Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome? » Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome?

Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome?
how awesome can he get?

Why So Awesome?
Indeed, he is betrothed with awesome.	Kelby, Stinky Malinky, easyjacksn, yuhcameroon, Postmodern Beatnik, hitblade	6	30%
	swstephe, Deftil	2	10%
Nay, his awesomeness is illusionary.	The_Rational_Animal, Doxa, ManiacJack, Simple Occam, Ron C. de Weijze, bobbi, yo_foo, TecnoTut	8	40%
	philosoraptor	1	5%
Hark, this poll fails to convey meaning.	rabeldin, 7, Questionablescum	3	15%
20 votes

Page: 1 2

Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome?

philosoraptor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 19, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/11/08 - 10:24 AM: Subject: Daniel Dennett: Why So Awesome?	#1
I found Daniel Dennett through my interest in the atheism/creationism debates and was pleasantly suprised to find he was a philosopher of science and consciousness. I'm halfway through Darwin's Dangerous Idea but I need to know: What other books of his should I read? I think Darwin's Dangerous Idea is his definitive work on evolution, and I want to branch off to his other writings. For instance his latest title, Breaking the Spell, sports religion and faith as its focus. I'm pretty sure I want to read Consciousness Explained and Breaking the Spell. Are there any other works by him you'd suggest I check out, and what are your opinions of Dennett in general?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 07/11/08 - 06:19 PM:	#2
I've only read Consciousness Explained. You might want to check out his many TED videos, (search in Google Videos). I think he has a great scientific method and relies more heavily on scientific empiricism approach to philosophy, which is refreshing -- but somehow I get the feeling that his conclusions are somewhat compromising. In "consciousness explained", he pretty much says that any belief in "free will" is an unfounded assertion, then backs down to a somewhat compatibilist position anyway.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

nickneek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/12/08 - 11:41 PM:	#3
If you want to read something on consciousness then give Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness a try. This a collection of writings on consciousness that came out a couple of years a go. It puts a lot of arguments from consciousness explained in a modern context.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 07/20/08 - 02:13 PM:	#4
I would also check out Neuroscience and Philosophy, though Dennett did not write the entire book. He is within the book along with John Searle, MR Bennett and PMS Hacker. It's a wonderful argumentative book showing several controversial sides of how philosophy and neuroscience should be paired, if even at all. Consciousness Explained is a good read, though he doesn't quite get to his theory in relation to his Intentional Stance until several hundred pages into the book. If you're interested in Dennett alone, go read the latter book...and if you feel like it, go read Freedom Evolves. But if you're interested in consciousness, I reccomend reading Mind by John Searle. Though his ideas are still controversial he gives a good account of what exactly the problem is. Skip Breaking the Spell. He doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said. He doesn't give us any information on the biological/evolutionary aspects of religion. He simply states that we should look at religion on an evolutionary level, and then goes on to propose children should learn religion in school as to make them better aware of other belief systems. If you want to read about religion, read Pascal Boyer's book Religion Explained...or go check out the legendary Joseph Campbell. Edited by Kelby on 07/20/08 - 02:27 PM
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

philosoraptor
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 19, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 07/28/08 - 04:55 AM:	#5
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be checking out all the books mentioned. I still can't believe people voted against him, even with his striking resemblance to Santa going for him

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 07/28/08 - 05:53 PM:	#6
philosoraptor wrote: I still can't believe people voted against him, even with his striking resemblance to Santa going for him Me neither... dennett is a wonderful thinker. Of course anyone can argue his points. John Searle and him are infamous for their debates, but his influence is absolutely astonishing. He put the "pop" back into the study of mind along with searle, pinker, gazzaniga, and others.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 1072

Posted 08/12/08 - 11:59 PM:	#7
Most of the criticism aimed at Consciousness Explained misses the mark, I think. Dennett's main purpose in writing it was not to create a comprehensive model of consciousness but to propose a paradigm shift. His goal -- and he says no less in early sections -- is to do away with the Cartesian view of the self; to show that the mind isn't located anywhere in particular and to replace the misguided conceptualization of a central thing to which experiences are presented with a coherent, viable alternative. He never claims his model is definitive or complete or sufficient for explaining consciousness. The title is a misnomer. Forget about Breaking the spell unless you want ammo for arguing against organized religion. If you only read one work by Dennet read Consciousness Explained.

Deftil
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 81

Posted 08/17/08 - 10:29 PM:	#8
Like him, but don't love him. He gets me thinking though. I enjoyed Darwin's Dangerous Idea. ho, ho, ho, It's Daniel Dennett.

yo_foo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/25/08 - 10:43 PM:	#9
Dennett (1991) argues that qualia cannot exist and that it is an epiphenomenon meaning that all mental phenomena are derived from the physical. Dennett also argues the existence of the types of 'zombies' that were mentioned in the above paragraphs. He states that if they act like just like conscious beings then they are in fact conscious beings. In response, Dennett seems to accept a weak form of qualia, referring to the natural properties of experiences that are indescribable, inexpressible and non physical. Another criticism of Dennett's approach comes from Chalmers who states that Dennett's argument misses the point by redefining consciousness as an external property and therefore ignoring the subjective aspect. Dennett states further that the subjective aspect is ignored because it simply does not exist however Dennett, in my opinion, has not given people a valid enough reason to accept this assumption simply because he has accepted a weaker definition of qualia. Because he accepts this weaker version of qualia he is misinterpreting the non-physical phenomenon's associated with consciousness. Therefore he is arguing the distinction between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness from an incorrect interpretation. Dennett (1991) refers to a term called Heterophenomenology in which he describes a third person scientific approach to the study of consciousness. The study consists of self-report studies to discover how a subject views the world and themselves. The study applies the scientific method with an anthropologic slant. The study begs for the subject to be taken seriously and accept everything they say, but the study also allows the researcher to view the world around them and conclude that the subject is wrong about even their own mind. This is done by comparing self beliefs to subpersonal processes. Subpersonal processes are states that are attributed to a subsystem, rather than the person as a whole. If these do not match up, then the validity of the responses from the subjects can be questioned. Zahavi (2007) states that the study does not consider first person perspectives, only the third person perspective. So if Heterophenomenologists are prevented on relying on their own first-personal relationship with consciousness, it is difficult to justify how they could describe and identify the mental states of subjects. For Heterophenomenology studies to work, contrary to Dennett's belief, a science of consciousness should draw from the first, second and third points of view, just like how we engage in the everyday practice of understanding not only ourselves but others as well. Zahavi (2007) interprets Heterophenomenology as the study of reports of conscious phenomena rather than the study of conscious phenomena. This is because Dennett stays neutral on whether conscious phenomena actually exist. Dennett argues that neutrality is important and required as in any anthropological study. He states that we should not prejudge the phenomenological investigation by stating that conscious phenomena are real. However Zahavi notes that this principal of neutrality is Dennett's own view and that it conflicts and questions the compatibility with another principal, the principle of metaphysical minimalism, which seems to be a characterisation of Heterophenomenology. The principal of metaphysical minimalism is quite similar to the materialist view of eliminative materialism, or eliminativism, which argues that people's common sense understanding of the mind, known as folk psychology, is false. Additionally the theory argues that behaviour and experience can only be explained adequately on a biological level. The incompatibility between this principal and the principal of neutrality is that Dennett's study cannot be considered neutral because it contains the characteristics of eliminativism, or the principal of metaphysical minimalism, and therefore dismisses the idea of Heterophenomenology. This also strengthens the idea that the hard problem and the easy problem of consciousness both exist and that the hard problem cannot be explained by induction of the easy problem. Dennett (1991) further states that when consciousness is understood, and that there is no more mystery, then there will be more beauty and plenty of room for awe. His argument seems to be ignoring the issue of experience, let alone consciousness, completely. Strawson (1994) identifies this and states that this is unconvincing because if you deny the existence of experience then no account of reality or consciousness is correct. In fact, you would be denying the existence of the reality of the experience of pain. Strawson then states that to suggest that there seems to be an experience but in fact there isn't is contradictory as seeming itself is an experience. (Which means total ownage...and proof that Dennett should never write again :nod.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 08/26/08 - 01:24 AM:	#10
Dennett doesn't deny the existence of experience...that's a misrepresentation of Dennett and a complete failure to understand the complex issues at hand.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.