Daniel Dennett on Panpsychism and Idealism

11 thoughts on “Daniel Dennett on Panpsychism and Idealism”

1. I highly doubt he's looked carefully at idealism. It's very ironic of him to be so dismissive when eliminativism, the view he holds, is widely seen as contradictory and worthy of ridicule.

2. Did he make a real argument?

3. I miss Dennet.
   You have to locate this external material, for this view to be coherent

4. Dennett literally talking about himself

5. Old man yells at the kids for being so radical!

6. dennet is a retard. sorry.

7. So you believe consciousness emerges from an unconscious universe. That love is unique and arises from a dead universe.
   Pan niftyism emerges from a closed minded safety oriented professor .

8. poor guy failed to see connection between A and B

9. I think a lot of the objection is simply to the word consciousness. It might simply be that objects have associated perceptual qualities that cannot be fully explained materially. That doesn’t have to mean the objects themselves are perceiving, simply that they have properties which are only relevant to perception. And then perhaps we are talking about a colour perception that very primitive organisms (with cone cells) possess, which seems as much a mystery as the ability to identify with that perception.

10. You can explain niftyism from panpsychism, but you can't explain psycism from materialism alone.

    Bad argument he's making

11. I cannot see any aspect the mind that cannot be physical in nature. I am a monist and nothing exists other than the physical.

Comments are closed.