4 ms·
> Yes he does, and has said it a lot I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. You are reading things into his writing that he is not saying. > he says only the act
by pdonis 3y ago
> Yes he does, and has said it a lot
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. You are reading things into his writing that he is not saying.
> he says only the activity of the neurons are real
No, he says that the activity of the neurons is your conscious experience--that the real conscious experience you have is the activity of the neurons--or, if you like, the conscious experience is "made of" the activity of neurons. That's not the same thing as saying your conscious experience isn't real. It's just saying your conscious experience is not "made of" what many people think it's made of. It's not made of magic "consciousness stuff" or "mind stuff" or "soul stuff".
> that there is not an additional "mental state" or what he calls "double transduction". He simply dismisses that it happens
No, he looks at the actual evidence from cognitive science about what actually goes on in the brain, and concludes from that evidence that there is no such "double transduction"--because there is no evidence for any such thing. In other words, "double transduction" is a testable hypothesis about how our minds work, and we've tested it, and found it to be false.
> He very clearly does not believe in the phenomenon of consciousness.
Nonsense. I gave an explicit quote from a paper of his that describes various kinds of conscious experience. He believed all those things were real. What he didn't believe is that they were magic.
> He should have loved panpsychism
No, he shouldn't have, because he is, as you say, a physicalist.
> he is an eliminative materialist he sticks with physicalism.
Physicalism is not the same thing as "eliminative materialism" about everything. You are simply misrepresenting Dennett's actual position.
At this point I am wondering whether you are a physicalist or not. If you are, you should be agreeing with Dennett, because his views about consciousness are the only viable option if you are a physicalist.
If you are not a physicalist, on the other hand, then of course you will disagree with Dennett, but you should be clear about what you are disagreeing with him about. You are not disagreeing with him about whether consciousness exists. You are disagreeing with him about what kind of thing consciousness is. His position was that consciousness, really existing consciousness, is a physical process that goes on in (at least) human brains. Your position, if you are not a physicalist, is that consciousness, really existing consciousness, is some kind of non-physical thing. But his critics were simply unwilling (or perhaps unable) to frame their disagreement in these simple terms, so instead they misrepresented his position.
- _akhe 3y ago> You are reading things into his writing that he is not saying I linked a video where he says it in full HD with audio: "The latter exists and the former doesn't" - did you watch it? Not like it's the only time he's said it either, the downplaying of consciousness and the denial of a rich inner experience are things Dennett is known for. > he says that the activity of the neurons is your conscious experience Finally you said something that reflects reality. Yes he does say that. And more than one interviewer (don't make me find them, but I think they are Louis Godbout and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, or maybe Donald Hoffman) have asked for clarification in asking something like: But the activity of the neurons are not identical with the redness of red, the aroma of coffee, the taste of chocolate, the blueness of the door in Godbout's example. The activity of the neurons are the activity of the neurons, little electro-chemical excitations. That's not, for example, the aroma of coffee. To which Dennett will explain away that experience - it doesn't exist - often conflating raw experience with self/identity (different things) in doing so. It's a kind of rigid, ultra physicalist stance that you apparently really dig, but it's ultimately wrong because as Chalmers says it denies the datum of experience - we know there's an experience happening because we observe it ourselves (even though the self is illusory, the experience isn't). Empiricism means to be based on observational evidence - in this case it's your direct first-person observation or "experience". I've gotten off track - the reason I'm arguing with you is because you grossly misrepresent the late, great Dan Dennett and I'm trying to figure out A) Why you think this or B) If you're just a hobbyist arguer. > At this point I am wondering whether you are a physicalist or not. If you are, you should be agreeing with Dennett It's not that simple.
- pdonis 3y ago> I linked a video I've already rebutted your claims about this video multiple times. Your response has been to repeat the same assertions without even bothering to address my rebuttals. > the reason I'm arguing with you is because you grossly misrepresent the late, great Dan Dennett Apparently we're never going to agree on who is misrepresenting Dennett. But I'm curious: how much Dennett have you actually read? > I'm trying to figure out A) Why you think this Because, as I've already told you, I have read every book Dennett ever published on consciousness and free will, and a fair portion of his papers on those topics that never got put into one of his books, and based on all of that reading, I think you are misrepresenting Dennett's position. What's more, the counter arguments I see you giving are the same ones Dennett responded to for several decades. I see nothing new whatever in anything you've posted that would change my mind about who is misrepresenting what.