/lit/ - Literature

>>16638824
Remember this really weird passage from deneet were he compares critics of the gene centered view of evolution with derrida and the deconstructionists(?!). Far more interesting is the whole. Other nexus phenomenology Embodied enactive cognition, emergent consciousness autopoiesis maturana varela and niklas luhman systems theiry and the gaia hypothesis.

>>16638824
Oh great another pleb who knows fuck all about Dennett making a thread about Dennett.
In order to understand Dennett you need to have a firm grasp on the analytic positivist and behaviorist circles that he is the continuation of. He was a student of Ryle himself. But I'll make it simple for you:
>humans = tool-using animals
>language = tool
>language regarding qualia = incorrect use of tool (talk about a "soul" or "grotto subjectivity" might be grammatically correct but is semantically meaningless)
>there is only action/behavior
>language is the intersubjective tool devised by evolution to arbitrate momentary breaks in action
>as such, it is accessible to any rational investigation of it
>talk of "private" spaces of subjectivity are misuses of a tool
>cue endless consternation of immaterialist brainlets who don't even have a bachelor's degree in philosophy desperately making strawman memes of Dennett from that half-remembered paragraph of Chalmers they once read on a wiki which they vaguely intuited as btfo-ing Dennett

>>16638824
Dennett doesn't argue that subjective experience doesn't exist. He might say something like "qualia don't exist" to be provocative, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. In the exact point in the book where he says that, there is a reference to his article, "quining qualia" in which he argues that qualia aren't what they seem when you examine them closely enough, which pretty much bullied every serious philosopher in the field into dropping the term or adopting some sort of carefully constructed "diet qualia". To conclude, OP is a faggot and he got filtered.

>>16638898
>>16638920
I think I'm going to continue being a type-F monist. Enjoy your qualia-less experience.

>>16638824
This is why the arguing about whether souls are real.

>>16638824
What's wrong with arguing that qualia doesn't exist? It seems that you supernaturalists can't refute the objections to qualia itself.

>>16638952
qualia is literally ALL i have direct access to
to accept the existence of anything else, you have to accept qualia

>the objections to qualia itself.
name one (protip: u can't)

>>16638898
Based

>>16638898
You may not have qualia, you hylic, but some of us do.
>Only the material is real, it's all that matters.
Imagine basing your entire ontology around the flaming shitbag that is Yaldaboath's material world.

Husserl was correct. Phenomenology is the base of all things, and that includes natural sciences.

>>16639191
All Gnostics and Kabbalhists should be force fed seroquel until their delusions dissipate.

>>16639201
Sounds like something an Archon would suggest. You may have raped Eve and planted your seed in her, but Norea escaped you in occlusion. We are the Seed of Seth. The Unconquerable Race. Begone!

>>16639191
>>16639229
Based Gnostic schizos always btfoing knuckle dragging positivists. The only good Christians.

Everything is qualia. This itself is qualia. You can’t subtract its essence from our experience without losing the experience. It’s hard to prove but harder to avoid its necessary presence.

>>16638898
A tool for which ontological system? How was such a system arrived at? Each person uses language in significantly unique ways. To say it’s the same tool for everyone, for every culture?

just a reminder that there is empirical data for qualia (litteraly all data you get). its not a supernatural thing. if you are disregarding it, you are disregarding empirical data so your model is at fault and your worldview is unscientific.

>>16638941
>Enjoy your qualia-less experience.
Thanks, I will. Hope you read up on why this phrase is not self-contradictory, I gave you the pointers. That article reads like a slog, but it's worth it.

>>16638898
Holy gay I will never read any of that
No God though. If you believe in God you are simply coping. Your thread sucks. Cope harder

>>16638824
>they dont exist

so philsophy and neuroscience has catched up to 3000 year old spiritualism.

it´s pretty basic shit anon.
this happens often.
chakra was discovered before we knew we had nerves and an central nervous system for example.

>>16638898
>no, I'm purposely autistic

>>16638824

Dennett's work is much more popular in circles that include people like Sam Harris than in circles that include serious philosophers of mind. This isn't even to say that serious philosophers of mind disagree with him on this-or-that topic, it's just that his views are not all that well motivated. He also spends so much time arguing against Chalmers it's unbearable..

>>16639191
>dualist
>calling anyone else a hylic
You literally believe that you're a soulless husk incapable of feeling and that something else has to be putting thoughts in your head, dude. Dennett is dumb but at least he thinks he's capable of thought. You don't even think you're capable of thinking, something else has to do the thinking for you!

>>16638898
>humans = tool-using animals
Which part of the human contains the animal quality?

What do you guys think of The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose?

>read Consciousness Explained
>it didn't feel like anything

Qualia debunked.

>>16640426
Chakras aren't nerves or the CNS. They abstractly correspond to organ clusters but they don't exist until you construct them through metaphysical practice. Different systems actually have different energy-center models, and place them in different areas. In reality you can construct any sort of energy body you want. People just stick with traditions because they don't want to waste a lot of time, or get into something no one else can relate to.

>Qualia debunked.

>>16638824
Dennet is a hack.
Has always been throughout his life.

>>16640785
>Implying

>>16638898
lel you rpoove dennett is a hack

>>16638952
Because the existence of qualia is self evident.

There's no opposite to qualia. The idea that there is is an old superstition.

>>16638898
read Heidegger

stop wasting your life

>>16638898
literally every single thing you listed is unsubstantiated and disagreeable

>>16641852
literally this
what kind of NPC do you have to be even go against this lmao
it's the homosexual agenda isn't it? homos need to deny qualia cause no qualia = no god so no god = no catholicism meaning infinite gay sex due to no morality, Lol

>>16638862
>Other nexus phenomenology Embodied enactive cognition, emergent consciousness autopoiesis maturana varela and niklas luhman systems theiry and the gaia hypothesis.
Dude what.

>>16638898
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Oh, look, another whiny shitposting thread that has nothing to do with literature

Dennett is the Greta Thunberg of cognitive science. You could be an accomplished scientist in geological research and have some half-wit as the spokesperson. Dennett contributions are that dreams don't exist and that the brain doesn't fill-in (spoiler: it does).
If you want to get anywhere in Philosophy of Mind you have to put up with this fake scientist's literature and his senile boomer ravings of spaghetti monsters at conferences.

>>16642524
>the brain doesn't fill-in
What do you mean?

>>16642540
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling-in

>>16639229
fuckin based

>>16642571
Fascinating. Thanks.

>mental states aren't real, you're just imagining them
>you're not having dreams, noooooo
Thank you for your contribution, behaviorist.

>>16638952
>supernaturalists
what does that thing in your head feel like, i wonder?

>>16642372
It's a bot

>>16641096
Microtubules make sense for how human minds collapse the wave form and think about multiple things at once unlike a computational computer.

>>16642695
Wow this is Dennet’s position? What a fucking lonely now retard

>>16642524
>Dennett contributions are that dreams don't exist and that the brain doesn't fill-in (spoiler: it does).
Would be awesome if you gave some references, because I'm fairly convinced it's a result of you misinterpreting what he wrote. I know Dennett as having a pretty firm grasp on cognitive science, he wouldn't invent such bullshit.

What if I think "qualia" can ultimately be measured we just dont have the tools to do so yet?

>>16639678
Well, you read like a fag.

>>16640883
All of it.

>>16641096
I don't know that one, but I've watched the 2000 animated Disney film 'The Emperor's New Groove'. Are they related?

>>16642306
>humans aren't tool-using animals
k bud, whatever makes your ego feel better.

>>16644687
I am a fag, thanks for asking. You, however, are a dummy. Please make use of the resources I provided to elevate yourself out of dummydom, you're the only one who can do it!

>>16644845
I'm not a dummy >:0

>>16639229
based

>>16639229
Absolutely based.

>>16638898
Based

>>16642581
>perserve
>just worshipping the Monad, another Demiurge

>>16641096

Doesnt explain Qualia, but how the brain can operate non-computatational processes. If you want a "credible" attempt at a quantum model of the mind that addresses qualia, look at the holonomic model of memory by Pribram.

>>16638898
Based retard.
>>16639229
Based genius.

>>16638898

> "I like the red in this painting anon, it is very striking"
UNLAWFUL USE OF LANGUAGE
> "It feels cold outside, I'm shivering can you hold me?"
UNLAWFUL USE OF LANGUAGE
> "I know I said just the tip, but it felt too good, I have to stick it in the whole way"
UNLAWFUL USE OF LANGUAGE

>>16638898
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80AovwgVY8Q

>>16645412
>> "I know I said just the tip, but it felt too good, I have to stick it in the whole way"
Now that's definitely using language as a tool, other examples as well, but not as obviously.

>>16642581
What if Gnosticism itself is just a kind of controlled opposition thing invented by the Demiurge to further increase our collective sorrow?

>>16639229
Larp

>>16638824
>>16647367

>>16645614

>>16644694
The entire human be purely animal, for how could they use tools?

>>16647473
cannot be*

>>16638824
Of course qualia exists. Its existence just doesn't in any way, shape, or form imply that anything beyond the biological is occurring.

>>16638920
>closely enough
Zoom in and you'll see reality? Reality is the whole.

>>16647507
based retard

>>16638898
BOOBA

>>16638898
>(talk about a "soul" or "grotto subjectivity" might be grammatically correct but is semantically meaningless)

What makes you think so, Agent Smith?

>>16646266

Distinguishing the advent of the Victor from the misery of Atonement is difficult because they are not even adjacent but superimposed. Though the latter is neither Rational nor Scriptural, if you were to nonetheless believe it then, indeed, no major difference between it and the former would impose itself onto you, and I maintain that no major difference exists at all save for the Subject. Be crucified from the outside-in and the bottom-up and eaten by Yaldabaoth, or from the inside-out and the top-down and self-detonate inside his stomach.

why are humans so arrogant. you are nothing but a falling rock. your trajectory is just as much of a mystery to you as the rock's trajectory is to the rock

just fucking think for a second. what are you? really. your name. your thoughts, your feelings? they are just the outside world dancing, reflecting off of your mind. your mind is nothing more than a house of mirrors. your will is not controlled by you. the decisions you make are determined by the options that present themselves and your previous experience. are you so arrogant that you would deny the process by which the world shapes your so called soul?

>>16638898
>>as such, it is accessible to any rational investigation of it

everything is right before this step

why is it important for physicalists to deny qualia?

>>16650520
no one seriously denies qualia in the sense of experience, they deny the term because it is way too general, lumps a bunch of mental process together and asks for a single explanation for a complicated mechanism. it's just a vague term which is unhelpful in understanding the mind and our ability to percieve our perceptions

>>16650688
still reeks a little of positivism. I cant answer that so ill pretend the word youre using makes no sense or is "unhelpful"

>>16650434
says the man who arrogantly claims all this
the absolute state of you retards is fascinating

>>16650714
it's like saying saying "explain the earth". what the fuck do you mean? The chain of cause and effect that leads to its existence? why it has life? how the ecosystem works? there are some pretty good answers for each of these individual questions. "explain qualia" is stupid because it is similar in its lack of clarity. Neuroscience is a relatively new and rapidly advancing field, we are just now learning all sorts of things about the brain and beginning to understand how stuff like sensation works.

>>16650807
you are arrogant because you believe you are above the entire universe, separate from it. I am arrogant because I believe i have a more realistic approximation of our minds than you. which of us is more arrogant???

>>16650973
We're both equally arrogant, you dimwit. Who are you determine this?
>we're all le made from stardust, broo
>nothing matters, enjoy life, yolo
Shut up, or go back, and you know where to.

>>16650979
I never said that nothing matters, only you know what matters. that is your will. however, it is certainly more arrogant to presume that you have some immaterial soul or whatever caveman cope you schizos come up with to feel better about dying

>>16651006
Your worldview implies nihilism, you dolt.

>>16651008
lol maybe for you. try building something for yourself for once

>>16651025
>bro make your own meaning even though we go to nothingness and ultimately nothing matters
the absolute state of you hacks
at least you won'tf orce your worldview of "objective" ethics that exists inside this framework on me, right? if you are, then you're more of an imbecile than i thought

>>16651046
"ultimately" you mean when the universe ends? when you die? tomorrow? fool. objective ethics. fool. I have only my ethics, which I believe are the best, which is why I chose them. you build your house on a solid foundation. In a one hundred or one thousand years that foundation will have crumbled and vanished. does that mean I should not build my house on it? we do the best we can with what we have in a given moment. that doesn't make it any less useful to us in that moment.

>>16651107
keep coping
at least you aren't forcing your views on me, so i respect being partially consistent

>>16650688
>>16650942
/thread

The qualia debate helps no one other than disingenuous folks who are just looking for ways to weasel in their impractical, unfounded views onto modern science.

>>16651121
Cope

>>16651117
cope is believing that you are anything more than a rock rolling down a hill. do you fear the bottom of the hill so much that you must pretend otherwise?

>>16651139
>your idea of cope is wrong, but mine is right
keep coping, dumb nihilist

>>16651117
>>16651136
>>16651145
"cope" isn't an argument, come back when you're 18+

>>16650714
>the term is too vague to be useful so we shouldn't use it
I dunno man, that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to me.

>>16651150
No, it's nihilist teens like you that should come back when you're 18+.
If, unfortunately, you're over 18 years old and still hold on to this world view, you should in any case go back to other places which are more fit for people like you, namely reddit and the like.

not relevant since pic was published

>>16651145
you've already created your own meaning, follow your own will. You just refuse to acknowledge it as your own. you and I are more alike than you would like to believe.

>>16651210
Certainly. We both find different meanings, it's just that mine is more coherent than yours. At least you indirectly admit that we're also both arrogant (equally arrogant, at that, since nothingness implies absolute freedom in a sense that you don't worry about eternal damnation, potential duties, a fixed role in life which you must follow etc.).

>>16651221
more coherent? you spend so much energy justifying and concocting overly complicated explanations for your meaning when a much more elegant answer will suffice.

>>16651275
spirituality answers one question and creates 10 more. This is why it requires faith to implement, because it doesn't really explain much, but it does numb the fear and pain.

>>16651158
>no u
Also, I'm not a nihilist simply for acknowledging the impracticality of asserting that qualia implies something other than a biological function is at work when we see color and react a certain way to it.

>>16647473
>>16647478
With their thumbs.

>>16651167
Thanks for the only recommendation itt

>>16651121
Agreed. Long as the laundry-list of fashionable targets is when you take the long view, it's always the same fucking tactic of larping misrepresentation. They know what they're doing, but are otherwise oblivious to how tiresome they are.

>>16639541
What the fuck is an ontological system you absolute pseud?

>>16652821
The thumb, then, is an animal? Or perhaps you would like to say that man is both a tool and an animal?