Based dennett

[Anonymous No.15599292]

Dualists can never recover

[Anonymous No.15599316]

reply to this thread if you're gay

[Anonymous No.15599865]

can I get a qrd?

[Anonymous No.15599872]

>>15599292
>intentional stance
Dennett believes your thermostat has thoughts. Such a shitty reduction of intentionality, thanks to his Rylean behaviorism and neopragmatism.

[Anonymous No.15599877]

>>15599865
>“Some years ago, there was a journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.
>It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.”
>-- Dennett

[Anonymous No.15599892]

>>15599872
I once met an old Chinese woman who believed everything had a spirit and thoughts. She would thank her stove for working, for example. She was kind and I think maybe the world would be better if more people were like her. I don't know about this Dennett guy though. I had to read some of his essays for a philosophy class once and they were a bit hokey.

[Anonymous No.15599933]

>>15599877
>buffalos don't have brains with neurons
kek

[Anonymous No.15599940]

>>15599892
she sounds based, the world would undoubtedly be a better place if we all treated everything with kindness and respect... b-but productivity will go down!

[Anonymous No.15599946]

>>15599877
Maybe this is a little too intellectual for my simple hick brain, but buffalo definitely know they are buffalo. They are herd animals and a large part of their thoughts are devoted to that kind of stuff. I suppose if you were to raise a buffalo by hand with a milk bottle, it would imprint and see your human family as its herd. That doesn't really happen though, because it's a shit ton of work to make a cow that will be unhappy and feel abandoned in a pasture. I think this man is arrogant to think his brain is all that different from any of the animals he listed. It's stronger because the early development of tools by our ancestors put us on an evolutionary path to stronger brains, but it's not so different.

[Anonymous No.15599955]

>>15599946
he's saying buffalos don't conceptualize themselves as buffalos, which seems like a given. buffalos can't do what dennett, but if there was a dennett of buffalos they'd be saying the same bullshit on their side. he's the worst kind of charlatan

[Anonymous No.15599979]

>>15599955
I don't understand what you are saying. How do they not conceptualize themselves as buffalo?

[Anonymous No.15600059]

>>15599979
Did you conceptualize yourself as a member of the species homo sapiens when you were a child?

[Anonymous No.15600078]

>>15600059
I didn't know the words "homo sapiens" when I was a little child, but I was aware that I was a human as opposed to a chimp or a monkey or a horse. Isn't that the same thing? Just because the words are different doesn't mean the concept is.

[Anonymous No.15600097]

>>15600078
You were aware you were yourself and that's it, which is the level most animals operate on and probably the only level they need to operate on. With humanity does true autism enter the scene. You know there's a reason why some philosophers consider thought a parasite

[Anonymous No.15600116]

>>15600097
No, I'm pretty sure I knew my family were all the same kind of animal. Were you really not aware as a child that you and your parents and other relatives were the same kind of creature? How? You were only aware of yourself?

[Anonymous No.15600127]

>>15600116
I was aware of entities, I had no concept of what these entities were. I was aware of them as they are and not the box language stuffs them in

[Anonymous No.15600169]

>>15600127
That means you conceptualized yourself as belonging to a group of entities. Whether you knew the name for the entity or not is irrelevant, because you knew the meaning before you knew the word.

[Anonymous No.15600199]

>>15599292
To put it as clearly as I can: in his book, Consciousness Explained, Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. He continues to use the word, but he means something different by it. For him, it refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have. For Dennett there is no difference between us humans and complex zombies who lack any inner feelings, because we are all just complex zombies. ...I regard his view as self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which a theory of consciousness is supposed to explain...Here is the paradox of this exchange: I am a conscious reviewer consciously answering the objections of an author who gives every indication of being consciously and puzzlingly angry. I do this for a readership that I assume is conscious. How then can I take seriously his claim that consciousness does not really exist?

[Anonymous No.15600291]

>>15600199
So he is one of those guys who denies the difference between curry that tastes like poop and poop that tastes like curry.

[Anonymous No.15600315]

>>15599933
Logic is not your strong suit, I see.

[Anonymous No.15600329]

>>15600199
Your "self" is just a construct made up by your sensory experiences. You're nothing.
But no one is stopping you from living the illusion.

[Anonymous No.15600330]

>>15599292
Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory was probably to much for brainlets like Dennett

[Anonymous No.15600348]

>>15600329
>Your
>your
>You're
>you
"Guys, you gotta believe me, there's really no self! Neither you nor I exist Why won't you believe me?"

[Anonymous No.15600376]

>>15600330
>Daniel Dennett considers IIT a theory of consciousness in terms of “integrated information that uses Shannon information theory in a novel way”. As such it has “a very limited role for aboutness: it measures the amount of Shannon information a system or mechanism has about its own previous state — i.e., the states of all its parts”

[Anonymous No.15600379]

>>15600348
(you)

[Anonymous No.15600380]

>>15599292
based as fuck this is our generation's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, God Delusion, Godel Escher Bach, The Selfish Gene, A Brief History of Time, The Road to Reality, The Ego and Its Own, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and On the Origin of Species all rolled into one.

i'm in awe of its erudite dismantling and reconstruction of the whole explanatory narrative of consciousness we have wrongly construed up to this point. the precision with which it obviates the archaisms of christian morals and metaphysics makes its staggering critiques of such systems definitive and final. its unprecedented execution of evolutionary-grounded epistemology is unparalleled in accuracy and profundity. it is a physicalist triumph and tour de force which puts all immaterialist accounts of existence squarely in the garbage bin.

i need to buy more copies of it and send them to my co-workers, leave them ostensibly forgotten upon subway seats, and nested in the mailboxes of unsuspecting theologians

[Anonymous No.15600407]

>>15600380
>a brainlet tries his hand at sarcasm

[Anonymous No.15600430]

>>15600329
Dennett denies CONSCIOUSNESS, not the self. CONSCIOUSNESS. EXPERIENCE. THE PHENOMENAL FIELD. Dennett DENIES that those things EXIST.

[Anonymous No.15600463]

>>15600379
The most appropriate (you) of all time!

[Anonymous No.15600494]

>>15600430
>NOOOOOOOO!!! NOT MY HECKIN' EXPERIENCERINO!

[Anonymous No.15600510]

>>15600494
>NOOOOO!!! NOT MY HECKIN' MISERABILIST PARADIGMERINO!! NOT MY GOOD BOI WAR ON SUBJECTIVITY FLOOFERINO

[Anonymous No.15600576]

>>15599979
Because animals can't think logical sentences because they lack grammar and syntax. To conceptualise oneself as something requires you to think "I am X". A buffalo can not think the sentence "I am a buffalo" or "I am in pain". That's why it's okay to kill them.

[Anonymous No.15600596]

>>15600576
No, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.15600598]

>>15599292
wtf, logic and reason have been reduced to matter!
I fucking LOVE science!

[Anonymous No.15600616]

>>15600430
>Dennett's chemicals denies that chemicals exist.
fixed

[Anonymous No.15601102]

>>15599946
>It's stronger because the early development of tools by our ancestors put us on an evolutionary path to stronger brains, but it's not so different.
so you agree with the larger idea

[Anonymous No.15601328]

>>15600376
And? What's the profound insight Dennett had about IIT that either rebukes or transfigures it in such a manner that is able to reduce consciousness to the material?

[Anonymous No.15601334]

>>15600380
chuckled thanks fren

[Anonymous No.15601344]

>>15601328
Dennett is the only person in the field that actually praises the work being done by the IIT folks. Everyone else shits on them.

[Anonymous No.15601353]

>>15599292
http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.15601377]

>>15601344
ok but Tononi explicitly states in his conference that consciousness isn't reducible to the material
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJyMmw2Thw

[Anonymous No.15601381]

>>15601353
based

[Anonymous No.15601397]

>>15601377
>>15601344
Tononi's method is explicitly the same as Husserl, Levinas, Michel Henry and Jean Luc-Marion of which they used rigorous phenomenological reductions to bolster Christianity (albeit not to "prove" like Aquinas or Augustine, but to reinforce)

[Anonymous No.15601407]

>>15601353
super based

[Anonymous No.15601457]

>>15601353
this remains based to this day

[Anonymous No.15601481]

>>15601377
IIT presupposes materialism. Whether or not the theory is correct, it's an attempt at a scientific reduction of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15601494]

>>15601353
>>15601381
>>15601407
>>15601457
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.15601501]

>>15601494
Zombies are NPCs.

[Anonymous No.15601505]

>>15601501
>Zombies are NPCs.

[Anonymous No.15601534]

>>15601505
>look at these pictures of someone haha he's ugly
NPC ad hominem tactics

[Anonymous No.15601537]

>>15601534
>classic NPC projection

[Anonymous No.15602274]

>>15601505
>>15601494
fat faggot

[Anonymous No.15602571]

>>15600199
>>15600329
So basically this is the same dumb view as a Buddhist would have, but even dumber since they at least have a weird metaphysical paradigm where you can not have a true self but be conscious and this is just materialism reduced ad absurdum? How did people think this guy or any of the Four Horsemen of Atheism (barring Chris Hitchens) weren't mouthbreathing retards?

[Anonymous No.15602658]

>>15599292
>consciousness ignored

[Anonymous No.15602670]

>>15600329
if you have to tell someone that they're not conscious you're obviously full of shit

[Anonymous No.15602681]

>>15600430
imagine the pure idiocy of denying the existence of the very thing by which your attempt to deny is made possible

[Anonymous No.15602687]

>>15602571
You sure seem eager to dismiss as a retard a professional philosopher whose work you haven't read. Dennett does deny an account of consciousness that he disagrees with. All metaphysics involves denying accounts one disagrees with. This doesn't mean denying the thing being accounted for, consciousness. Even as someone who disagrees with Dennett, calling it consciousness denial is pushing it.

[Anonymous No.15602690]

>>15601501

[Anonymous No.15602726]

>>15602687
Dennett is a retard. He actively denies that consciousness is a first person phenomena, something that not only every human being knows first hand , but he experiences himself as a part of being human. This is actually indefensible and you should be ashamed for defending this autism.

[Anonymous No.15602762]

>>15602726
Look all I'm saying is he has to have some really complicated conceptual motives to power such a radically autistic move and until we understand how they work we need to be careful. You can never trust philosophers to be completely retarded sometimes they activate sneaky trap cards at the last moment and flip your whole worldview 360 degrees. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.15602808]

>>15602762
This book was published like 30 years ago and still hasn't really given a good answer for why he believes what he believes. Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher, also shits on Dennett regularly (including on this book and Breaking the Spell) because he has a tendency to give dumbass answers to pretty much every philosophical problem he tries to answer that don't actually answer the question, but ignore it because it doesn't fit in with his materialist worldview. He's the definition of a one-trick-pony and a literal pseud. I don't even use that term lightly. It's kinda clear that his philosophical acumen is very questionable.

[Anonymous No.15602861]

>>15599292
Dennett is the definition of a pseud, Schopenhauer would have whipped his faggot ass

[Anonymous No.15602865]

>>15602861
based

[Anonymous No.15602892]

>>15602808
He does have some neat thought experiments like the where evil neurosurgeons switch up your optic nerves.

[Anonymous No.15602902]

>>15602571
>>15602726
>>15602808
>>15602861
Get a load of these pseuds who have never read Dennett. So funny.

[Anonymous No.15602914]

>>15602808
Nagel went off the deep end later in his career and turned into an anti-materialist moron. Dennett will always be one of the all-time greats.

[Anonymous No.15603125]

>>15599872
>Dennett believes your thermostat has thoughts.
I thought the whole point is we're so anthropocentric that we give inanimate things human motivations? How is that actually believing the inanimate has thoughts?
>>15599892
that's cute, and rather lovely way to be
>>15599946
Identifying other buffalo (whatever that means to a buffalo) doesn't meant that it considers itself a buffalo.
Sort of like when someone scoffs about simps, when they themselves are a simp. Both they and the buffalo lack enough self-awareness to classify themselves in the applicable and obvious category. Except the bufallo may not even have a concept of 'self'.

[Anonymous No.15603134]

>>15599877
Is he really wearing a stupid hat like he's David Hume or some shit?

[Anonymous No.15603143]

>>15602914
you are 17

[Anonymous No.15603144]

>>15603143
You are 11.

[Anonymous No.15603208]

if you cannot trust your own experience to know if you are conscious or not, how can you trust any evidence that "reality" (that you are experiencing) provides to determine if your consciousness is real or not?

[Anonymous No.15603215]

Why would I read a book by a literal p-zombie?

[Anonymous No.15603226]

>>15599877
Hume turban

[Anonymous No.15603238]

>>15603208
This is /lit/. Read the book and cite a specific passage that you take issue with.

[Anonymous No.15603322]

>>15602726
Nice question begging argument

[Anonymous No.15603468]

>>15599892
>>15599940
Even if it sounds a bit funny, i can imagine a world, where we treat even objects with respect would be much better than this. We buy stuff and then throw them away, and we do the same thing with people.

[Anonymous No.15603516]

>>15601353
I dont understand much of this, because i havent read about either side of this argument, but this Dennett guy seems like a zombie.

[Anonymous No.15603544]

>>15603468
Dog I'm at the point where I'd rather have people stroking their cars with affection and tucking in their phones at night compared to this shitshow. We treat each other shit, our food like shit, the stuff we buy like shit, earth is a fuck

[Anonymous No.15603623]

>>15603544
Maybe this is an universal problem. We actually dont care about anything at all. Always on the hunt for something new and better, eager to throw away anything that is just a tiny bit inferior. When did this begin?
Any literature about this topic Anons?

[Anonymous No.15603663]

>>15603623
with the dawn of consciousness, but has been accelerating the past few centuries. as for literature, I've always preferred more philosophical explanations, but here's a safe suggestion: Infinite Jest.

[Anonymous No.15603723]

>>15603663
Thank you! I will read it.

[Anonymous No.15603849]

>>15603238
The part where he denies qualia. Anyone who makes that claim can be immediately dismissed. Imagine if I came up with a long mathematical proof that 2 + 2 is actually 5. No one would even bother.

[Anonymous No.15603863]

heterophenomenology is an attempt to sidestep the mind-body problem through rhetorical sleight of hand using....testimony!

it's gay as shit

[Anonymous No.15604786]

>>15602902
>>15602914
Not an argument.

>>15603322
>Criticizing someone for denying an objective fact is begging the question
Pic related

[Anonymous No.15605721]

>>15603623
teilhard de chardin "the phenomenon of man"

[Anonymous No.15606171]

>>15604786
Claiming that dualism is true because dualism is true in an exchange where the truth of dualism is the very thing at question is absolutely question-begging you goddamn peasant.

[Anonymous No.15606241]

>>15603849
You have to go beyond the headline claims and engage with the actual arguments he presents. For example:

>In Dennett's updated version of the inverted spectrum thought experiment, "alternative neurosurgery", you again awake to find that your qualia have been inverted—grass appears red, the sky appears orange, etc. According to the original account, you should be immediately aware that something has gone horribly wrong. Dennett argues, however, that it is impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (by tampering with your optic nerve, say), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you would have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you are thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your "immediately apprehensible" qualia.

>Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience—for them to even make sense as a discrete concept—it must be possible to show that

> a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that
> b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.

>Dennett attempts to show that we cannot satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b).

Philosophy is not about taking certain 'positions' and disagreeing with others. It's about presenting arguments and engaging with counterarguments.

[Anonymous No.15606302]

>>15606171
No one is saying dualism or materialism are true or not. He says that consciousness is a third-person phenomena when it clearly is not. No shit he sounds like a retard saying that, no matter if you hold a materialistic or dualistic theory of mind.

[Anonymous No.15606325]

>>15606302
No, he isn't. Cite the passages you seek to contest, and then present your counterargument. Strawmaning him is not advancing your cause.

[Anonymous No.15606352]

>>15606302
There's some materialists with more self-respect than Dennett, among them Fodor, Dennett is fucked mainly because he's also a pragmatist so he has stupid ideas about truth like 'truth is what is useful' which is no better than verificationism, because it means denying that some things mean what they actually mean and substituting other meanings for them, that's the whole Rylean behaviorism crap he's about. Dennett's heterophenomenology is an outgrowth of his dependence on 'logical behaviorism' and pragmatism.

[Anonymous No.15606387]

>>15606352
>Dennett is fucked mainly because he's also a pragmatist so he has stupid ideas about truth like 'truth is what is useful'
Complete and utter bullshit. Dennett holds no such views on the nature of truth.

[Anonymous No.15606411]

>>15599877
I don’t understand Dennet’s talk about our brains being structure so that we can “know our place in the world”. Why does he assume that the human brain has any capacity for understanding the external world? All the examples he cites are examples of knowledge FROM the human perspective, the world as seen through human eyes and reason. Why should this be more “true” than the Buffalo’s world? Just seems like an unjustified exceptionalism.

[Anonymous No.15606465]

>>15606241
By fucking with the reliability of memory(by even suggesting that we need to *worry* about the possibility of this fuckery), Dennett is pulling some retarded epistemic memery that has less to do with qualia and more to do with knowledge in general. Trivially, if we fuck with the conditions of knowing, we cannot know. No shit, Dennett. Is Dennett asking us to show how we know that we experience, before accepting experience as a legitimate concept? Does this mean that Dennett subscribes to the principle of verification?

>for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience—for them to even make sense as a discrete concept—it must be possible to show that
>a) it is possible to know
It appears he is. How does Dennett think we come to know anything? Does Dennett want us to refute skepticism, an irrefutable theory? I am so confused.

[Anonymous No.15606486]

>>15600407
It's true though

[Anonymous No.15606536]

>>15606325
>Dude let's get into an academic debate over a 30 year old book that denies qualia even fucking exist
No. It's like arguing about that retard that thought 1x1 =2 because he felt so.

>>15606352
So in a sense, his theory of the mind is naturally going to be very flawed since he's naturally going to ignore things involving the human mind that he can't objectively verify using scientific methods (due to them being by their very nature subjective), so he changes the meaning and just runs with that.

>>15606387
His doctoral advisor was the same autist that came up with logical behaviorism, which categorically uses the assumption that the truth of mental states and the mind can be determined by behavioral concepts and ignore pesky things like the natural subjectivity of consciousness. Of fucking course he believes it from his dumb stances. This is the fucking guy that calls himself a "bright" for not believing in religion. He's a self-centered retard that is only famous because he's saying the stupid shit he has to say on a high pedestal, not because it's actually true.

[Anonymous No.15606645]

>>15606352
>stupid ideas about truth like 'truth is what is useful' which is no better than verificationism
Verificationism is not a theory of truth; it's a theory of meaning. Empiricism would be the theory that corresponds to pragmatism in your analogy.

[Anonymous No.15606688]

>>15606645
I don't think it corresponds with empiricism since empiricists don't (or at least shouldn't) try to explain things that their tools can't empirically test or explain, like the subjective aspect of consciousness (which is exactly what Dennett is doing here).

[Anonymous No.15606736]

>>15606688
Empiricists believe that your subjective experience is the only thing you can test or explain.

[Anonymous No.15606873]

>>15606465
You are definitely confused. Dennett has nothing to do with "the principle of verification". Read more.

[Anonymous No.15606886]

>>15606536
>His doctoral advisor was the same autist that came up with logical behaviorism
Nothing to do with truth as utility. Try again.

[Anonymous No.15607050]

>>15601353

Absolutely Christological.

[Anonymous No.15607069]

>>15599292
Dull and boomer feeling. From Bacteria to Bach is much better.

[Anonymous No.15607095]

>>15599892
Animism was the natural state of humanity for most of prehistory.