I thought Dennett's talk was interesting and informative. The main strength of his talk, in my opinion, were the images that changed and the amount of time it took for you to notice. The main weakness, in my opinion, was the amount of images he used instead of talking more. I think science informing epistemology is helpful in explaining our beliefs with more solid evidence. It allows are beliefs to have more support behind it.
I feel like he really didn't say anything new; optical illusions have been on the back of cereal boxes for decades. Just because people aren't aware of as much of what they are seeing as they think they are doesn't mean they are less conscious. It would be much more impressive if he could research why these phenenomia of the eye/brain occured instead of claiming it "wasn't his department".
Another thought- what were the specifics on the data regarding how long it took people to notice the differences in the flashing pictures? He only provided the average time. Was the range significant? If it takes one person much longer than another person, are they supposedly less conscious, or does the data indicate all people are just about the same? Is it just mere coincidence from picture to picture what a person notices first?
I really enjoyed Dan's lecture. I have never really questioned or even thought about my conscienceness. We all have thoughts about certain things but how do we know what we think is real is real. We unconsciously just assume it's real because we rely on our perceptions. Well, the slides he showed at the end prove that we can all perceive things differently and therefore effect our consciousness. It's almost like our brains can play tricks on us and who's to say what's right and what's not? This video illustrtates that we are all different and we can all see the same thing is many different ways based on our consciousness.
Like Kim says, optical allusions have been around for many years but now, apparently, philosophers felt the need to explain them. Our conscious is dependent on many external as well as internal forces. What would look like a vase to one would look like two faces to another person. In his example of the box behind the dots, he asks if both ways of seeing it can be seen. I can only see one, but the person watching it over my shoulder was able to see both forms. I liked his example of the example of the changing pictures. I still cannot figure out what’s wrong with the barn picture. Science is used to explain what philosophers cannot. His analogy of the magician is a particularly strong example to use. The philosopher can tell you that the woman is not being sawed in half, but cannot tell you how the trick is done. All he did in this video, it just add fancy titles and philosophical input on what we have accepted for years as optical allusions or mind tricks.
I thought Dennet’s talk was very interesting. I really liked all of the visual aids that he used throughout his talk. I thought that was a strength of the lecture. It is easier for me to pay attention and comprehend things when I am seeing a picture more so than just listening to someone talk about a certain thing. However, like some of the others have said, I felt like I had seen the similar examples of mind tricks like that on different websites etc… It really did not explain anything completely new. It reminded me of a video I saw in Psychology about brain functioning. Everyone is different in regard to brain activity and function.
I think the speech by Dan Dennet was informative and very interesting. Being able to connect the words and ideas of Dennet with the pictures and visual he presents makes it easier to understand and comprehend. I agree with a lot of what Gina had to say. I feel we all have our own perceptions, and how we perceive something will affect our conscious. I also remember what Nick is saying about Psychology class & brain functioning. These ideas continue to prove the points of how our brain, perception, and conscious are all different.
I really enjoyed Dan Dennett's talk. It really makes you think about what you can really know about our own minds. I enjoyed all of the visual aids he used. I thought the pictures at the end were interesting to see how long it took people to recognize the changes, and trying to do them as well most of the times were pretty much correct. All of his visual aids helped in learning the way that philosophers believe the mind works. Just as other people have said I did not feel like he covered a lot of new material or really went in depth to the material covered during his speech. I think science does have a part in philosophy and epistemology by helping prove things with better evidence that can be seen and believed.
I thought Dan dennett's talk was really interesting and enjoyable. He illustrated how the mind works and how everyone's mind is different and recieves different messages. His images at the end were cool in showing how long it took people to recognise changes in the images. Everyone recieved different messages thereefore effecting our conscience. I agree with most of the class, that he didn't really cover a lot of new material in this video. But science helps a lot in epistemology as it can be used as evidence.
I feel this clip is and excellent way, to express how a grat mind works,I posted my own blog on dan dennet-can we know our own minds. michael lancaster
Dan Dennett's talk was not only interesting but he explained his points of view and ideas very well. He talks about our minds and everyone has their own thoughts and feeling and how to understand our own mind. We all percieve things differently. His story about the magic show and how we don't want to know how it works and how a philosopher explains how the lady is sawed in half. The experiment that he does on the colors changing during the video I think can only be proved on a case to case study. I had no problem picking up the color change and still watched and could tell you what was going on in the video.
The talk was interesting the examples made it easier to understand and keep my attention. The box behind the swiss cheese and the illusion of a faint blue shadow from the moving blue bar caused me to think about what actually causes our minds to produce these illusions. I would like to compare our minds to a much simpler thing, a programmable logic controller (PLC). PLCs receive inputs and produce outputs based on the inputs they receive. They have built into them a program called a PDI loop. This program all owes the controller to make assumptions should it not receive all the signals. This is really not an assumption but a algebraic equation to produce the most likely state of the missing input based on the conditions of the existing inputs.PLCs are used in many things, and if you have a car you own one. It is what controls the electronics of your car. This is why your car will still run OK most of the time you have a check engine light on., but at others it won't because the equation is not correct and it will cause your car to run poorly. Apply this to the mind I would think that our minds do the same thing. Our minds know it's not getting all the inputs it needs in these examples , so it makes a calculated guess. Sometimes its right and others as in the examples shown by Dennett it is not. causing your vision in this example to operate poorly.I think our minds every day make these correction based on what it is receiving and what it expects should have been their, but we are unconscious of the because they are not a slowed down thought process , but a faster than we can imagine well calculated reaction to what it has to work with.
I really enjoyed Mr. Dennett’s speech. It is very interesting to see how much your mind will fill in for you, such as his examples with the picture. I can understand how our minds would fill in the faces f the people and their clothing for detail. When we look at eh picture and actually see blobs that it just our brain relating things we see everyday such as peoples faces, and filling them in on a place where they should be. I like the optical illusion tricks and when he deals with the difference in pictures. Using illusions such as magic are an old trick, but using the quick changing pictures showed how quickly my brain could catch on to the slight change in each sat of examples. His talk was strong and I felt like he related it to us very well, kept it interesting and also made me realize how much our brains can fool us.
I don't think I'm as cynical as some of my colleagues. To assert that optical illusions are completely irrelevant is quite dismissive of his entire process. I thought it was interesting, and by that sheer fact it lent itself useful. Perhaps that is nonsense to some, but as a social epistemologist, are there any experiences we can discount as useless? I think I'm straying to a different topic, but you get the point. I suppose it's that we're seeing these images in a new context...
I have always found it easier to learn something when visual aids are applied. The lecture from Dennett was no exception. Previous people on the blog have mentioned this as the strength of the presentation and I would have to agree with them. I also agree with Kyle that the story about the magic show and how we don't want to know how it works and how a philosopher explains how the lady is sawed in half was very interesting.
I really enjoyed Dennett's talk on brain research. I thought the examples he gave were really interesting, especially, the last one by Ron Rensink. I also liked how he related his talk to magic. It helped me better understand what he was talking about. Like most of my other classmates, I think the strongest point of his lecture was the examples he showed. All these examples, just show how much your brain can trick you without you even noticing. Also, I think science informs epistemology because it deals with your mind and epistemology is the study of knowledge. Overall, I think the video was very informative and he was able to shake my confidence about my inner most mind.
I agree with Nick, I liked the idea of the visual aids. I too find it easy to follow along when i have something to look at, it helps me not to drift off when someone drones on. I think that was a strentht. However, like the others have stated before me I feel like the things he touched on, i have previously heard or seen. I found certain points of his talk to be funny and i liked that he didnt use a bunch of big words that are hard for the average human to understand. Overall, the talk did not really draw me in. This could possibly be because it is not a topic of interest.
I think Dennett's video was interesting, however I'm with the girls on this one. Optical illusions have been around for as long as I can remember. I love your comment Kim about them being on the back of cereal boxes that awesome and so true I never thought about it! I think that science and philosophy complement one another very well. If a philosopher can't explain it then a scientist probaly can.
I thought Dennett's talk was interesting and informative. The main strength of his talk, in my opinion, were the images that changed and the amount of time it took for you to notice. The main weakness, in my opinion, was the amount of images he used instead of talking more. I think science informing epistemology is helpful in explaining our beliefs with more solid evidence. It allows are beliefs to have more support behind it.
ReplyDeleteI feel like he really didn't say anything new; optical illusions have been on the back of cereal boxes for decades. Just because people aren't aware of as much of what they are seeing as they think they are doesn't mean they are less conscious. It would be much more impressive if he could research why these phenenomia of the eye/brain occured instead of claiming it "wasn't his department".
ReplyDeleteKim is totally right. Who needs a philosopher to show us pictures of optical illusions when we have known about them forever? His whole argument was supposed to show us that we are not experts of consciousness, and that our minds are not as consciously aware as we may think. I was expecting some philosophically enlightening or scientifically significant research to convey this argument. But instead he vaguely explained the brain’s interpretation of optical illusions, which seems slightly cliché to me. He said that his consciousness was not being fully aware when he mistook the artfully placed blobs of paint for actual images of people. Well, when you observe the painting from several feet away, of course it is going to seem that the minute blobs are people because the eye cannot distinguish such small detail until a closer look is taken. I believe that to be the case of visual acuity limitations and not the case of a less aware mind. Because when he looked closely he could perceive perfectly well the blobs which from a distance took on the resemblance of people. So his conscious was not really deceiving him or missing out on any of the details, it was simply limited by his visual abilities. Thus, the old bearded philosopher did not impress me.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought- what were the specifics on the data regarding how long it took people to notice the differences in the flashing pictures? He only provided the average time. Was the range significant? If it takes one person much longer than another person, are they supposedly less conscious, or does the data indicate all people are just about the same? Is it just mere coincidence from picture to picture what a person notices first?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Dan's lecture. I have never really questioned or even thought about my conscienceness. We all have thoughts about certain things but how do we know what we think is real is real. We unconsciously just assume it's real because we rely on our perceptions. Well, the slides he showed at the end prove that we can all perceive things differently and therefore effect our consciousness. It's almost like our brains can play tricks on us and who's to say what's right and what's not? This video illustrtates that we are all different and we can all see the same thing is many different ways based on our consciousness.
ReplyDeleteLike Kim says, optical allusions have been around for many years but now, apparently, philosophers felt the need to explain them. Our conscious is dependent on many external as well as internal forces. What would look like a vase to one would look like two faces to another person. In his example of the box behind the dots, he asks if both ways of seeing it can be seen. I can only see one, but the person watching it over my shoulder was able to see both forms. I liked his example of the example of the changing pictures. I still cannot figure out what’s wrong with the barn picture. Science is used to explain what philosophers cannot. His analogy of the magician is a particularly strong example to use. The philosopher can tell you that the woman is not being sawed in half, but cannot tell you how the trick is done. All he did in this video, it just add fancy titles and philosophical input on what we have accepted for years as optical allusions or mind tricks.
ReplyDeleteI thought Dennet’s talk was very interesting. I really liked all of the visual aids that he used throughout his talk. I thought that was a strength of the lecture. It is easier for me to pay attention and comprehend things when I am seeing a picture more so than just listening to someone talk about a certain thing. However, like some of the others have said, I felt like I had seen the similar examples of mind tricks like that on different websites etc… It really did not explain anything completely new. It reminded me of a video I saw in Psychology about brain functioning. Everyone is different in regard to brain activity and function.
ReplyDeleteI think the speech by Dan Dennet was informative and very interesting. Being able to connect the words and ideas of Dennet with the pictures and visual he presents makes it easier to understand and comprehend. I agree with a lot of what Gina had to say. I feel we all have our own perceptions, and how we perceive something will affect our conscious. I also remember what Nick is saying about Psychology class & brain functioning. These ideas continue to prove the points of how our brain, perception, and conscious are all different.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Dan Dennett's talk. It really makes you think about what you can really know about our own minds. I enjoyed all of the visual aids he used. I thought the pictures at the end were interesting to see how long it took people to recognize the changes, and trying to do them as well most of the times were pretty much correct. All of his visual aids helped in learning the way that philosophers believe the mind works. Just as other people have said I did not feel like he covered a lot of new material or really went in depth to the material covered during his speech. I think science does have a part in philosophy and epistemology by helping prove things with better evidence that can be seen and believed.
ReplyDeleteI thought Dan dennett's talk was really interesting and enjoyable. He illustrated how the mind works and how everyone's mind is different and recieves different messages. His images at the end were cool in showing how long it took people to recognise changes in the images. Everyone recieved different messages thereefore effecting our conscience. I agree with most of the class, that he didn't really cover a lot of new material in this video. But science helps a lot in epistemology as it can be used as evidence.
ReplyDeleteI feel this clip is and excellent way, to express how a grat mind works,I posted my own blog on dan dennet-can we know our own minds.
ReplyDeletemichael lancaster
Dan Dennett's talk was not only interesting but he explained his points of view and ideas very well. He talks about our minds and everyone has their own thoughts and feeling and how to understand our own mind. We all percieve things differently. His story about the magic show and how we don't want to know how it works and how a philosopher explains how the lady is sawed in half. The experiment that he does on the colors changing during the video I think can only be proved on a case to case study. I had no problem picking up the color change and still watched and could tell you what was going on in the video.
ReplyDeleteThe talk was interesting the examples made it easier to understand and keep my attention. The box behind the swiss cheese and the illusion of a faint blue shadow from the moving blue bar caused me to think about what actually causes our minds to produce these illusions. I would like to compare our minds to a much simpler thing, a programmable logic controller (PLC). PLCs receive inputs and produce outputs based on the inputs they receive. They have built into them a program called a PDI loop. This program all owes the controller to make assumptions should it not receive all the signals. This is really not an assumption but a algebraic equation to produce the most likely state of the missing input based on the conditions of the existing inputs.PLCs are used in many things, and if you have a car you own one. It is what controls the electronics of your car. This is why your car will still run OK most of the time you have a check engine light on., but at others it won't because the equation is not correct and it will cause your car to run poorly. Apply this to the mind I would think that our minds do the same thing. Our minds know it's not getting all the inputs it needs in these examples , so it makes a calculated guess. Sometimes its right and others as in the examples shown by Dennett it is not. causing your vision in this example to operate poorly.I think our minds every day make these correction based on what it is receiving and what it expects should have been their, but we are unconscious of the because they are not a slowed down thought process , but a faster than we can imagine well calculated reaction to what it has to work with.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Mr. Dennett’s speech. It is very interesting to see how much your mind will fill in for you, such as his examples with the picture. I can understand how our minds would fill in the faces f the people and their clothing for detail. When we look at eh picture and actually see blobs that it just our brain relating things we see everyday such as peoples faces, and filling them in on a place where they should be. I like the optical illusion tricks and when he deals with the difference in pictures. Using illusions such as magic are an old trick, but using the quick changing pictures showed how quickly my brain could catch on to the slight change in each sat of examples. His talk was strong and I felt like he related it to us very well, kept it interesting and also made me realize how much our brains can fool us.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'm as cynical as some of my colleagues. To assert that optical illusions are completely irrelevant is quite dismissive of his entire process. I thought it was interesting, and by that sheer fact it lent itself useful. Perhaps that is nonsense to some, but as a social epistemologist, are there any experiences we can discount as useless? I think I'm straying to a different topic, but you get the point. I suppose it's that we're seeing these images in a new context...
ReplyDeleteI have always found it easier to learn something when visual aids are applied. The lecture from Dennett was no exception. Previous people on the blog have mentioned this as the strength of the presentation and I would have to agree with them. I also agree with Kyle that the story about the magic show and how we don't want to know how it works and how a philosopher explains how the lady is sawed in half was very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Dennett's talk on brain research. I thought the examples he gave were really interesting, especially, the last one by Ron Rensink. I also liked how he related his talk to magic. It helped me better understand what he was talking about. Like most of my other classmates, I think the strongest point of his lecture was the examples he showed. All these examples, just show how much your brain can trick you without you even noticing. Also, I think science informs epistemology because it deals with your mind and epistemology is the study of knowledge. Overall, I think the video was very informative and he was able to shake my confidence about my inner most mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick, I liked the idea of the visual aids. I too find it easy to follow along when i have something to look at, it helps me not to drift off when someone drones on. I think that was a strentht. However, like the others have stated before me I feel like the things he touched on, i have previously heard or seen. I found certain points of his talk to be funny and i liked that he didnt use a bunch of big words that are hard for the average human to understand. Overall, the talk did not really draw me in. This could possibly be because it is not a topic of interest.
ReplyDeleteI think Dennett's video was interesting, however I'm with the girls on this one. Optical illusions have been around for as long as I can remember. I love your comment Kim about them being on the back of cereal boxes that awesome and so true I never thought about it! I think that science and philosophy complement one another very well. If a philosopher can't explain it then a scientist probaly can.
ReplyDelete