"Nor do we have to understand the mechanisms that underlie those competencies. In an illuminating metaphor, Dennett asserts that the manifest image that depicts the world in which we live our everyday lives is composed of a set of user-illusions,
'like the ingenious user-illusion of click-and-drag icons, little tan folders into which files may be dropped, and the rest of the ever more familiar items on your computer’s desktop. What is actually going on behind the desktop is mind-numbingly complicated, but users don’t need to know about it, so intelligent interface designers have simplified the affordances, making them particularly salient for human eyes, and adding sound effects to help direct attention. Nothing compact and salient inside the computer corresponds to that little tan file-folder on the desktop screen.'
He says that the manifest image of each species is 'a user-illusion brilliantly designed by evolution to fit the needs of its users.' In spite of the word 'illusion' he doesn’t wish simply to deny the reality of the things that compose the manifest image; the things we see and hear and interact with are 'not mere fictions but different versions of what actually exists: real patterns.' The underlying reality, however, what exists in itself and not just for us or for other creatures, is accurately represented only by the scientific image—ultimately in the language of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and neurophysiology."
>The underlying reality, however, what exists in itself and not just for us or for other creatures, is accurately represented only by the scientific image—ultimately in the language of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and neurophysiology."
They are also mediated by consciousness. Unconscious scientists rarely do experiments or interpret their results.
The underlying reality is absolutely not mediated by human consciousness, and I think the author's mistake here is even bringing up the human scientific fields, which muddies their point.
Dennett does end up explaining a lot of epistemology 101 because his audience isn't philosophy academia.
Dennett's innovation, which isn't described well by this book review, is to assert that epistemology is driven by reproductive pressure (both genetic and memetic).
Materialists have been asserting since forever that consciousness arises from the brain and that the brain evolved according to Darwin's laws. What is new in Dennett's viewpoint?
Dennett goes into a lot more detail as to the processes by which evolution affects consciousness and the resulting properties of consciousness than anyone in my (admittedly limited) reading.
There are two pieces of evidence which allow me to hypothesize the existence of an objective reality from within my subjective experience:
1. My subjective experience makes predictions which are wrong within my subjective experience in ways which my subjective experience does not explain. Or put another way, I experience cognitive dissonance.
2. When I attempt to align my subjective experience with a hypothetical objective reality (that is, when I attempt to learn) the predictions made from my subjective experience are wrong less frequently. Or put another way, learning decreases cognitive dissonance.
Of course, these subjective experiences could be explained by a self-flagellating subjective experience that inflicts me with cognitive dissonance and then rewards me for attempting to align my subjective experience with a nonexistent objective reality. But that is (subjectively!) too convoluted an explanation to be satisfactory.
And yes, of course it's epistemology 101. But a lot of people haven't taken epistemology, and this article is a review of Dennett's book which delves into these issues for the general public.
"Nor do we have to understand the mechanisms that underlie those competencies. In an illuminating metaphor, Dennett asserts that the manifest image that depicts the world in which we live our everyday lives is composed of a set of user-illusions,
'like the ingenious user-illusion of click-and-drag icons, little tan folders into which files may be dropped, and the rest of the ever more familiar items on your computer’s desktop. What is actually going on behind the desktop is mind-numbingly complicated, but users don’t need to know about it, so intelligent interface designers have simplified the affordances, making them particularly salient for human eyes, and adding sound effects to help direct attention. Nothing compact and salient inside the computer corresponds to that little tan file-folder on the desktop screen.'
He says that the manifest image of each species is 'a user-illusion brilliantly designed by evolution to fit the needs of its users.' In spite of the word 'illusion' he doesn’t wish simply to deny the reality of the things that compose the manifest image; the things we see and hear and interact with are 'not mere fictions but different versions of what actually exists: real patterns.' The underlying reality, however, what exists in itself and not just for us or for other creatures, is accurately represented only by the scientific image—ultimately in the language of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and neurophysiology."