Dennett and Materialism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Dennett and Materialism » Dennett and Materialism

Dennett and Materialism

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 09/11/03 - 12:54 AM:	#1
Uni and Mellissa : I am not surprised to hear the Daniel Dennett is absent from the bookshelves of your professors. He is a philosopher, but his core audience are materialistic scientists and skeptics. He is nothing less than a hero to those people, yet to most philosophers he is surely an exremist curiosity who thinks the word "qualia" needs to be deleted from the English language. I think he is a very interesting character, but no matter how heroically he tries to defend materialism I think he is fighting a losing battle. But then even the losing side need a leader! His book titles get ever more grandiose : first "consciousness explained" (explained away)...now "freedom evolves"! This man is arguing that free will is an evolved trait!? I have to admire his style, but not his philosophy. Geoff.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 09/12/03 - 05:24 AM:	#2
Geoff23: It would be nice if you pointed out what factor is making materialism a losing battle. Perhaps in context to Dennett, as well.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 09/12/03 - 05:44 AM:	#3
Unisonus wrote: Geoff23: It would be nice if you pointed out what factor is making materialism a losing battle. Perhaps in context to Dennett, as well. I am apprehensive about getting into that debate, for experience tells me that materialists will never accept its result. Dennett tries to defend materialism by "Quining" (= denying the existence of something important) qualia. In other words he has recognised that the only way to defend materialism is to deny the existence of 1st-person subjective experience as distinct from 3rd-person descriptions of brain processes. This is useful, because it saves us going through the motions of establishing why such a drastic measure needs to be taken. But I think it is quite easy to establish that "qualia" cannot be justifiably "quined". Materialists have long tried to claim that qualia "are" brain processes". They must do this because mountains of scientific evidence have established that there is a direct correspondence between brain process and subjective experience. It appears that apart from the 1st-person/3rd-person difference of perspective that "brain processes" and "qualia" are the same thing. Clearly "brain processes" and "qualia" are NOT indistinguishable, because they are words which refer to the respective 3rd-person and 1st-person perspectives on this "brain-mind continuum". So when Dennett "Quines qualia" he is simply trying to deny that these two different perspectives exist. This isn't just wrong - it is patently absurd - something which Dennett almost even admits to as he tries to argue for it. And that is why he is not considered to be "the greatest living philosopher" by very many philosophers, but is considered to be so by skeptics and scientists. Dennett is defending a metaphysical position which is as philosophically dead as a dodo but happens to form the foundation of western skeptical scientific atheism. edit : In short, in order for there to be a "correspondence" between brain process and qualia these things have to be distinguishably different from each other. But as soon as you accept they are distinguishably different then you cannot "quine" qualia. And if you can't "quine" qualia then materialism must be accepted as dead, because nobody other than Dennett is still trying to defend it, and Dennetts defence relies on this "quining".
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 09/12/03 - 08:35 AM:	#4
Now you seem to be associating qualia merely with a 1st person perspective of the mind/brain continuum. If this is so- I do not see how it poses a threat to materialism, or why Dennett's particular denial of this (if he does indeed deny it) encompasses the entirety of materialist contention on this subject. My understanding of Dennett- and I may be wrong- is that he doesn't believe subjective experience is a thing of itself but a result of various processes within the brain; that is to say: to think of Bach we do not need to have a Cartesian Orchestra in "our minds," but rather have the physiological means to achieve that effect. "It may look like is out there, but it isn't. It's in here, in the "eye and brain of the beholder". But now, if there is now inner figment that could be colored in some special, subjective, in-the-mind phenomenal sense, then colors seem to disappear all together! Something has to be the colors we all know and love, the colors we mix and match. Where oh where can they be?" Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, Qualia Disqualified.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

geoff23
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Location: Brighton, Sussex, England.
Total Topics: 85
Total Posts: 2650

Posted 09/12/03 - 08:56 AM:	#5
Unisonus wrote: My understanding of Dennett- and I may be wrong- is that he doesn't believe subjective experience is a thing of itself but a result of various processes within the brain; that is to say: to think of Bach we do not need to have a Cartesian Orchestra in "our minds," but rather have the physiological means to achieve that effect. Part of me is tempted to be drawn into this debate with you but I'm not sure that there is any point. I think Dennetts position has been well and truly 'debunked' by David Chalmers and others. But I don't argue with Christians about Christianity and I don't argue with materialists about materialism. I don't understand why anyone would accept Dennetts position unless they are fundamentally comitted to holding a materialist viewpoint, in which case they have no choice but to accept Dennetts position.
The poets did not win; the philosophers surrendered. (Umberto Eco)

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 09/12/03 - 10:21 AM:	#6
On what grounds would you debate with me? I don't hold Dennett's position, in fact, I don't know what position to hold. I'm still trying to make up my mind. Which is why I asked the question.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

Mellissa
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 09/12/03 - 11:56 AM:	#7
geoff23 wrote: Uni and Mellissa : I am not surprised to hear the Daniel Dennett is absent from the bookshelves of your professors. He is a philosopher, but his core audience are materialistic scientists and skeptics. Geoff. Actually, I'm the one that said Dennett is pretty standard. Uni disagreed with me. I did my grad work at a school whose philosophy program was based on analytic philosophy, philosophy of science, logic, etc. Everyone had read Dennett. I wholeheartedly believe with Uni that he interjects psychology and neuroscience to an annoying (and i think argument weakening) degree. Not a big Dennett fan. But he does a great job convincing people that they should buy into it. I give him props for that. (p.s. I'm a prof. my colleagues all have Dennett on their shelves)

Mellissa
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 154

Posted 09/12/03 - 12:06 PM:	#8
Geoff and Uni- Wittgenstein started the whole thing, Quine solidified the boundaries and Dennett left no wiggle room whatsoever. This one will bring about debate, but Wittgenstein would not agree with Dennett's thesis completely. Wittgenstein leaves room for theism. Dennett doesn't even leave room for emotions, much less theism. But i guess it comes down to cognitive vs. emotive meaning. When it comes to cognitive meaning, it is much easier to accept Dennett. Makes life simpler. All clean with clear cut lines. But he essentially tries to discredit other branches of philosophy. I think Socrates would piss on him. Hey uni- I find that you stimulate my thinking quite a bit and that I agree with much of what you say. Funny considering how we started out.

Sharif
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Location: Portland
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 1137

Posted 09/16/03 - 04:37 PM:	#9
geoff23 wrote: It appears that apart from the 1st-person/3rd-person difference of perspective that "brain processes" and "qualia" are the same thing. Clearly "brain processes" and "qualia" are NOT indistinguishable, because they are words which refer to the respective 3rd-person and 1st-person perspectives on this "brain-mind continuum". So when Dennett "Quines qualia" he is simply trying to deny that these two different perspectives exist. Could you please supply some of Dennett's own worlds that deny these two different perspectives exist. I'm confused as to why acknowledging two different perspectives of viewing and talking about things kills materialism. I feel that one could say experiencing mind/brain from the 1st person perspective is mind, and experiencing mind/brain from the the third person perspective is brain while at the same time stating both are physically the same thing. Perhaps I just need a more indepth explanation. Dennett is defending a metaphysical position which is as philosophically dead as a dodo but happens to form the foundation of western skeptical scientific atheism. I don't think popularity makes a philosophical position sound or unsound. In short, in order for there to be a "correspondence" between brain process and qualia these things have to be distinguishably different from each other. But as soon as you accept they are distinguishably different then you cannot "quine" qualia. Can you explain this to me, I'm very interested in how it works out, because I don't see why the two positions are mutually exclusive.

Unisonus
Registered Abuser

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2003
Location: New York, New York
Total Topics: 64
Total Posts: 1530

Posted 09/16/03 - 04:48 PM:	#10
I think it's important to understand that Dennett's insistence on a third-person perspective does not signify a denial of the first-person perspective- just the belief that it isn't a valid form of inquiry.
"...take care that your style and diction run musically, pleasantly, and plainly, with clear, proper, and well-placed words, setting forth your purpose to the best of your power, and putting your ideas intelligibly, without confusion or obscurity." - Miguel de Cervantes

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.