Yes we have a soul, it is made of thousands of tiny robots. ( )

A fine book. Dennett's a creative and funny writer, and I think the book holds up well. There were a few parts I didn't quite get, but overall I felt like I could keep up with him. It helped that I've read some other of his stuff before, and some other related works. Of course "Explained" is a bit of a stretch, but I thought it was a good try. ( )

One of the seminal texts on the nature of consciousness, this a serious work of philosophy that can be understood by the general reader. Whether discussing the Cartesian dilemma or the theories of phenomenology Dennett delivers complicated concepts in a clear manner. The book is divided into three parts covering methods, the empirical theory of consciousness and philosophical issues. I enjoyed his ability to make difficult ideas accessible. ( )

> Le modèle des versions multiples,
In: Revue 3e millénaire, n°37, Automne 1995 (p. 28)

This book is as revolutionary as it is short-sighted. Dennett tries to find an empirical basis of consciousness. For this purpose he digs deep into the neuroscientific literature, questioning everything he finds from a theoretical point of view. This is interesting, and exceptional. Most scientist spend little time doubting the concepts they use, or what their findings mean in a broader theoretical sense. Dennett does takes this time and comes to unsettling conclusions.

The best, and most necessary part of the book is Dennett's attack on the Cartesian Theater view on consciousness. Dennett explains that due to theoretical difficulties a single brain area of consciousness is impossible. Rather, consciousness is spread out over time and space (in the brain). He comes up with great and memorable analogies, which give great insight into the functioning of the brain.

But as I have said, on the other hand, this book is also short-sighted. Dennett, in the end, comes to deny the existence of 'qualia' (personal, conscious experience). Why does he reach this conclusion? It is because he starts bottom-up. His whole quest is data-driven. His use of the Pandemonium model illustrates this: this model has been criticized in the Psychology for not being able to account for top-down (higher cognitive) influences.

What Dennett ignores is the metaphysical side of the matter. Scientists hate metaphysics, and perhaps for a good reason: it is very hard to make metaphysics sound plausible. However, without metaphysics it is impossible to understand our Dasein, our way of being constituted inside this world. What Dennett has proven is not that there is no consciousness, but rather that consciousness cannot be found by the empirical method. Consciousness seems to be more than matter. This is the conclusion we have to accept, or else we will have to deny the existence of our consciousness. Dennett did not came up with arguments to convince me from this hypothesis. ( )