/lit/ - Literature

Was he right?

>>12895552
>Dennett
yikes

>>12206596
I'm arguing specifically from the perspective of theory of mind. The only major scientific reductionist in philosophy of mind is Dennett; most figures lean towards some sort of middle ground, like Chalmer's panpsychism or Searle's property dualism. Even Parfit's reductionism, if one could call it that, is based more on logical inconsistencies with the concept of identity than what neuroscience has come up with so far. Personally I'm a fan of based Nagel.

>>12201035
>>12201600
the concept of free will has less logical paradoxes involved in it than the theory of a deterministic universe. the only way you can square modern neuroscience with theory of mind is to reject phenomenal experience outright (and this kills science). property dualism is still dualism; and hylomorphism doesn't solve the interaction problem. only proper approach is agnosticism.

>>11347045
Why do people never mention the GOAT skeptic? Also, why do people meme Dennett but not Parfit? These are the true mysteries of our time

>>11278668
for: Chalmers
against: Dennett
skepticism: Nagel

>>10940164
>contemporary philosophy is non-sense
Some of it is, for sure. But all? You aren't reading the right books then, OP. There's plenty of good work being done.

*blocks your path*

>>10842721
*blocks ur path*

>>10833675
My Nagel