Philosophy Overdose
A rather amusing clip of Dennett discussing panpsychism that I always quite liked. This is from a talk on consciousness and the so-called “hard problem” given at the 2014 Tucson conference. Of course, Dan doesn’t himself believe that there is any such hard problem of consciousness, only a bunch of easy problems. For him, the idea that there is a hard problem of consciousness is merely a cognitive illusion.
Note, I fixed up the audio a bit in this clip, making the volume consistent throughout. In any case, you can find the whole talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes
Source
Dennett sucks.
pan-rhetoric-ism
Honesty as much I hate to agree with theologians or anybody with religious inclinations. I have to say it does seem like some contemporary theologians like Hart and Williams have a clearer understanding of the hardness of the hard problem of consciousness, and other issues surrounding it than both Dennett and Chalmers. Though this probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with the richness of the scholastic thoughts.
priceless !
Thank you for this little bit of Dennet. Really funny
I just can't listen to dennett. The guy's a moron constantly spouting his crackpot "theories."
It is funny to see how Dennett brings out so many strong emotions in people. Clearly, he is doing something right.
Most panpsychists only embrace it because it is an attempt to directly answer the hard problem of consciousness. “Why is there consciousness at all when it does not appear to be physically necessary? Because it is physically necessary and exists throughout all matter.” Sure it isn’t very scientific, but neither is your idea that consciousness is an illusion. You both offer us merely a redefinition of terms.
Lucille says he's right.
We are our brains.
Is the combination problem for panpsychism any less difficult to solve than the hard problem is for physicalism?
This guy is a fat fuck who uses his clout as an academic celebrity to punch down on minds greater than his own.
Only hippies believe in things like panpsychism
What's the difference between "everything is conscious" and "everything is nifty"?
The difference is that if everything is "Nifty"… Dennett has to explain what he means by saying that everything is nifty. But if everything is conscious, to some degree, we know EXACTLY what that means, to some degree, as we all have consciousness, or qualia…. except maybe Dennett who I am starting to think may actually be a Philosophical Zombie 😛
What would it mean if nothing was nifty? I have no idea.
But if nothing was conscious we'd all be zombies… and yet we can't be…. and yet Dennett has said we are. Aand he's also spoke of the illusion of consciousness, the illusion of the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion. We could all be brains in vats right now but we're still experiencing this experience right now. Dennett, the consciousness denier who denies that he is denying consciousness, is undeniably wrong.
How do you tell a conscious photon from a non-conscious photon? You can't and you don't need to… a consious photon knows that it is conscious… a non-conscious photon doesn't and can't. The point is that there's an ontological difference between a conscious photon and a non-conscious photon… but Dennett doesn't even explain what he means by the difference between a nifty photon and a non-nifty photon. So he's just making a very bad and totally false analogy.
Dennett says there's "no difference"… and that's just bullshit. If everything is nifty then that means every object in the universe has the property of niftiness, and Dennett has to explain what he means by that. But if everything is conscious we all know exactly what that means, except, perhaps, Dennett, who not only denies consciousness but denies that he is denying it, despite insisting that we're all philosophical zombies. Well, perhaps you are, Dennett, but I'm not, and most conscious people aren't going to pretend to not know they're conscious, when that is literally the only thing they can, do and must know about reality… their own experience of it.
A cell is niftier than an atom.
A worm is niftier than a cell.
They're also each respectively more conscious than the other.
Humans are the niftiest.
Come on Dennett.
I shouldn't have to explain this.
You're niftier than this.
Look! … A philosophical dinosaur!