[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 136 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13523014 No.13523014 [Reply] [Original]

This man's philosophy of mind is simply irrefutable.

Now I understand why /sci/ always recs him.

>> No.13523024
File: 605 KB, 750x1011, BCBB821A-9273-4C72-B35C-15BBA4DE5BB7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13523026


>> No.13523043


was socrates god?

>> No.13523260

>you are not your thoughts
Based Soccerthesis

>> No.13523274

buddhism btfo!

>> No.13523282

Start with SoccerTees
End with WittyStine

>> No.13523290

No, he was channeling Adi Shankara from the future.

>> No.13523335

Strawman. Dennett doesn't deny that we are aware, what he argues against is the 'singularity' of awareness, the monolithic 'self', the 'Cartesian theatre' view of consciousness (which tends to be the default assumption. Instead, he says that what we call 'consciousness' is the integrated output of many brain functions, an output which (while impressive) is less coherent and consistent than we tend to think it is.

>> No.13523354
File: 103 KB, 858x649, 1555270192946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Writes a shitty book saying that you're not conscious
>Chalmers writes a refutation and BTFOs Dennett
>Dennett's only response is 6 page ad hominem

>> No.13523371

>while impressive
This is really how redditors describe the means of human cognition and perception.

Retard. If I made a clone of you and caused it pain it would not cause you any pain. Why? Different consciousness. And you can’t back-peddle by saying its merely memory because in the very moment of pain the clone would writhe in agony and you would not. Why? There is no sensation of pain for one, but there is for the ofher.

>> No.13523372

The Kantian intelligence already solves the problem of consciousness.

>> No.13523375

the materialist view doesn't take into account the phenomenological paradox.

>> No.13523378






>> No.13523380

Link to Chalmer's refutation and Dennett's response?

I've read Dennett and Searle's exchange, so I can imagine you're not exaggerating with the ad hominem bit.

>> No.13523422

Not him but you can just read the wikipedia on Chalmers. It’s pretty much his gimmick

>> No.13523425

Which I don’t mean derogatively, since he’s clearly right

>> No.13523428

Dennett is fantastic


Lmfao way to nitpick an argument he doesn't hold using your own interpretation of the specific language he uses

>> No.13523440


>> No.13523448 [DELETED] 

Okay, so how does this “consciousness” work?

>> No.13523452

>Chalmer's refutation
>Dennett's response?

>> No.13523454

My sides

>> No.13523456

Dennett isn't an illusionist.

>> No.13523465

I know, he’s just a retard who thinks physical observation could ever explain the source of everything we experience.

>> No.13523479

That supports his argument. I don't think you understand his argument, nor your own.

Yeah, we can argue over technical uncertanties all day, yet empiricism is still our only conduit to knowledge. It also seems unlikely that nothing of the real is conveyed in appearances.

Idealism is for fags.

>> No.13523496

thanks man, appreciate it.

>> No.13523505

Dennett is in line with the meta of metaphysics (pun intended). Externalism and contextualism lend themselves to his sort of reductive materialism.

>> No.13523511

strange loops and some C++

>> No.13523520

holy fuck i love logic

>> No.13523524
File: 203 KB, 802x854, cia nigger terry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13523531

No, it doesn’t, you’re just incredibly stupid

>> No.13523542

Of course it's a CIA nigger that's trying to brainwash the population into becoming materialist bugmen.

>> No.13524013

Yes, it does -- if it doesn't, explain how. I could also resort to accurately pointing out your profound metal deficiencies, but it wouldn't constitute an argument.

Which is the theme of this thread... Just strawmanning, appeals to authority and the usual 'zingers'. Weak showing (as per usual) for the anti-physicalists.

>> No.13524046

It doesn't fit with lived experience.
It's like a doctor telling you your lying about feeling pain when you're bones are busted and sticking out of your bleeding skin.

>Cogito, ergo sum
Apparently no you don't. Because it doesn't fit into Dennett's purely reductionist model of reality. There's no Synergy in Dennett's Universe; just a bunch of buildings with a lot of missing building blocks.

>> No.13524123


Are you of female gender, by any chance?

>> No.13524144

fedora-tier "philosophy"

>> No.13524145

Are you a faggot, by any chance?

>> No.13524207


>> No.13524249

>Which is the theme of this thread... Just strawmanning, appeals to authority and the usual 'zingers'.

I love how you try to trivialize consistently getting btfo for your 8th grade teachers pet idealisation of science to try and salvage your pride lmao.

>> No.13524292

Your efforts are so trivial already as to preclude me from trivializing them further. None of you have made a cogent argument against Dennett, nor even made an attempt to understand his position.

>> No.13524297

no self is not a real buddhist doctrine.

>> No.13524300

>'consciousness' is the integrated output of many brain functions

how can you honestly believe this??

>> No.13524335
File: 237 KB, 766x633, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13524943


In being seized by formal "Mathematical" Logic on one hand, and amorphous agnosticism on the other, Socrates locks the door from the inside and self-detonates.

>> No.13526477
File: 4 KB, 1312x18, s.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I mean come on guys, even the other boards have got things under control

>> No.13526538

Brahmayana not buddhists. study original doctrine.

>> No.13526545

people actually think this is a smart view or what?

>> No.13526552

>this thing is like this thing
>I don't know
>anti materialists btfo

>> No.13526846
File: 16 KB, 257x376, Chalmers, James Chalmers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Leave OP to me.

>> No.13526900

Great, maybe next time you'll summarize his argument instead of posting a pretentious portrait like the massive faggot you are.

>> No.13526919


the essence of dennett IS triviality

>> No.13526924

Can’t read without a summary?

>> No.13526961

Sorry hun but Dennet was retroactively BTFO by Peirce

>> No.13527018


you got btfo, calling it "for fags" just PROVES how btfo you got

>> No.13527039

oh sweaty...

>> No.13527049

Why you booing him he's right

>> No.13527050

>you can't reduce the mind to constituent parts

>> No.13527058
File: 39 KB, 800x600, dan dennett.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.13527063

I'm not him, but what if he mentions naturalized epistemology?

>> No.13527065

Seems quite civil.

>> No.13527091

>ameriburger philosophy
not even once

>> No.13527104


>> No.13527120

Has anyone on here watched his debate with Plantinga?

>> No.13527163

One of a few recordings on Plantinga explaining EAAN on a simple language. Personally I don't buy his theory- it seems to be he didn't think how naive science are - but it shows he is a genuine philosopher who can say clearly.

>> No.13527237

yeah, its on youtube

>> No.13527247

why does plantinga look like he just woke up from the early 19th century

>> No.13527254

“Illusory” is an effective rhetorical analogue in Buddhism. Emptiness does not rely on definitions of appearance or illusion as described above.

>> No.13527256

>"I think religion for many people is some sort of moral viagra"
he's a cumbrain

>> No.13527272


>> No.13527320

Can't argue yourself what you've supposedly read?

There is no indication of any true dichotomy between the form and content of experience. Furthermore, the so called 'unity of self' is actually quite haphazard and transient when scrutinized... Those who become adept at meditation often come to realize this. The 'prior synthesis' which isn't experienced can easily be exchanged with brain functions we aren't actively aware of.

It's an antiquated argument. If you exchange the hocus-pocus 'transcendentalism' for modern neuroscience, we can offer an explanation for the integration of perception which requires less assumption and abstraction.

Why not? The world is replete with examples of constituent parts interacting to produce emergent phenomena.

There's only a 'hard problem' if you assume the existence of qualia, which is an uncessary assumption (trope theory elegantly obviates qualia). Otherwise it's just a regular -- although difficult -- problem of trying to understand a complex system and the workings of the universe in general.

>> No.13527376

*displays an optical illusion*
*vague word soup about qualia*
I have now proven that I alone understand consciousness!

>> No.13527406


The world is replete with excrement too, what of it?

>> No.13527417

It's your loss if you've never experienced qualia. I'm not an NPC so I have.

>> No.13527426

>contemporary sciencecels can't last beyond 4 lines of Socratic dialogue

>> No.13527438

Peirce was god tier and mogs entire generations of yuropoors.

>> No.13527451
File: 327 KB, 1187x1179, hence the misery of extraversion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


By the way, this is Epistemological womanhood, i.e. not so much passively accepting something because of its overwhelming quantity, but deliberately choosing quantity alone merely because it's quantitative. And it's cruelly ironic, since a casual glance at what happens to women, Phenomenally, should caution one against thinking like this.

>> No.13527859


>> No.13528318

this boy was albert einstein

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.