Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies
Daniel Dennett thinks that the Mind-Body problem has a solution. And moreover it’s not a specific or “hard” problem, because there is nothing over and above brain processes. Brain and language produces an illusion of consciousness, but it’s not a particular thing as we might think.
Source
Is there a solution to the Mind-Body promlem? Daniel Dennett
This guy is so embarrassingly uneducated that I have no idea how to begin with him… He is locked into his own mental box and does not even know that there is an infinite universe out there! An yes I said uneducated though this guy is labeled as a professor. The first step for him is to learn how to think critically as he apparently does not know how to do that. He is a very biased so-called mainstream thinker who relies on these talks for more income. I'm afraid to say that he seems like a wannabe at best…
LOLOLOL
So according to this idiot, cleverbot must be conscious because, when you ask it questions, it answers!
The reason we believe other humans to be conscious is because we correlate their behaviors with our own behaviors, and thus believe that they're behaviors largely come from conscious volition the way ours do. Simply because a computer with transistors could emulate our behavior and language, wouldn't at all imply that they are conscious.
Dan is an idiot who doesn't understand free will, doesn't understand consciousness, and doesn't seem capable of doing it.
Yes, I agree that "fame in the brain" sounds like a really interesting idea that could help to explain why our subjectivity is the way it is… but it can't explain why the subjecitivity is there in the first place.
The minute you ask "Why should fame in the brain feel like anything at all?" you return to the hard problem of consciousness in full. Dan's answer?: Well you are being a simple minded idiot for asking that question!
Simply appealing to ridiculousness doesn't work here mr dumb dumb.
t
Dennet is a twerpy fountain of mouth-diarrhea hiding the problem with his sophisticated philosophical figleaf
The question is how experience can spring into axistence from only unexperiencing subparts. I think it is dishonest to claim that there is no hard problem here. This doesnt mean that the answer is to be find in some ancient religious scroll. It is a completely scientific question.
Hi guys I've been (casually) researching consciousness recently and have been looking into Dennett's ideas. My views on consciousness have been changing quite frequently between what he is saying and what some of his critics have been saying.
my main concern with Dennett's theories is the idea that the consciousness formed from the neural signals in our brain is an illusion. for example saying that certain electrical signals produce the illusion of different colours (when in reality it's just different wavelengths of light) etc didn't seem a good enough explanation in my opinion. I want to know the mechanisms that create this illusion from the signals.
if it is a case of it arises from highly interconnected systems (like the integrated information theory) then surely consciousness could be a property of electrical/chemical signalling. but wouldn't that mean that Dennett is advocating some form of panpsychism? my reasoning behind that question is that is consciousness is a property of electrical/chemical signalling then how do you define the level of signalling that could give rise to consciousness?
I'm sorry for rambling. please note that my questions aren't directly a criticism of Dennett, but what he is saying just doesn't answer the question of consciousness for me so maybe I'm missing something.
if anyone could help explain it then I'd be really grateful. I just want to learn more about what consciousness is.
Konnektlive
He is one of the most prominent philosophers on the entire planet. He may be wrong! That is what philosophy is about, there is no right or wrong, but only what you believe.
I may be missing your point. Why do you say he is uneducated? I can see you saying he is wrong because I agree with you on that, but that is just our opinion, but why do you say he is uneducated? i'm not saying you are wrong, but i just do not understand your point here. So, please explain.
What is the best thing to pour on waffles . . .
Define promlem.