/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13156223]

Is Dennet an NPC?

[Anonymous No.13156402]

we can't know for sure :^)

[Anonymous No.13156450]

Everyone except you is a NPC, anon. You're retarded if you still haven't realized it by now.

[Anonymous No.13156455]

>You're not conscious!

[Anonymous No.13156456]

>>13156402
/thread

[Anonymous No.13156465]

he's an edgy materialist teenager stuck in a body of a 77-year old

[Anonymous No.13156467]

>>13156455
>2019
>shaking basedboy for the 2384723984th time
Cringe, retire this stupid mem already

[Anonymous No.13156472]

>>13156465
>materialism is wrong because it's edgy and teenagers like it brpajksaipofgoajfioasjdfajs
not an argument buddy

[Anonymous No.13156489]

>>13156467
>>13156472
fucking cringe

[Anonymous No.13156494]

>>13156223
p-zombie

[Anonymous No.13156681]

>>13156223
no, no, no. he's much worse. he's a thinking, conscious human being with a soul who is deluding himself into thinking that he doesn't have one. if only he would wake up, if only he would recognize his own spirit, then imagine what great things he could accomplish? imagine what songs he could sing?

[Anonymous No.13156733]

>>13156472
materialism is wrong because consciousness and mathematics exist
and since dualism is also wrong, matter does not

[Anonymous No.13156841]

>>13156733
>mathematics exist
Mark Colyvan - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (2012)

Anti-platonist position in mathematics: either fictionalism or metaphysical nihilism. The mathematics is a methaphor akin to the phrase “The owner of the motel is unhinged”. No real owner, motel or hinge need to actually exist here. Therefore, maths is fiction. Maths is like "Hobbit".

Moreover, mathematics is not necessary per se. We have data for successful usage of mathematical models in scientific journals, but no one would ever publish the failed attempts. "Survivorship bias" here.
Also: Hartry Field - Science Without Numbers

It is technically possible to do Newtonian physics without maths. More complex, but does prove that maths has no unique status and cannot pretend to be giving insights into some kind of Truth.

[Anonymous No.13156855]

>>13156841
insane ramblings, disconnected from reason.

[Anonymous No.13157012]

>>13156855
This is a recurring trend on this board. If it doesn't endorse some sort of Platonic-Guenonian magic consciousness juice materialism bad talking point, rather than engage with it the strategy seems to be "heh, fucking unenlightened moderns" rather than any sort of constructive critique or response. This is what the liberals you all hate so much do. Or Guenon when he's talking about Kant, come to think of it.

[Anonymous No.13157031]

>>13157012
>why can't philosophy just be whatever i want
>why does it have to conform to methods of deduction we've had for millennia

[Anonymous No.13157034]

>>13157012
>liberals
>doing anything but throwing a shitfit while moral grandstanding

Seriously you should recognize you guys have some things to work out.

[Anonymous No.13157049]

Dennet is a noob.

[Anonymous No.13157052]

>>13156223
kek is that supposed to be david chalmers on the right?

[Anonymous No.13157053]

>>13157012
>I'm just chemicals bro
Ok. What else is there to talk about once this is fact?

[Anonymous No.13157111]

>>13156841
>e mathematics is a methaphor akin to the phrase “The owner of the motel is unhinged”. No real owner, motel or hinge need to actually exist here. Therefore, maths is fiction. Maths is like "Hobbit".

This genuinely dumb. Sure, math, like any language, is constructed and can be replaced, restructured, and reimagined. But what math describes is unique to itself and builts off the schemas of human intuition. Just because you’re not using numbers, doesn’t nean youre nit doing math, which seems to be that which you’re suggesting, If there are two donuts in front of me, the quantity of 2 is not a fiction, although it is a construct that obe could find a infinite ways of expressing otherwise. Read Kant on the schames of the understanding.

[Anonymous No.13157211]

I’m not a materialist or sympathetic to Dennett’s views on consciousness but the responses in this thread are embarrassing. It’s purely some kind of culture war thing with half of you, and nothing to do with the earnest pursuit of truth. You dislike it because you associate it with a certain breed of people you dislike (and enjoy disliking). You don’t respect the ancients for their critical traditions, but for the fact they provide a foil to modern prejudices—which is fine and useful and noble, except for the fact that you are not really familiar (or interested in being familiar) with the nitty-gritty of the real thoughts of either ancients or moderns (if such a simple dichotomy is even tenable, when the ancients like us were so diverse in their schools of thought), and don’t engage with either on a charitable and critical level but only skate on the surface of caricature and political prejudice and vague emotional impressions. Rhetoricians.

[Anonymous No.13157254]

>>13157211
It's not embarrassing because the conversation necessarily ends once it is accepted that thoughts are nothing more than chemicals. Metaphysical materialism, ethical utilitarianism, and inductive logic/reasoning. No need to convolute it beyond these if this is what suits your fancy

[Anonymous No.13157355]

>>13157254
What do you mean ‘nothing more’ than chemicals? As in, we can perceive thought as a non-material experience and therefore non-material process / entity? Or that there is a concrete substance with moral value (e.g. spark of divinity) underlying thought?

[Anonymous No.13157402]

>>13156472
He wasn't making an argument

[Anonymous No.13157407]

>information exists entirely on material plane
>hurr durr it's non-material

[Anonymous No.13157415]

>>13156841
>>13157012

[Anonymous No.13157445]

>>13157355
I don't know. Ask a materialist

[Anonymous No.13157450]

>>13156223
>>13157211

Someone link me one of his essays I want here what he has to say! What does he mean by this? Is it like a simulation thing? Someone please explain or preferably point out an essay of his for me? Thanks

[Anonymous No.13157456]

>>13156733
LITERALLY A NONSEQUITUR
LMAOOOO
these antimaterialist niggas really as dumb as advertised HAHAA

[Anonymous No.13157468]

>>13157415
cringe and bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.13157507]

Mathematics are just abstract models generated by the brain

[Anonymous No.13157563]

>>13157031
>all philosophy is derivative of platonism
>science is not philosophy
>muh one truth masturbation

[Anonymous No.13157599]

>>13157450
someone wanna help out :?

[Anonymous No.13157601]

>>13156733
>consciousness
we can talk about it because there is flow of information in brain that allows that, therefore it's within a realm of science
>mathematics
Bag of tricks to go from one statement to other, when taken too far eventually collapses on itself. It's based upon observation of external world too. World doesn't rest on some profound mathematics but some small subset of it and the rest is emergent - most of it in our minds only.

[Anonymous No.13157602]

>>13157507
And therefore false

[Anonymous No.13157616]

>>13157507

[Anonymous No.13157699]

>>13157563
What is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.13157709]

Dennet : If there is no consciousness there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.13157750]

>>13157601
Not all schools of math even relate, considering it to be a universal language is top dumb.

[Anonymous No.13157784]

>>13157563
>he thinks syllogism is a platonic invention