What would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?

[Testy Calibrate]

Thanks, will watch.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, I would agree human beings are quite 'intelligent'.

In terms of the 'cartesian theater' I'd guess this is just a normalized part of our experience. The only thing we can experience is existing as human, and having conscious attention, so usually it exists without question. Most people aren't aware of the properties of their own attention, only their subjective experience of it, which makes the experience unique to them and not just reduced to some collection of neurophysiological phenomena.

In other words, most people aren't conscious of their own consciousness, being alive just is the way it is.

And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?

Whenever you have the time.
EB

I think he is saying that it allows us, or helps us, to stay alive and so to multiply and so on and so on...

Or are you asking why do we exist?

No, unfortunately, I've come to terms with the idea that we exist just to stay alive and so to multiply and so on and so on.

And I'm asking precisely in what way having something like a Cartesian theatre is supposed to help us stay alive and reproduce. Because if it doesn't, then it's just a causally ineffective show just for the entertainment of the subject. How absurd is that?

I guess we're just doing the dress rehearsal here. I guess I'll have to wait for the penny to drop.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?
EB

Let me leave you with a couple ideas:

1) How can a person experience the world in any way other than with their basic cognitive functions? They can't, which means that the cognitive function of a human being is, a, all a person knows, and, b, normalized as what it means and feels to be human. This means that it's quite plausible that our 'cartesian theatre' has mechanics and methods with very specific purposes, but because it's our only peep-hole, and our understanding of it is not a necessity to survive, we can label it and understand it in less reductive ways that don't necessarily reflect what it actually is.

2) Think of how long you've been alive and the fact that you're not dead yet. Consider how many ways you could have died at this point: eating bad food, hit by a car, and so on. Your ability to sense and experience the world is the driver of that.

In other words, our experience and understanding of our own consciousness doesn't necessarily reflect the actual function of our consciousness.

Sure, I can agree with that. We certainly wouldn't usually need to understand our consciousness in order to survive, although that might well become a necessity at some point.

I sure don't need to understand how my own legs work in order to be able to walk.

Yeah, sure.

Although at some point it might help.




And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

We seem to experience reality through what has been called by Dennett the "Cartesian theatre", the idea that "objects experienced are represented within the mind of the observer".

Cartesian theater
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cartesian+theater

"Cartesian theater" is a derisive term coined by philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett to refer pointedly to a defining aspect of what he calls Cartesian materialism, which he considers to be the often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind.
Descartes originally claimed that consciousness requires an immaterial soul, which interacts with the body via the pineal gland of the brain. Dennett says that, when the dualism is removed, what remains of Descartes' original model amounts to imagining a tiny theater in the brain where a homunculus (small person), now physical, performs the task of observing all the sensory data projected on a screen at a particular instant, making the decisions and sending out commands.
The term "Cartesian theater" was brought up in the context of the multiple drafts model that Dennett posits in Consciousness Explained (1991):

Cartesian materialism is the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of. [...] Many theorists would insist that they have explicitly rejected such an obviously bad idea. But [...] the persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us—laypeople and scientists alike—even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized.
— Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

Dennett, of course, was saying there's no such thing. Still, it certainly is what it feels like to me, and I will assume that it is also how it feels like for each normally functioning human being, including people like Dennett.

So, here, I will assume at least that we all have the impression of a Cartesian theatre.

So, here is a good opportunity for you to articulate what you think would be a good reason for the existence of our impression that there is such a Cartesian theatre.

Or is this impression somehow just a completely useless illusion? And if so, how could that possibly be?
EB

Well, it could 'possibly be' useless because things can be byproducts. For example the heat created by (emerging from) a running computer is not only not useful to the computer, but may even hinder it at certain temperatures. My (male) nipples are also pretty useless.

To add to that, illusions are commonplace. It may not, for example, be 'useful' if I think my body is moving through space when it's not. It might just be a mental overshoot.

I don't know the answer to the question however. I would just try to keep an open mind, even though I'm not sure what a mind is.

 

[4321lynx]

We seem to experience reality through what has been called by Dennett the "Cartesian theatre", the idea that "objects experienced are represented within the mind of the observer".

Cartesian theater
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cartesian+theater

"Cartesian theater" is a derisive term coined by philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett to refer pointedly to a defining aspect of what he calls Cartesian materialism, which he considers to be the often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind.
Descartes originally claimed that consciousness requires an immaterial soul, which interacts with the body via the pineal gland of the brain. Dennett says that, when the dualism is removed, what remains of Descartes' original model amounts to imagining a tiny theater in the brain where a homunculus (small person), now physical, performs the task of observing all the sensory data projected on a screen at a particular instant, making the decisions and sending out commands.
The term "Cartesian theater" was brought up in the context of the multiple drafts model that Dennett posits in Consciousness Explained (1991):

Cartesian materialism is the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of. [...] Many theorists would insist that they have explicitly rejected such an obviously bad idea. But [...] the persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us—laypeople and scientists alike—even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized.
— Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

Dennett, of course, was saying there's no such thing. Still, it certainly is what it feels like to me, and I will assume that it is also how it feels like for each normally functioning human being, including people like Dennett.

So, here, I will assume at least that we all have the impression of a Cartesian theatre.

So, here is a good opportunity for you to articulate what you think would be a good reason for the existence of our impression that there is such a Cartesian theatre.

Or is this impression somehow just a completely useless illusion? And if so, how could that possibly be?
EB

The "homunculus" exists -- it is you, and I, and Dennett and everyone else, a picture, illusion, idea, a function of our brain pictured on introspection. We each are our brain, with its many functions in a mobile equilibrium or dysequilibrium of a polyphasic system.
The state of this system depends on the inherited and learned (consciously or unconciously learned) characteristics of the brain, and influenced from moment to moment by our internal and external environment, our life experiences, sucsesses, failures, predjudices, memories whether true or mistaken, etc., and by our hormones, fluid and electrolyte balance, drug and alcohol level, oxidation status, nutrition, and whatever else you care to think of (or to forget about). So the homunculus.

The "screen" is another function of our brain, ie the functions of the system adding up to an assessment of the present conditions and prompting the homunculus to decide on, say, (for the sake of familiarity and simplicity) a fight or flight decision.


Only a few have the curiosity, education, leisure, wish and general ability to be so introspective, most people just "are", ie exist happily or unhappily without it and witout all te BS that goes with introspection.

So, all this happens, and the fact that you have the capacity to introspectively visualise it like Dennett, (but ? without the same derision), is neither here nor there, It's a byproduct, as a previous poster suggested. Don't worry about it. Have a beer.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's possible for the impression (as Sp puts it) of, or if you like the belief in, a Cartesian theatre and/or a hommunculus, to affect behaviour, and it's a very small and uncontroversial step from there to saying that certain behaviours have a use, in survival or evolutionary terms.

In that sense, Sp is quite right to set aside the issue of whether it is or isn't an illusion.

I think that would hold even if beliefs are an illusion too.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Your incredulity is not any kind of argument.

Dennett said it and Dyson shut his nonsense down. It was beautiful. Dennett is not an expert on any of this. His book about consciousness was worthless if you wanted to know what consciousness is.

It was part of a long round table discussion. Called something. like "A glorious accident". The video is on YouTube.

On youtube eh? Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

So, source please. A link would be helpful. Because last time...

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's possible for the impression (as Sp puts it) of, or if you like the belief in, a Cartesian theatre and/or a hommunculus, to affect behaviour, and it's a very small and uncontroversial step from there to saying that certain behaviours have a use, in survival or evolutionary terms.

In that sense, Sp is quite right to set aside the issue of whether it is or isn't an illusion.

I think that would hold even if beliefs are an illusion too.

I agree.

Careful RS, that's dangerously close to three people on the internet agreeing. I'm told that's a bit like crossing the streams.

 

[Subsymbolic]

We seem to experience reality through what has been called by Dennett the "Cartesian theatre", the idea that "objects experienced are represented within the mind of the observer".



Dennett, of course, was saying there's no such thing. Still, it certainly is what it feels like to me, and I will assume that it is also how it feels like for each normally functioning human being, including people like Dennett.

So, here, I will assume at least that we all have the impression of a Cartesian theatre.

So, here is a good opportunity for you to articulate what you think would be a good reason for the existence of our impression that there is such a Cartesian theatre.

Or is this impression somehow just a completely useless illusion? And if so, how could that possibly be?
EB

The "homunculus" exists -- it is you, and I, and Dennett and everyone else, a picture, illusion, idea, a function of our brain pictured on introspection. We each are our brain, with its many functions in a mobile equilibrium or dysequilibrium of a polyphasic system.
The state of this system depends on the inherited and learned (consciously or unconciously learned) characteristics of the brain, and influenced from moment to moment by our internal and external environment, our life experiences, sucsesses, failures, predjudices, memories whether true or mistaken, etc., and by our hormones, fluid and electrolyte balance, drug and alcohol level, oxidation status, nutrition, and whatever else you care to think of (or to forget about). So the homunculus.

The "screen" is another function of our brain, ie the functions of the system adding up to an assessment of the present conditions and prompting the homunculus to decide on, say, (for the sake of familiarity and simplicity) a fight or flight decision.


Only a few have the curiosity, education, leisure, wish and general ability to be so introspective, most people just "are", ie exist happily or unhappily without it and witout all te BS that goes with introspection.

So, all this happens, and the fact that you have the capacity to introspectively visualise it like Dennett, (but ? without the same derision), is neither here nor there, It's a byproduct, as a previous poster suggested. Don't worry about it. Have a beer.

So, as Dennett himself asked, does the homunculus have a homunculus? I just love homuncular accounts of agency.

 

[Subsymbolic]

And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?
EB

Let me leave you with a couple ideas:

1) How can a person experience the world in any way other than with their basic cognitive functions? They can't, which means that the cognitive function of a human being is, a, all a person knows, and, b, normalized as what it means and feels to be human. This means that it's quite plausible that our 'cartesian theatre' has mechanics and methods with very specific purposes, but because it's our only peep-hole, and our understanding of it is not a necessity to survive, we can label it and understand it in less reductive ways that don't necessarily reflect what it actually is.

2) Think of how long you've been alive and the fact that you're not dead yet. Consider how many ways you could have died at this point: eating bad food, hit by a car, and so on. Your ability to sense and experience the world is the driver of that.

In other words, our experience and understanding of our own consciousness doesn't necessarily reflect the actual function of our consciousness.

Sure, I can agree with that. We certainly wouldn't usually need to understand our consciousness in order to survive, although that might well become a necessity at some point.

I sure don't need to understand how my own legs work in order to be able to walk.

Yeah, sure.

Although at some point it might help.




And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?
EB

How about if the Cartesian Theatre was just a very useful prejudice for a system that had to bind a lot of information from a lot of sources in a way that allowed a very distributed system to control a body in real time. Then along comes language, intentions and all that and the possibility to turbocharge that illusion to allow the system to make strategic decisions that jootsed the traditional learning strategies of the brain by predicting our own behaviour as we predicted the behaviour of others and acting on that prediction.

I don't know if you've read Jaynes. On the one hand he's a fine example of how thing the line between genius and madness is. On the other hand... Apart from his early work on IST, I think this

http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/dennett_jaynes-software-archeology.pdf

short review is one of the most profound things Dennett ever wrote.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, it could 'possibly be' useless because things can be byproducts.

That's right. Good start! So, let's see how it goes after that...

For example the heat created by (emerging from) a running computer is not only not useful to the computer, but may even hinder it at certain temperatures.

Thanks, but I don't think I'm entirely stupid. Your example's worth here is only to explain the notion of 'useless byproduct'. I don't need that kind of explanation, thank you.

So, what about the rest?

My (male) nipples are also pretty useless.

Ah, that's much better. But not good enough.

In this example, even if we concede that male nipples are useless, which I'm not sure that's entirely true, I'm pretty sure we also understand very well why we have them.

Oh, wait, yes we do!

Why do men have nipples?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-men-have-nipples/

The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them.

So, yes, there are useless things, but the question was in this case: How could that possibly be?

We do understand why in the case of male nipples. So, would we know why in the case of our possibly useless "Cartesian theatre"?

I suspect not.

To add to that, illusions are commonplace. It may not, for example, be 'useful' if I think my body is moving through space when it's not. It might just be a mental overshoot.

Sorry, I fail to grasp your point here. I would hope you're not suggesting consciousness is somehow illusory. And if you do, then please provide the evidence for that.

I don't know the answer to the question however.

Ah, good, I thought so.

I would just try to keep an open mind, even though I'm not sure what a mind is.

It may also be that whatever you choose to do with your mind will have no effect whatsoever on anything in the real world. Even thinking that wouldn't change anything!

It may be funny for us to think of our own brain sneering while making sure we think how our mind is just useless crap.

Isn't it time we see our brain sees a doctor?
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

How could it possibly be? In this case? How are 'byproduct' or 'neutral mutation' not possible answers?

By the way, have we established that it's not a detrimental feature?

 

[untermensche]

Your incredulity is not any kind of argument.

Dennett said it and Dyson shut his nonsense down. It was beautiful. Dennett is not an expert on any of this. His book about consciousness was worthless if you wanted to know what consciousness is.

It was part of a long round table discussion. Called something. like "A glorious accident". The video is on YouTube.

On youtube eh? Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

So, source please. A link would be helpful. Because last time...

Last time what? You are delusional and very lost.

The title is in the text you quoted, but obviously didn't read.

Somebody put up a link and I gave the exact time in the video.

What else do you need?

 

[blastula]

I remember an exchange between Dennett and the great physicist Freeman Dyson years ago.

Dennett pontificates on and on as he does talking about reducing the functional components of the brain to smaller and smaller units. Then he proclaims dogmatically, and nowhere will you find any "wonder tissue" looking smug and self-satisfied.

Dyson pipes in and says that physicists deal with "wonder tissue" all the time, that ordinary matter behaves in very unintuitive ways.

Dennet had no response but at least his stupid grin had disappeared.

I watched that part, and your description is bogus. There was no smug grin nor some moment where DYSON DEMOLISHES DENNETT. Dennett didn't even say "wonder tissue" there. And I think Dennett has the stronger point, though the answer is unknown - whether biological tissue is necessary for a "self." Dyson says "ordinary matter" (meaning I guess biological matter?) behaves in counterintuitive ways, as opposed to computer hardware, and he suggests that qm may have something do with it. Comes off as arguing for (special biological) qm woo.

 

[untermensche]

I remember an exchange between Dennett and the great physicist Freeman Dyson years ago.

Dennett pontificates on and on as he does talking about reducing the functional components of the brain to smaller and smaller units. Then he proclaims dogmatically, and nowhere will you find any "wonder tissue" looking smug and self-satisfied.

Dyson pipes in and says that physicists deal with "wonder tissue" all the time, that ordinary matter behaves in very unintuitive ways.

Dennet had no response but at least his stupid grin had disappeared.

I watched that part, and your description is bogus. There was no smug grin nor some moment where DYSON DEMOLISHES DENNETT. Dennett didn't even say "wonder tissue" there. And I think Dennett has the stronger point, though the answer is unknown - whether biological tissue is necessary for a "self." Dyson says "ordinary matter" (meaning I guess biological matter?) behaves in counterintuitive ways, as opposed to computer hardware, and he suggests that qm may have something do with it. Comes off as arguing for (special biological) qm woo.

Basically Dyson said he thought quantum effects had something to do with consciousness and somehow Dennett thought that was impossible.

That was the exchange.

Since that exchange took place decades ago and no working model of consciousness has arisen Dyson's point looks very plausible and Dennett is no closer to explaining consciousness with his reliance on chemical or electrical effects.

 

[bilby]

What's wrong with the idea that the 'cartesian theatre' is just an immediate-term memory being employed as an input to the next round of decision making? We see longer-term memories 'in our mind's eye' on occasion; And memories become less detailed, less complete, and less accurate over time, but still form a very useful input to prevent repetition of errors or risky choices.

It makes complete sense to me that a highly detailed but very short term memory of the immediate past would have significant value as an input into the next decisions to be made. That could also explain why concentration has an effect on the quality of the experience - we do things on 'autopilot' when the last thing we did was a familiar routine; When a novel situation arises, we become more aware of what just occurred, thereby allowing us to be more effective in our immediate future decisions.

I am not sure how we would go about testing this hypothesis. But it does seem to me to resolve the question 'why have the experience at all' particularly in the light of experimental evidence that the experience occurs after the response has been chosen and enacted by the brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could it possibly be? In this case? How are 'byproduct' or 'neutral mutation' not possible answers?

No, I accept that neutral, or very nearly neutral, mutations happen, even if I don't see any good reason that any such should stay neutral for ever. So, I accept a priori the broad principle that consciousness could be such. I don't accept it a posteriori.

What I would still ask is how you could have neutral mutations producing something apparently as complex as the Cartesian theatre. In the case of the male nipple, there's no mutation that produced something like a useless male nipple. That would have seemed to us like a miracle of evolution! Instead, there were the genes for useful nipple selected and already in place and no mechanism to suppress it in males. So, male nipples are no example of a neutral mutation. Neutral mutations can't produce on their own complex systems of phenotypic characteristics, like a male nipple is. To get anything as complex as a leg, or indeed a nipple, you need to have selective pressure working on it for a very, very long time and there's no selective pressure for neutral features.

Unless you could explain how the Cartesian theatre is so obviously just one pure, unalloyed, simple phenotypic characteristic that could be produced straightaway by just one isolated mutation?

If you can believe that without evidence, then I guess you might just as well believe in God.

So, I repeat, how could that possibly be?

By the way, have we established that it's not a detrimental feature?

Good question. If it had been there for a long time, a detrimental Cartesian theatre would have been eliminated by evolution. But we don't know how long it's been there.

I personally suspect it won't be there for very long, although I might be wrong. I would say it provides both enormous advantages and enormous disadvantages. This makes the whole system unpredictable but also very unstable on a macro-scale. Which isn't good for 'long term' on just one small planet like ours. We would need to expand to the whole galaxy fast if we want to ensure our survival as a species, and keep that 'theatre'. We might even have to expand to the whole universe. Sort of keep away from each other.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

So, I repeat, how could that possibly be?

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, it could be a natural byproduct of increased cognitive abilities and processes.

 

[ruby sparks]

By the way, have we established that it's not a detrimental feature?

Good question. If it had been there for a long time, a detrimental Cartesian theatre would have been eliminated by evolution. But we don't know how long it's been there.

I personally suspect it won't be there for very long, although I might be wrong. I would say it provides both enormous advantages and enormous disadvantages. This makes the whole system unpredictable but also very unstable on a macro-scale. Which isn't good for 'long term' on just one small planet like ours. We would need to expand to the whole galaxy fast if we want to ensure our survival as a species, and keep that 'theatre'. We might even have to expand to the whole universe. Sort of keep away from each other.
EB

Indeed. Though we might say, 'probably' eliminated since as far as I'm aware it generally depends how detrimental and how long.

It's possible, so I read, that what is called 'Modern Human Behaviour' is as young as only 40,000-50,000 years, a mere speck in evolutionary terms. It would be, as you say, a guess to say whether that's when the 'cartesian theatre' phenomenon arose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

Even Homo Sapiens is thought to be only 200,000-300,000 years old. Still a comparative speck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Age_and_speciation_process

To put it another way, if we assume that bacteria don't have it, and that they would survive a (human) self-inflicted nuclear holocaust or a similarly self-inflicted environmental catastrophe that would wipe us out, then maybe not having it will turn out to have been an advantage.

 

[ruby sparks]

What's wrong with the idea that the 'cartesian theatre' is just an immediate-term memory being employed as an input to the next round of decision making? We see longer-term memories 'in our mind's eye' on occasion; And memories become less detailed, less complete, and less accurate over time, but still form a very useful input to prevent repetition of errors or risky choices.

It makes complete sense to me that a highly detailed but very short term memory of the immediate past would have significant value as an input into the next decisions to be made. That could also explain why concentration has an effect on the quality of the experience - we do things on 'autopilot' when the last thing we did was a familiar routine; When a novel situation arises, we become more aware of what just occurred, thereby allowing us to be more effective in our immediate future decisions.

I am not sure how we would go about testing this hypothesis. But it does seem to me to resolve the question 'why have the experience at all' particularly in the light of experimental evidence that the experience occurs after the response has been chosen and enacted by the brain.

Sounds potentially fruitful to me. Ties in with rousseau's point about attention, as you say.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And... so... what would be the use of our "Cartesian theatre", if any?
EB

How about if the Cartesian Theatre was just a very useful prejudice for a system that had to bind a lot of information from a lot of sources in a way that allowed a very distributed system to control a body in real time. Then along comes language, intentions and all that and the possibility to turbocharge that illusion to allow the system to make strategic decisions that jootsed the traditional learning strategies of the brain by predicting our own behaviour as we predicted the behaviour of others and acting on that prediction.

Yes. Exactly. Thanks!

Basically, the Cartesian theatre is a simplified and largely symbolic representation of those features of our immediate environment, and of the world at large, that were essentially selected according to their usefulness to our survival. It's just a model. It's fast, convenient, can take minimal brain space whenever it becomes vital, and very effective. It's also universal and therefore completely versatile, i.e. it's useful for just every possible kind of problem humans may have to face.

What's somewhat confusing and freaky to us is that we should feature in it, and so prominently. And that, too, seems inevitable to me because so bloody useful.

And what really good about this is that we can understand how this complex system we now have would have been built up over a very long time by evolution, functional bit by functional bit.

OK, excellent, that at least explains the logic of it, and to some extent the reliance on qualia to make up the symbols we need to represent the world. Even that would have been a long slog, bit by bit.

What would remain to explain is the subjective experience and qualia in themselves.

Also, as basic training, can you explain why we should feature personally so prominently within our own representation of the world? What's the usefulness of that?
EB