is he the dumbest person alive?

[Anonymous No.17325505]

[Anonymous No.17325507]

>>17325505
no, that would be me

[Anonymous No.17325511]

Duh

[Anonymous No.17325528]

>>17325505
Not even the dumbest in analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.17325555]

>>17325507
highly based

[Anonymous No.17325559]

>>17325505
no hes fine

[Anonymous No.17325563]

that's not rupi kaur

[Anonymous No.17325573]

>>17325505
Lol, this guy is a massive midwit. A professional pseud who LARPs being a Philosopher kek.
>>17325507
Not unless you're actually Butterfly desu.

[Anonymous No.17325598]

>>17325507
Based and low-iq pilled

[Anonymous No.17325622]

>>17325528
Who is dumber?

[Anonymous No.17325667]

>>17325505
Who?

[Anonymous No.17325737]

>>17325667
Daniel Dennett

[Anonymous No.17325749]

[Anonymous No.17325829]

>>17325749
Kek

[Anonymous No.17325839]

>>17325505
Use a knowledge pump. Imagine a dumb guy. Now take that one parameter - dumb - and pump it to the maximum you can imagine. What do you get? Daniel Dennet. Now do the opposite and pump it to the minimum. What do you get? OP. many insights can be had this way. This is one of the tools I learned from Daniel Dennet.

[Anonymous No.17325848]

>>17325749
most NPCs believe in free will lol

[Anonymous No.17325872]

>>17325505
Took me way too long to realize that wasn't Letterman

[Anonymous No.17325903]

>>17325848
There's no strict determinism therefore free will exists and you used to post in this thread. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.17325910]

>>17325505
Test

[Anonymous No.17325924]

>>17325903
It couldn't have happened any other way jej

[Anonymous No.17325971]

>>17325505
No, that would be Lawrence Krauss.

[Anonymous No.17326163]

>>17325749
Imagine an anon so retarded that he thinks Dennett is denying the existence of consciousness. Imagine an imageboard full of them, seething at their inability to understand simple concepts.

[Anonymous No.17326166]

>>17325848
they're coping

[Anonymous No.17326519]

>>17326163
seething npc

[Anonymous No.17326572]

>>17325505
I'd argue Sam Harris is an even worse public philosopher, but Dennett is still somehow below Steven Pinker.

[Anonymous No.17326836]

>>17325505
Philosophers as a group are fools

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17327367]

>>17325505
OP looks just like Daniel Dennett

[Anonymous No.17327393]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't just be allowed to kill Daniel Dennet, shoot Daniel Dennet in the head, torture him, etc. Clearly the principle of charity should lead us to conclude that his belief in the unreality of qualia is genuine; and the most rational explanation for that belief is that he is himself unable to experience qualia, that he is himself unconscious. Murdering, torturing, or causing him damage should not therefore be seen as an immoral act, because it is the equivalent to torturing any non-conscious being such as a plant. Any behavioural responses he might display while he is being tortured should not be considered in moral terms such as pain and suffering, because they are simply the effects of biochemical functions in his brain, and do not point to any inward painful experience. Clearly if something does not have a mind, like Dennet apparently does not, then we should not afford it any moral consideration.

[Anonymous No.17327412]

>>17325505
pseudointellectual cryptokike

[Anonymous No.17327422]

>>17326163
Dennett is a faggot precisely because the logical and inevitable conclusion of the science he references is that free will, consciousness, and the individual self are illusions created by the brain, yet he shirks from publishing such a conclusion because he wants to sell books and be liked by the faggot establishment, who demand trite feelgood bullshit that confirms all their deeply-held beliefs about myths like free-will, equality, and human rights.

[Anonymous No.17327435]

>>17325507
WHy do we keep on winning retard bros?

[Anonymous No.17327442]

>>17327412
post-intellectual psuedokike-cryptoid.

[Anonymous No.17327499]

>>17327422
This, tbqhwydesu.

[Anonymous No.17328463]

>>17327422
Dennett makes his claims as simple to understand as it gets, all you have to do is read him and not a bunch of seething retards who don't even know what he's about

[Anonymous No.17329800]

>>17325505
Dennett is an NPC

www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.17329809]

>>17325505
https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/08/06/that-time-daniel-dennett-took-200-micrograms-of-lsd/

>Yes, you put it well. It’s risky to subject your brain and body to unusual substances and stimuli, but any new challenge may prove very enlightening–and possibly therapeutic. There is only a difference in degree between being bumped from depression by a gorgeous summer day and being cured of depression by ingesting a drug of one sort or another. I expect we’ll learn a great deal in the near future about the modulating power of psychedelics. I also expect that we’ll have some scientific martyrs along the way–people who bravely but rashly do things to themselves that disable their minds in very unfortunate ways. I know of a few such cases, and these have made me quite cautious about self-experimentation, since I’m quite content with the mind I have–though I wish I were a better mathematician. Aside from alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and cannabis (which has little effect on me, so I don’t bother with it), I have avoided the mind-changing options. No LSD, no psilocybin or mescaline, though I’ve often been offered them, and none of the “hard” drugs.

[L No.17329811]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17329824]

>>17327422
brains don’t create abstract principles. those things are illusions of the mind only...

[Anonymous No.17329903]

Brian Tomasik is another NPC that denies the existence of consciousness.

http://magnusvinding.blogspot.com/2015/08/my-disagreements-with-brian-tomasik.html

> Many of my disagreements with Brian have common roots, and the core root is our disagreement about the nature of consciousness. Brian denies that consciousness exists. To say that this strikes me as confused would be an understatement. But not only does Brian deny consciousness, he also seems to embrace a strangely postmodernist view of it, namely that it's ultimately up to us to decide whether some process is, in Brian's words, “what we call conscious” or not. For instance, when asked about whether he thought that a given kind of computer was conscious, Brian responded: "I personally wouldn't call it conscious, although it's up to you where you want to draw the line."(see: https://youtu.be/_VCb9sk6CTc?t=1h4m).).

> “It's up to you where you draw the line”? A similar quote: “We can interpret any piece of matter as being conscious if we want to, […]”

> So Brian clearly views consciousness as something that is entirely up for interpretation. What this implies is that it is perfectly valid to draw the line at ourselves, and then “decide” that solipsism is true. Or to draw the line at humans – or Caucasian humans for that matter – and say that only we are conscious.

> Usually we just observe the world as “the world” rather than as “the world in consciousness” – much like when we watch a movie as “what is happening” rather than “what is happening on the screen” – and from that perspective consciousness can easily be thought of as something that is not real. Yet upon a closer observation of consciousness, the naivety of this naive realism becomes clear, along with the realization that it is naive realism that is the clever illusion created by our brain – a cleverly manufactured movie appearing on a screen that we almost never notice, and whose reality some even deny.

> Is Brian simply missing the screen? I don't know what it's like to be Brian, but I suspect he might be. He might even claim that there is no screen, only “information processing”, and that consciousness is all a user created illusion. But this is a claim that is derived entirely from consciousness in the first place. Without consciousness, we could not know about "information processing", or anything else, in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17330025]

>>17325903
there actually is strict determinism. free will still exists