/lit/ - Literature

>>18873814
He just doesn't want to admit he's a dualist like Penrose and his quantum brain.

>>18873829
Care to go into more detail this is an interesting take

>>18873814
I am a scientific anti-realist to some extent so no.

>>18873814
If you deny the reality of conscious experience then I guess there isn't a 'hard problem'. But given that we only experience the world through consciousness, it seems rational to believe it exists.

>>18873854
What a stupid fucking thing to say

>>18873877
We have greater epistemological certainty that minds exists than that bodies exist. Any philosophy that claims that minds are illusory, as Dennett's does, should have very good reasons for doing so. But Dennett, being an idiot, is more interested in ideological pugilism than engaging with other philosophers; hence his turn to writing for the masses incapable of assessing his work philosophically.

>>18873905

I agree lol I just wanted you to respond and bump the thread

>>18873840
He somehow tries to salvage subjective human experience from raw determinism by saying that perception is not modelable, and thus somehow escape from mechanistic paradigms of human psyche.
Penrose does the same thing but instead of focusing on subjective experience, he tried to prove there ar certain mathematical operations a Turing machine (that's deterministic) cannot do and thus it implies human brain is not deterministic, therefore there must be some probabilistic mechanisms at work that salvage human mind from raw determinism.
Both ways they try to be dualistic without being dualistic because they can't leave the materialistic paradigm.

>>18873814
Looks like some plebs here dont even know about dual-aspect panprotopsychism

>open up skull
>no 1st person experience to be found, only wierd mushy substance
WTF did reality mean by this??

>>18873937

What even does this mean

>>18873814
Books on consciousness as a learned behavior and the idea my dog is just as conscious as I am?

>>18874070
Read his paper and be enlightened

>>18873814
wide dick dennett is influential but probably the worst philosopher tackling consciousness right now

he literally had the dumbest, most condescending "critique" of panpsychism I've ever heard.

His argument was basically "oooh, well what if I have a view called 'pan-niftyism', and claim that everything in reality is 'nifty', what does that add to your ontology?"

He doesn't engage with the position in any capacity.

His argument for consciousness as illusion is also retarded.

>>18874188
>consciousness is an illusion
"The world is an illusion, but it is an illusion that we must take seriously."

>>18873814
>is qualia bullshit?
What? It’s the only thing you ever experience

Somebody post the greentext of Dennet getting BTFO'd by Socrates.

>>18873829
>>18873919
What does question of free will has to do with consciousness?

>>18873905
you americans really should read some kant. Your philosophical discussions are like kindergaard fights

>BTFO Dennet
>BTFO out of Harris
>BTFO out of Phenomenologists
>BTFO out of Folk Psychology
>BTFO out of Humanists
>BTFO out of WILLtards
>BTFO out of Consciousness Hippies
>BTFO out of Indeterminists
>BTFO out of Continentals
>BTFO out of Analytics

>>18875618
no one takes you seriously

>>18875039

>>18875637
>BTFO out of appeals to sentiment

>>18875641
basado

>>18873814
Dennett is the most retarded "philosopher" to ever live no joke, i don't think i've ever heard any philosophical idea more fucking idiotic than "consciousness is an illusion", that's something only a literal philosophical zombie would say, it's impossible for any sane person with consciousness to deny it's real if they're not trolling or something, and if consciousness is an illusion who the fuck is it illuding? What the fuck? How can an illusion illude without an observer to illude? Who is observing my consciousness if it doesn't exist? Retardation

https://philarchive.org/archive/KEACDD

>>18874107
Summary?

>>18876078
>American's first contact with philosophy