/lit/ - Literature

"Quining Qualia" is actually a fun read. It has a lot of nice thought experiments underlining the hardness of the hard problem of consciousness. Dennett perfectly manages to lose a fight against his own strawmen.

>>22650470
Not a strawman.
Read 1. And 10.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Illusional

>>22650572
That wiki article merely mentions Dennett's position because it is one of many and has gained some attention. How does this make Dennett's "arguments" less of a strawman?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Djqk-RexNFs&pp=ygUHRHVhbGlzbQ%3D%3D

Start around 730

Guys a complete clown. Denies consciousness exists but eternally dances around outright stating it (because it's absurd). Asserts his view is the rational only acceptable position and psychologizes anyone who thinks differently as a regressive making up stuff for fame and money.

He's a joke and always has been. The guy literally agrees with Keith frankish style strong illusionism - the most retarded idea in the history of philosophy.

Remember this is one of the guys who went around calling himself a "bright", did a million speaking tours with Dawkins and fag Harris pushing some gay new atheism and now he's old and going to die and it's for the best :)

I can only imagine that I read him. Nobody has actually read him, that wouldn't make any sense.

>>22650436
I can only imagine I read what his imagined imaginings are

>>22652152
>Denies consciousness exists but eternally dances around outright stating it
Pic related is another eliminativist that denies consciousness exists. Despite this, he has written numerous essays on how to reduce suffering, despite denying the existence of phenomenal suffering.

https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether

>>22652572
How can someone be so “intelligent” (in terms of verbal and analytical intelligence and some knowledge of philosophy of mind, cognitive philosophy, and neuroscience) yet so dumb?

I feel mindfucked reading this intelligent idiocy on display. It’s like they can’t see the most obvious and significant rebuttal of their beliefs that even the average guy on the street can make, so central and obvious it’s hard to miss, but will obfuscate it with intellectual bullshido and throwing stuff at you like “Cartesian theater”, “homunculi,” “user illusion” etc. as a sort of gish-gallop to overwhelm you with their own pseudo-“intelligence”.

>Whatever processes cause a philosophical zombie to earnestly think to itself things like "I have a visual experience that's not just data representation in an algorithmic system" can explain human consciousness as well, because humans are zombies.
Yes, I’m almost starting to believe this is possible — about the “authors” and “thinkers” who write these types of papers. Scare-quotes because according to their own contention, they don’t even exist.