3 ms·
I've read a few Dennett books and watched many of his talks, and imo the main problem with him is his and his fans' motte & bailey style of arguing. He spends i
by psyc 10y ago
I've read a few Dennett books and watched many of his talks, and imo the main problem with him is his and his fans' motte & bailey style of arguing. He spends inordinate amounts of time heavily suggesting that consciousness is an ephemeral nothing that we're not just ignorant about, but mistaken about. But when pressed enough, then he retreats to a just barely reasonable stance that's closer to Chalmers than the stances he spends most of his time communicating. So I can't quite disagree with him, because after 20 years I still don't exactly know what he thinks.
- naasking 10y ago> He spends inordinate amounts of time heavily suggesting that consciousness is an ephemeral nothing that we're not just ignorant about, but mistaken about. That's right, it's an illusion, in the sense that we perceive ourselves to have some irreducible subjectivity, but we actually don't. > But when pressed enough, then he retreats to a just barely reasonable stance that's closer to Chalmers than the stances he spends most of his time communicating. I'd like to see a citation for that, because as far as I've seen, Dennett hasn't changed his stance on this subject in over 20 years, and he's been very straightforward about his position in every interview I've watched or read. And what he thinks is quite clear: he's a straight up materialist. Qualia don't actually exist as some irreducible phenomenon and consciousness is an illusion. He's published multiple books on the subject arguing for this position quite forcefully.