consciousness exists but the "self" doesn't
What type of crock of horseshit is this, either you exist or you don't

Read "The Origin and History of Consciousness" by Erich Neumann. That and some of his other work is a good entry point into Jung. Jung is difficult, but his ideas about consciousness are quintessential. Sometimes radical, but still not refuted.

I personally wouldn’t recommend Consciousness Explained, not because it’s bad or anything, it’s just that it’s a book staking our a particular stance in the debate over philosophy of mind, one that is pretty contentious and which a lot of other major Phil of Mind people contest (Chalmers, Nagel, Searle etc), a more general intro to philosophy of mind would be better. If there is a Great Course on the topic which is really good, and you can probably find it on pirate bay.

It's a work of theoretical psychology that Jaynes himself was unable to defend because, well, he died. If youre familiar with classic lit and myth, religion and meta-psycholigical theory it's amazing fun to read. If youre looking for 'facts' forget it, 'inspiration' read it. It'll get (you) thinking.

>either you exist or you don't
Yes, and he's saying you don't. What's the problem? Are you mistakenly assuming consciousness and self are the same thing?

bump

Good for a laugh. But you'll find Cosmic Consciousness by Bucke a lot better if you ask me. (available online naturally)

>Are you mistakenly assuming consciousness and self are the same thing?

Except they are, that's literally all consciousness is

Materialist delirium. Notice how all Materialist ideas about Mind are schizophrenic in all senses of the word - my brain, the part of my brain, my monkey brain, etc. Actually hearing voices or thinking the president is poisoning your coffee is nothing compared to the metaconspiracy proposed by Materialists - foreign causal agents more inextricably bound to the Self and more unknowable and unprovable than any reptilijews.

>it's a "Veeky Forums does science" thread

Can't be worse than science doing science.

some elements of it have merit

it is likely our surface consciousness emerged as a process of negotiating imperatives of hypothalamic, subcortical signals. thats the reason "emergency" decisions happen in the neocortical frame, and suddenly time dilates and you remember every single detail

the continental method does not have many merits but this is one of them

I hadn't thought of it like this before user, any papers I could read describing this view?

No they are not the same. Fix your definitions.

It's an interesting concept, I enjoyed it, and I think it has some merit. That being said, no one book will give you an overview of the nature of consciousness, short of an entry level college text covering all major areas of thought on the matter. Then there's this.
"A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers " by Ramachandran.

Enjoy your exploration. Pay no attention to the haters of one theory or another, make up your own mind.