/lit/ - Literature

>>18376149
Dan Dennett is alright, just look at who he argues against then read their books

>>18376149
>>18376191
Dennett is probably the biggest retard in philosophy since the logical positivists.

>>18376225
only by the synopsis I expected to be a kind of evolutionary psychologist, something I'm kind of biased but haven't completely rejected
have you read it?

>>18376247
Yes, I have read his popular books and his papers too, they are extremely stupid.
http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

Instead read
>The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David Calmers
>The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose

>>18376149
Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience by Bennett and Hacker

>>18376149
Start with Plato's works on the soul. Then move to Aristotle, then the rest of the platonists and so on until you reach just before descartes. You've now read everything worthwhile on philosophy of mind.

>consciousness ignored

>>18376284
was looking for this one but couldn't find it, thanks a lot!
>>18376286
i've read theaetetus and parts of the republic, don't know which books are primarily concerned about the mind, but still i doubt the whole "remembering stuff you somehow already knew" will satisfy me, the theory of forms suggests no progress and generations of meaning and things, and if it does allow this ones, an amor fati, which is a beautiful cope but doesn't answer anything for me, like the problem with identity, biological determinism, and such

>>18376286
Imagine

>>18376149
you are subhuman garbage and you need to kill yourself asap. never post here again.

>>18376149
the way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities

>>18376149
I'm doing research in phil of mind. I only got into the field ~5 years ago, so I had a lot of reading to do to catch up.

There's a good intro by Kim (called Philosophy of Mind) but it's very analytical and starts off with technical material which might put you off. You can probably find the same stuff in SEP and IEP in a more easily digestible style. I would read IEP articles on main topics (physicalism, dualism), then read more detailed articles on concepts like mental causation and qualia. Get an overview of the vocabulary and arguments.

Dennett and Chalmers are basically arguing for two opposing views, and aren't really introductory books. However if you read them both, you'll be able to make up your own mind. Ignore this moron >>18376225 he posts the same picture and link in every consciousness thread but cannot actually engage in the topic. He is a religious nut who hates Dennett for his atheism work.

Also Penrose is VERY fringe stuff, so again ignore that poster. This is stuff you can read AFTER you understand the core concepts and arguments. Some of this you will do by reading original papers as well, like Epiphenomenal Qualia by Jackson.

There are also some "scientific" books, like >>18376284 , but (and Chalmers will tell you this) they are working on a different problem i.e. the empirical question, not the philosophical question. These tend to discuss the biology of consciousness rather than consciousness itself.

For an entirely different approach, consider looking up some phenomenology. I don't find it very satisfying because it is mostly an exercise in categorising and describing experience.

>>18376439
thanks a lot! should i start with 20th century phenomenology like Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty?

also what kind of research are you doing, are you a philosopher?

>>18376439
1. I am an atheist, retard
2. The only time I posted in a /lit/ consciousness thread was a wall of text response to someone which I has to split into 2 posts.
3. Penrose WAS fringe stuff 20 years ago but not anymore. Plenty of neuroscientists are taking him seriously since 2014 and he has garnered a lot of attention among philosophers recently as well. Keep up with the times, old man.
4. Stop pretending to be an enlightened """reasonable centrist""", you just make yourself look like a spineless fool.
Imagine being so pathetic that the only way in which you can argue is to pretend that everyone with a similar position is the same person. Rent free.

>>18376458
Start with Husseirl for continental side but I would prioritize the anglos, that moron is right about Epiphenomenal Qualia being a good introductory reading.

>>18376439
>There are also some "scientific" books, like >>18376284 # , but (and Chalmers will tell you this) they are working on a different problem i.e. the empirical question, not the philosophical question.
Not that book. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience is focused on philosophy of mind, though it is co-authored by a neuroscientist. It directly engages philosophers like Searle, Chalmers and Dennett. It also argues that the mind cannot be reduced down to physical phenomena.

>>18376149
Consciousness Explained is a great book that collects a lot of important empirical data and brings attention to some points that are definitely worth keeping in mind as you read further about consciousness (of course the title is a lie, but it does advance your understanding unlike most books on the topic). He's notoriously shit at explaining his points though (even the order of the chapters is somewhat illogical) so you'll need quite a bit of effort to get at them. It filters nearly everyone who reads it (you'll recognize them by posts like "hurr durr Dennett denies the existence of consciousness" - he doesn't). In fact, I have yet to see an anon who read and understood it. The key to understanding Dennett's position of qualia is Wittgenstein, pay attention when he mentions him.

If you're serious about this, I can recommend The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, that's the best introduction that I found and you'll know where to go from there. For an excellent introductory course to philosophy of mind in general check out Philosophy of Mind - Brains, Consciousness, and Thinking Machines from TTC and other courses by the same guy (easily torrented).

>>18376485
>Penrose WAS fringe stuff 20 years ago but not anymore. Plenty of neuroscientists are taking him seriously since 2014 and he has garnered a lot of attention among philosophers recently as well. Keep up with the times, old man.
At the risk of you actually knowing what you're talking about, can you be more specific about who they are?

>>18376485
>>18376439
just read Epiphenomenal Qualia, pretty sound and easy going. I once did the same second thought experiment from the knowledge argument (the one of the lady that learned through black and white tv, different story though) to a friend and couldn't get my point across, will try to make him read this

>>18376493
just skimmed a bit of Philosophical Foundations and you sound about right, plus I could use more info about the general western philosophical canon

>>18376149
De Anima by Aristotle. Don't read anything written after 1900 it's all fucking garbage by positivists trying to force the square peg of subjective consciousness into the round hole of the modern scientific worldview that implicitly denies subjective experience

>>18376646
There's also a follow up book called Neuroscience and Philosophy where Dennet and Searle direclty respond to Bennett and Hackers arguments.

>>18376439
>he posts the same picture
You have to admit it is a pretty fun picture though

>>18376458
Like I said I don't know much about phenomenology but I wouldn't start with Heidegger. It's always best to start with a quick modern summary of the area (again, IEP or SEP).
I am a PhD student researching representational theories of consciousness.

>>18376485
>3. Penrose WAS fringe stuff 20 years ago but not anymore. Plenty of neuroscientists are taking him seriously since 2014 and he has garnered a lot of attention among philosophers recently as well. Keep up with the times, old man.
Wrong, in fact, since his Nobel Prize many more have criticized his philosophy. I doubt you read journal articles though, because at this stage attacking Dennett is a bit like attacking Chomsky for his linguistic work - done only by casual readers. It is also obvious you haven't read Dennett given your characterisation.
>4. Stop pretending to be an enlightened """reasonable centrist""", you just make yourself look like a spineless fool.
Oh I love the 4chan "NO YOU HAVE TO TAKE A SIDE FAGGOT!" response people post when they can't deal with nuance. Also I do have strong opinions, I just haven't posted them here because OP is LOOKING FOR AN INTRODUCTION not a fucking polemic, you prick.

>>18376493
Sorry I thought that was the Dehaene book.

>>18376646
>just read Epiphenomenal Qualia, pretty sound and easy going. I once did the same second thought experiment from the knowledge argument (the one of the lady that learned through black and white tv, different story though) to a friend and couldn't get my point across, will try to make him read this
There is much more to know, you just read some entry level stuff. This argument is widely regarded as flawed, Jackson himself disavowed it. You can check it out on SEP (the knowledge argument).

>>18376646
>just read Epiphenomenal Qualia, pretty sound and easy going. I once did the same second thought experiment from the knowledge argument (the one of the lady that learned through black and white tv, different story though) to a friend and couldn't get my point across, will try to make him read this
There's a quote in an article that says something like: someday there will be no more articles written about Mary's Room, but how much sooner that day will come than the heat death of the universe we can't be sure.

Basically there's a whole lot of writing on this topic, but most think it's not a good argument - Jackson himself now believes the argument to be flawed. But what is interesting is why our intuition thought it made sense in the first place

>>18376713
i'm not really smart, so i'll ask, what isn't sound about it? it basically means that just because you know the physical aspect about qualia it doesn't mean you've experienced it nor are you close to, plus experiencing qualia it's another whole "knowledge" if it makes sense

>>18376683
>Chomskyfag is also a p-zombie
Imagine my shock. Seethe more, it won't change the fact that you were refuted by a tiny amazonian tribe.
Neither of us has made a single argument about Dennett yet you say bullshit like
>It is also obvious you haven't read Dennett given your characterisation
because of a shitpost I made which contained a pretty straughtforward restament of things he HAS said.
>Consciousness is the brain's 'user illusion' of itself

This is the extent of philosophy you are capable off, Mr. PhD student. Now commit suicide, you are impossible to talk to, the stick is so far up your ass it is coming out of your mouth.

And you are so fucking retarded about Penrose. Of course there are more critics since the Nobel prize - he became like twice as popular after that. Doesn't change the fact that there are more and more people who agree as well. Not to mention very little of his work is concerned with orch OR. Like 95% of what he writes is a largely unbiased review of math and science which provide the foundations for the philosophical arguments in question.

>>18376576
>>18376757

>>18376761
I am not gonna spoonfeed you what you could find in 3 minutes by going to google scholar and looking and clicking on Hameroff's citations

>>18376713
The problem is all these philosophers have the problem backwards. Qualia are not the problem. Their fundamentally materialistic worldview is the problem. When you say the only things that have reality are those that can be quantified how is it surprising that you will find it impossible to explain phenomena that are qualitative and not quantitative? For the most part these people have been able to brush away all qualiatative phenomena like morality into the realm of mere opinion but they don't have the luxury of doing that with consiousness since we all experience it first hand and know of its reality prior to any empirical data fed through it. So consciousness will remain an eternal stumbling block for them not because qualia are hard to explain but because they've already ruled out apriori the possibility for phenomena that are not quantifiable or measurable in principle.

>>18376765
>Hameroff's citations
yeah you're full of shit

>>18376770
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=orch+or&btnG=
yeah, you can't into internet

>>18376773
>it's not a fringe theory because you can find it on GOOGLE SCHOLAR
what an assblasted ignoramus lmao

>>18376780
Fuck off, dyslexic cunt

>>18376780
I mean, one of the papers has nearly a thousand citations. AFAIK, the only other theory which gets more is IIT.

>>18376783
>a s s b l a s t e d
>>18376797
Citations != Impact. I've worked in a lab whose head had a paper with over >1000 citations. I can definitely tell you it didn't mean shit. Popularity is easier to gain than influence.

>>18376808
>what are different fields having different citation counts
>what is an abstraction

>>18376815
yes you poor brainlet if you make a cool sounding theory marrying physics, neuroscience and philosophy, you'll get plenty of citations from poor scholars who go outside their expertise, in fact this is exactly how my prof did it, baiting responses from those who don't know any better (and latching onto popular keywords)

>>18376831
Either show me a better measure of influence and show me 3 theories which surpass Orch OR in that regard or shut the fuck up

>>18376767
Coming from my (utterly ignorant on the topic) view
Is there really any issues with claiming that humans brains/mind, from nature's side, has a certain "shape".
Which inclines them similar behavior, when put in similar situations.

I mean when arguing for morals (or anything, really) from a materialist PoV

>>18376286
Pic related is a very well paced intro from a fairly big name in the field. It is survey level but very good. Covers the development of Western and Eastern mind body philosophy, many important thought experiments, information science, AI, and neuroscience. Absolutely excellent as an intro.

More on the philosophy side there is Jaworski, philosophy of mind. Then Mind and Conciousness 5 Questions has a great overview of big issues from the fields biggest names (Chalmers, Dennett, Hofstadter, Grim).

I actually don't know a great intro level neuroscience text. Any should be ok for background. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is a nice intro though, but you'll also need a textbook.

>>18376843
I am not gonna spoonfeed you what you could find in 3 minutes by going to google scholar and looking and clicking on Linus Pauling and his totally not fringe theories about vitamin C and cancer. Look at all these citations! And that was before the Internet and in just one field! And who the fuck cares how many of these citations are failed replications and criticism! Citations!

>>18376757
I never once said I agreed or disagreed with Dennett or Penrose (or Chomsky). I have not voiced any of my personal opinions, since this thread is about OP trying to learn something. I simply said what is better to start with before moving onto less well-known theories, since those require prior reading.

Your posts are worthless. You can't read. You misinterpret everything - books, messages, even simple statements. Angry little incel most likely. Maybe when you can deal with things maturely you;ll make some progress.

>>18376843
https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=global+neuronal+workspace&btnG=&oq=global+neuro
just off the top of my head (and it's a very young theory), it's not like I'll think too much, educating such a retard is a fool's errand

Have any of these people come close to offering a solution to the hard problem. I’m an atheist too and find denett to be very misguided

>>18376306
This is an incredibly bad misreading of the doctrines of recollection and forms.

Go read a Greek interlinear version, like the Loeb Classical Library. You will see that Socrates in the Meno etc does not identify knowledge with something you already know. In fact his position is precisely a rejection of the rationalist position that you already have in built knowledge. Rather he is saying that instruction/education in the sense of someone teaching you something is recollection. Mathasin is the word used, and does not mean knowing.

Similarly, the doctrine of forms does not suggest lack of progress. Why? Because the forms are not static universals, rather they are self-causing causes.

Neither of these doctrines are intended to deny novelty, but to reconcile novelty and objectivity.

I would suggest reading Lloyd Gerson.

>>18376149
Philosophy of mind as a whole is rather worthless unfortunately. As another anon already said, it's basically all about finding a way to ignore it, to put it aside, to explain it away, to cage it into some corner of a materialistic/physicalist world view where it can do no harm anymore. Most of these philosopher don't want their views challanged, but try to dumb the concept down until it fits in.
Of course I'm generalizing, but if you want to know about conciousness, you should read the German idealists (including to a degree what came before them and what followed).

>>18376534
>"hurr durr Dennett denies the existence of consciousness"
But isn't that actually one of the most common attack's on Dennett's philosophy within the field? I remember somebody linking a review/response to Dennett by Searle (I think).

>>18377159
>But isn't that actually one of the most common attack's on Dennett's philosophy within the field?
Not really. He actually bullied the field into being very careful about how they use the word "qualia". It's still controversial whether the term refers to anything, but you'll never be taken seriously if you just take some qualitative features / parts of phenomenal experience as self-evidently atomic and irreducible.
>I remember somebody linking a review/response to Dennett by Searle (I think).
I doubt that Searle would misrepresent Dennett this badly, they are both influenced by Gilbert Ryle so they should speak the same language to a large extent.

>>18377224
Ah, I found it:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/

>>18377377
I can see that Searle does claim that Dennett denies the existence of consciousness (I still think it's a misreading of Dennett). Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Any way to bypass the paywall? The discussion goes for a few articles.

This thread is so embarassing, i regret clicking on it. Time to filter the word Dennett I guess.

>>18376872
>unironically using the word incel
You should have done this earlier so I could have just stopped responding. You are a disgusting, brainwashed conformist monkey and you deserve the rope. Don't bother responding, your every post has been an embarrassment of an illiterate child.

>>18377377
>>18377430
On a quick glance you can tell that Dennett is being terse and dismissive, which is a frequent problem with him, he really doesn't give a fuck about getting through to accidental readers: "let me just state that Searle is missing the point, here's a reference to my article where you can learn all about it if you're interested, piss off"; he often displays this attitude, which doesn't do him any favors. I'll give this whole thing a closer reading when I get the time.

IMO most important thing to note is that "the term "quale" doesn't refer to anything intersubjective and doesn't make sense in scientific discourse, let's see how far we can get in a scientific theory of consciousness if we ignore this line of reasoning" isn't equivalent to "consciousness isn't real".

>>18376458
>>18376485
Holy fuck thank you.
All those unironic recommendations of Dennett this early in the day is a recipe for depression.
>>18376149
As for you, OP, start with this. A lot easier than the Ideens.

ill do you guys a favour. the hard problem of consciousness has been completely solved. don't read any of these pseuds. i actually have 0 clue what the fuck they are doing

philosophers to read:
1. bergson (initial solution)
2. langan (formalization)
3. bohm, fichte (some intuition for langan)

>>18376485
penrose has like... 5% of the picture, and that is being generous. he doesn't seem to understand what wave function collapse means, which is why langan is important

>>18376439
do you know any good stuff on the meta-problem of consciousness?

>>18377578
>the term "quale" doesn't refer to anything intersubjective and doesn't make sense in scientific discourse, let's see how far we can get in a scientific theory of consciousness if we ignore this line of reasoning
this is not a terrible position, but seems to be a methodological position as opposed to a metaphysical one

also has anyone heard of gordon pask and the stuff he's worked on consciousness? just shooting some piss out there, since i doubt there is anyone itt who has gone has fringe as i have

>>18378119
>>18377981
the thing about husserl is that it just provides constraints to be satisfied by any competent theory of consciousness. bergson actually provides the mechanism which generates intentionality

also, btw, does anyone have any ideas of what else i should comment on in the introduction to this document?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KGQUzrTWjUoMHAwP4R3WcYpBsOAiFyHXo7uPwWsQVCc/edit?usp=sharing

>>18378119
>this is not a terrible position, but seems to be a methodological position as opposed to a metaphysical one
A wittgensteinian approach to qualia is not concerned with metaphysics.

>>18378119
>langan
lmao

>>18378119
hot schizo take pal i cannot get enough

GEB of course. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it.

Really enjoyed this one, from a more "philosophy of neuroscience" perspective -

Also

>>18378289
this seems like the opposite of an approach though
>>18378388
i have this on the list. didn't know this talks about consciousness though?

>>18378537
>this seems like the opposite of an approach though
just looked up langan, sorry, I have mistaken you with someone who might have a clue

>>18376265
Chalmers is a hack though, hard problem of consciousness is the biggest joke in philosophy in a long time.
Dennett may be retarded overall but can be occasionally useful to combat those more retarded than him.

>>18378794
>this post was written by a p-zombie

Research Piercean semiotics first, it'll save a lot of time.

>>18377534
Sorry I missed your message, had to go out. I will respond, just to point out the irony in calling me a "disgusting, brainwashed conformist monkey" for using the word "incel" while also spouting /pol/-tier memes.

get ready fore some /x/ tier conclusions but actually well argued

>>18381605
The bicameral mind is a fun idea, especially in Westworld. But I don't know, does it really go far enough?

>>18376406
alright nigger

>>18376439
5 years and you really don't sound like you know much. The average 4chan poster knows what 'qualia' and 'physicalism' are.

>>18376149
This op

>>18378319
>>18378565
please explain to me in what reality "let's ignore qualia for now" is an approach to qualia. such an "approach" is especially unsatisfying when the likes of bergson and langan exist lmao

also check this article out. it connects early wittgenstein to langan
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332522714_Langan's_CTMU_and_Wittgenstein's_Tractatus_Contrasting_Metaphysical_Methods_or_God_versus_Language

also wtf is with these paid shills trying to dismiss langan without any justification. you niggers are not even trying. what is it because he talks about the existence of God? cosmopsychism isn't even extremely fringe now a days. seethe atheist trannies.

it's also amusing how you guys thought nothing about me mentioning bergson (who also sees the universe as a hologram and time being the core of cognition), bohm (who emphasizes the distribution of syntax) and fichte (who has a proto-supertautological structure for his metaphysical system)

>>18378935
fuck just realized i haven't touched pierce yet. if you are still there, any suggestions where to start?

>>18382209
>langan
lol

>>18377430
>Any way to bypass the paywall?
Sci hub

>>18382209
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/

Philosophy of Mind was solved by Hegel and Schelling 200 years ago.

>>18382008
Another illiterate 4chan user. Nowhere in that post does it state lack of knowledge.
Recommending someone beginner articles doesn't mean they're also beginners.
Jesus Christ this board is filled with literal monkeys.

>>18382008
>The average 4chan poster knows what 'qualia' and 'physicalism' are.
Knowing what these are isn't the same as understanding them in detail.

>>18383339
And how would you go about NOT understanding what qualia is? Assuming you are not a philosophical zombie?

>>18376225
>retard
>extremely stupid
This is how you spot an actual retard. Namecalling has no place in any conversation, and it does not make up for the inability to form a coherent counter-argument or dismissal.

>>18383288
How exactly?

>>18383398

Non anon but namecalling doesn't invalide arguments. I can make a perfect counter-argument and namecall too because people need to be aware that they're trash.

>>18383398
The irony is that you just implied 99% of 4chan users are retarded which, by your logic, makes you a retard. Oh wait...

>>18382209
>langan compared to real philosophers
lmfao

>>18383125
It's a magazine, not a sci journal, but I tried anyway. Doesn't work.

Any book that delves into the subconscious mind, archetypes, dreams, etc. without going full mystical? Apart from Jung I mean.

I don’t trust any philosophical work that says “new york times bestseller” on it

>>18376286
Hume and Kant refuted platonist phenomenology

>>18384269
Bumping for this.

>>18383398
> He thinks he is going to find civil discourse on 4channels
> Furthermore, on /lit/
> About Dennett
Adorable.

>>18385034
Bump

Consciousness? Lmao, read Wittgensteins private language argument and Sellar's book on Empiricism and Philosophy of Mind. You need to have an account of language before you can even start with the status of sensation and internal thought. Hint : You cannot refer to sensations using public language and private language is impossible.

>>18386180
>you need to have an account of language to understand subjectivity
Oh no no no ahahaha oh NO NO NO AHAHAHAHAHA

>>18386180
So when I tell the ladies, "your skin is so soft. I bet you put the lotion on it." I am not referring to the sensation of their skin being so soft? What about chewing?

>>18386250
Everything is behavior bro, get with the program

>>18386250
The sensation doesn't matter. If everybody had a different sensation of smoothness but called all the same things smooth, then language would chug on just as well as if they had the same sensation, or literally no sensation. Public words simply does not refer and cannot refer to private sensations.

>>18386180
>You cannot refer to sensations using public language
redness
there, I did it

>>18387101
>how you sense redness is the same as how I sense it

Oof.

>>18387160
trivial
If the call the same spectrum of light 'red', than it doesn't matter that you might be having a different sensation than mine, or none at all. I will still be consistent in my use when I refer to redness.

>>18387405
>If the
*If we

>>18376149
Dennet's take is by far the most comforting.

Anything else, especially theories that seat consciousness elsewhere than the material mind, open us up for s-risks. I wonder if the pans, the IITs, the dualists, etc, ever really think about that.

They always think consciousness is not solely dependent on brain structures... and that's a good thing! Realistically that could be a very, very bad thing. I want me and my sensations to go with my brain.

>>18387566
>dualists
>thinking
lol

>>18387405
Yes. So therefore the sensation is not being referred to by that public language, rather the publically accessible behavior and objects. Beetle in box scenario.

>>18381605
this was a fun thesis but the second half of the book is borrrrring

>>18383131
i can second this. excellent look at the symbol/meaning relationship

>>18383402
Absolute Idealism is the only real system of philosophy, mind and matter are two sides of the same coin.

>>18383288
It was actually solved by Adi Shankara (pbuh) in the 8th century

I've learned a lot from Richard Brown and his guests. He used to be half of a short-lived philosophy of mind podcast called Spacetime Mind. Really cutting-edge shit from time to time.

He was a small fish but lately he's been pulling guests like Chalmers and Chomsky.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ConsciousnessOnline

http://www.spacetimemind.com/episodes/

>>18386180
>muh private language argument
yeah this is what happens when ur semantics is fucking retarded. the meaning of words point to instruction for the conception of concepts. concepts may refer to behaviours. because we are the same species, we are recruiting the same cognitive resources in order to construct our concepts. the actual sensation of things is one of the resources involved.

when you decompose things along its semantic pipeline, and functionally correlate + causally place qualia (which you should do if you are not an epiphenomenalist retard), there is no private language problem

>>18387566
i also dislike dualism as it makes it far less likely that synthetic consciousness would be possible. however bergson's solution on this issue is genius

>>18383156
oh wow this article just made me realize peirce has a panpsychist metaphysics

>>18387855
>Absolute Idealism
ive only read schelling so far, but i think his system is missing something when it comes to merging mind and matter. like he just talks about recapitulation of matter's stags by mind, as well as placing mind as a higher potency (which i guess correlates to higher extropy)? this cybernetic understanding of finite organisms and mind is fine and all, but i think incomplete

i have only read a bit of hegel's introduction so my knowledge of him mostly comes from what neo-rationalists, pragmatists, and zizek have said about him (might not be the most faithful crowd). though afaik the phenomenology starts at sensation so it doesn't seem to try an investigate the relation between mind and matter in as systematic a manner

>>18387979
>instruction for the conception of concepts
*instruction for the construction of concepts
check our pietroski

>>18387566
>especially theories that seat consciousness elsewhere than the material mind, open us up for s-risks.
what are s-risks and why are they considered a problem?

>>18388040
Risks of long-term suffering.
As long as my perception of pain isn't solely a function of material conditions, anything is possible. Extended consciousness could hurt like a motherfucker, basically.

>>18376149
Couldn’t you google it?

>>18388284
>Extended consciousness could hurt like a motherfucker, basically.
what reason is there to think it would if here and now we only experience pain in connection with the body?

>>18388639
Phantom limb pain, dreams, mental illness, trans. Why do you think there isn't non-bodily pain?

>>18383335
You're the monkey, you just don't realize it. You lack the intuition to understand how mundane and easily stitched together a post like his was, devoid of any particular insight.

Just find a good book on panpsychism. It's the closest you'll get to anything logical.

>>18388740
Literally all products of neurology.

>>18384269
Last bump

>>18388639
Because I'm trying to reason that if properties of consciousness are not necessarily local, which ones?

If its some poorly defined product of perception, why not discomfort? None of these theories go into the the possibility of a negative valence that isn't tied to the brain.

>>18388740
Exactly. I wouldn't say all of your examples are relevant, as in things like phantom limb in my reasoning are just the brain processing remainders in the form of sites on the homunculus, so you could have all sorts of phantom pain so long as the brain's map of the area is intact.

What troubles me is a dualist, or at least a basic non-material theory of mind. Instead of asking "what's it like to be a rock?" or bat or whatever, they never ask "what's it like to be a phenomenal consciousness without a brain?"

Most people answer "well its like before your consciousness formed," but that explanation works for only an eternal sense of self, not an endless one. An endless sense of self could come into being and some point yet remain endless thereafter.

>inb4 its like being (You)

>>18388814
That's Dennett, though. I thought we was hating on him.

Hilary Putnam
Wilfrid Sellars
Richard Rorty
Martin Heidegger

>>18382022
based schizo

>>18376149
Whenever I hear people talk about Dennet as if people misunderstand him, I remember his horribly idiotic position on dreaming and how his philosophy forces him to take bold stances that are extremely unintuitive. He really did try to argue that you don't "experience" dreams in your sleep but just have false memories that you can bring up when you wake up. He got rekt by lucid dreaming lol.

https://iep.utm.edu/dreaming/

>>18388925
>what's it like to be a phenomenal consciousness without a brain?"
Boltzmann brain. And it probably sucks.

>>18388767
holy pseud

>>18388875
>properties of consciousness are not necessarily local, which ones?
pain isn't a property of consciousness though, it's something that consciousness is made aware of as its object, just like light and sound

>>18388925
>"what's it like to be a phenomenal consciousness without a brain?"
Pure thought without the limitations the material brain places on it. Your memory is perfect and you have direct intuition of the truth rather than indirectly getting there via sense information and discursive reasoning.

>>18382209
>bohm (who emphasizes the distribution of syntax)
where does he discuss this?