Anil Seth: a new thinker about thinking; but is he actually new?

He's new to me, at least, but this Guardian interview, with discussion of his ideas and his new book, means I think I need to do more to rectify that.

He says Dan Dennett was the biggest influence on his current ideas, but yet that he's plenty willing to argue with him. From the interview, "subselves" and an evolutionary battle idea on how consciousness emerges from fights between these subselves seems to be the biggest influence.

Based on the famous permanent amnesia case of Clive Waring, he then says it seems that personhood is not totally tied to explicit memory and related issues. To some degree, this would tie with subselves and multiple drafts (but refined from what Dennett says).

As for Dennett's denial of a Cartesian theater? What if, going beyond Seth in this interview, there is such a thing, but it's not permanent or ingrained. What if, per Seth and other new thinkers, that's part of our "hallucinating" our sense of the world "out there" into existence?

As for Dennett's refusal to deny, or even discuss, the non-existence of a Cartesian free willer on parallel grounds, will Seth discuss that or not? Will he discuss how much Dennett ripped off from HIS mentor, Gilbert Ryle, then tried to palm Ryle's ideas off as his own?

In light of all of the above, he has a great new riff on Descartes:

“I predict myself, therefore I am.”

Well put, per Tevye!

The book is "Being You."

It sounds interesting ... but, if Seth is really that enthusiastic about Dennett, it also sounds like something that needs to be carefully eyeballed. His Ted Talk may have had more than 10 million hits, but other than the idea that consciousness is a controlled hallucination, there's really nothing new.

AND? If he is a fan of Dennett (and hopefully, cutting through the chase, Ryle), then who's controlling the hallucination? Oops.

In addition, if he appeared on Sam Harris' podcast to talk to him, per his bio page on his website, he needs to be read very carefully. (The podcast is 115, yes ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN, minutes long. Pass. And not linking, even with a no-follow, as it's on Harris' website.)

==

Sidebar: On the subselves and struggle, the Guardian also interviewed David Eagleman a couple of months ago. Read it, too. (He's a bit too reductionist for my taste, and per an old piece on my main blog, too much a techie-enthusiast within neuroscience, but still.)