Quantcast
[ 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]
13523024

lol

>> No.13523026

>>13523014
>/sci/

>> No.13523043

>>13523024

was socrates god?

>> No.13523260

>>13523024
>you are not your thoughts
Based Soccerthesis

>> No.13523274

>>13523024
buddhism btfo!

>> No.13523282

>>13523024
Start with SoccerTees
End with WittyStine

>> No.13523290

>>13523043
No, he was channeling Adi Shankara from the future.

>> No.13523335

>>13523024
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]
13523354

>>13523014
>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

>>13523335
>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

>>13523014
The Kantian intelligence already solves the problem of consciousness.

>> No.13523375

>>13523335
the materialist view doesn't take into account the phenomenological paradox.

>> No.13523378

>>13523335

SYNTHETIC

UNITY

of

APPERCEPTION

>> No.13523380

>>13523354
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

>>13523380
Not him but you can just read the wikipedia on Chalmers. It’s pretty much his gimmick

>> No.13523425

>>13523422
Which I don’t mean derogatively, since he’s clearly right

>> No.13523428

Dennett is fantastic

>>13523024

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

>> No.13523440

>>13523428
laughingchalmers.jpg

>> No.13523448 [DELETED] 

>>13523371
Okay, so how does this “consciousness” work?

>> No.13523452

>>13523380
>Chalmer's refutation
http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf
>Dennett's response?
https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/chalmers.pdf

>> No.13523454

>>13523448
My sides

>> No.13523456

>>13523440
Dennett isn't an illusionist.

>> No.13523465

>>13523456
I know, he’s just a retard who thinks physical observation could ever explain the source of everything we experience.

>> No.13523479

>>13523371
That supports his argument. I don't think you understand his argument, nor your own.

>>13523375
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.

>>13523378
Idealism is for fags.

>> No.13523496

>>13523452
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

>>13523448
strange loops and some C++

>> No.13523520

>>13523024
holy fuck i love logic

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

>>13523014
https://twitter.com/danieldennett/status/1131292132638117888

>> No.13523531

>>13523479
No, it doesn’t, you’re just incredibly stupid

>> No.13523542

>>13523524
Of course it's a CIA nigger that's trying to brainwash the population into becoming materialist bugmen.

>> No.13524013

>>13523531
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

>>13523014
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

>>13524046

Are you of female gender, by any chance?

>> No.13524144

>>13523014
fedora-tier "philosophy"

>> No.13524145

>>13524123
No.
Are you a faggot, by any chance?

>> No.13524207

>>13523024
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

>> No.13524249

>>13524013
>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

>>13524249
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

>>13523274
no self is not a real buddhist doctrine.

>> No.13524300

>>13523335
>'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]
13524335

>>13524207
>homunculus

>> No.13524943

>>13523043

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]
13526477

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

>> No.13526538

>>13523274
Brahmayana not buddhists. study original doctrine.

>> No.13526545

people actually think this is a smart view or what?

>> No.13526552

>>13526477
>this thing is like this thing
>how
>I don't know
>anti materialists btfo

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

>>13523014
Leave OP to me.

>> No.13526900

>>13526846
Great, maybe next time you'll summarize his argument instead of posting a pretentious portrait like the massive faggot you are.

>> No.13526919

>>13524292

the essence of dennett IS triviality

>> No.13526924

>>13526900
Can’t read without a summary?

>> No.13526961

Sorry hun but Dennet was retroactively BTFO by Peirce

>> No.13527018

>>13523479
TRANSCENDENTAL UNIT OF APPERCEPTION

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

>> No.13527039

>Dennett
oh sweaty...

>> No.13527049

>>13524335
Why you booing him he's right

>> No.13527050

>>13526900
>you can't reduce the mind to constituent parts

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

>>13523014
>>13523024

>> No.13527063

>>13527018
I'm not him, but what if he mentions naturalized epistemology?

>> No.13527065

>>13523452
Seems quite civil.

>> No.13527091

>ameriburger philosophy
not even once

>> No.13527104

>>13523024
BASED

>> No.13527120

Has anyone on here watched his debate with Plantinga?

>> No.13527163

>>13527120
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

>>13527120
yeah, its on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f06J2R4MwGA

>> No.13527247

>>13527237
why does plantinga look like he just woke up from the early 19th century

>> No.13527254

>>13523274
“Illusory” is an effective rhetorical analogue in Buddhism. Emptiness does not rely on definitions of appearance or illusion as described above.

>> No.13527256

>>13523014
>"I think religion for many people is some sort of moral viagra"
he's a cumbrain

>> No.13527272

>>13527247
ALVIN

>> No.13527320

>>13526924
Can't argue yourself what you've supposedly read?

>>13527018
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.

>>13527050
Why not? The world is replete with examples of constituent parts interacting to produce emergent phenomena.

>>13527058
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

>>13527320

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

>> No.13527417

>>13527320
It's your loss if you've never experienced qualia. I'm not an NPC so I have.

>> No.13527426

>>13523024
>contemporary sciencecels can't last beyond 4 lines of Socratic dialogue
Sad!

>> No.13527438

>>13527091
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]
13527451

>>13527320
>>13527406

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

>>13523024
DAMN DANIEL

>> No.13528318

>>13523024
this boy was albert einstein

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action