Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained": Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" » Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

Discussion of Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/02/04 - 04:03 PM:	#21
Faustus wrote: Behaviorism is a more specific doctrine than what you have attributed to Dennett, but that will come out when we get to that chapter. As I said, it's a common charge, one leveled at him even from a former grad student, but flatly denied by the man himself. Understand this, behaviroism is not a doctrine, it is a set of doctrines. There are many types of behaviroism, and Dennett's is one of many. Your counter claim, that Dennett denies being a behaviroist, is no different than Marx's "I am not a Marxist." At most it shows that he is a person who makes prior inconsistent statements, viz. that he is and is not a behaviorist. Personal admissions, however, are not important. What matters is that he says that the "intentional stance" is a fictitious stance.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/02/04 - 04:45 PM:	#22
TecnoTut wrote: What matters is that he says that the "intentional stance" is a fictitious stance. So tell us specifically and exactly why this matters to a scientific understanding of consciousness.
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/02/04 - 05:05 PM:	#23
Belem wrote: He wants to prove that consciousness can be reduced to mere physical processes and back up his arguments with scientific evidence. At the end, if consciousness can be reducible, then it would have to be Science the only reliable figure to claim that it is so and Science -at this moment- can only speak about correlations. Belem And what exactly is so bad about physical processes? I happen to like a number of physical processes very much- maybe a little too much, but let's not go there just now. This again is really a chapter two issue but I'll say that science and philosophy should work together on this subject. Science to test and measure and philosophy to predict and suggest areas of investigation and of course to keep things honest. But seriously, do you have a specific problems with his ideas in chapter one? Do you find the idea that hallucinations or even the contents of dreams could be explained with a mechanistic model, implausible in some way?
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/02/04 - 06:51 PM:	#24
probeman wrote: So tell us specifically and exactly why this matters to a scientific understanding of consciousness. Whether or not Dennett's 'intentional stance' matters to the "scientific understanding of consciousness" is an immaterial issue. The issue, rather, is whether Dennett is a behaviorist or not, which in turn depends on whether he believes beliefs and intentions are real.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/02/04 - 10:38 PM:	#25
TecnoTut wrote: Whether or not Dennett's 'intentional stance' matters to the "scientific understanding of consciousness" is an immaterial issue. The issue, rather, is whether Dennett is a behaviorist or not, which in turn depends on whether he believes beliefs and intentions are real. Dennett's belief's are not the issue at all. His explanations of mental processes are the issue. What EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with in the idea that hallucinations or even the contents of dreams might be explained with a mechanistic model such as he describes? Did you even read the first chapter?
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/02/04 - 10:46 PM:	#26
Probeman wrote: Dennett's belief's are not the issue at all. His explanations of mental processes are the issue. What EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with in the idea that hallucinations or even the contents of dreams might be explained with a mechanistic model such as he describes? Dennett's beliefs are at issue because they are his explanations. One of those beliefs, or explanations if you will, is that beliefs and intentions do not exist;they exist only in the sense as useful fictions that predict and explain behavior. So, Dennett does not believe physical processes cause mental states because there are no mental states at all according to him. probeman wrote: Did you even read the first chapter? Everything including the purple cow. Any other silly questions you want me to answer?
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

probeman
Uncertain but reliable

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 12, 2003
Location: US
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1832

Posted 02/02/04 - 10:52 PM:	#27
TecnoTut wrote: Dennett's beliefs are at issue because they are his explanations. One of those beliefs, or explanations if you will, is that beliefs and intentions do not exist;they exist only in the sense as useful fictions that predict and explain behavior. So, Dennett does not believe physical processes cause mental states because there are no mental states at all according to him. I'm trying to understand you, really. Is your issue with the idea that the mind is produced by the brain?
Certainty is not a gift to humanity- it is a curse.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/02/04 - 10:59 PM:	#28
probeman wrote: I'm trying to understand you, really. Is your issue with the idea that the mind is produced by the brain? There's nothing wrong with saying brain activities cause mental states such as beliefs and desires. There is something wrong, however, in writing off mental states merely as useful fictitious models that pick out patterns of behavior. The latter position is Dennett's and it's a mix of eliminativism and behaviorism.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

jk236
Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 70

Posted 02/02/04 - 11:02 PM:	#29
"I'm trying to understand you, really. Is your issue with the idea that the mind is produced by the brain?" I'm pretty sure he takes issue with Dennett's claim that intentionality is not a feature of human beings but is rather just a way of describing them. You can believe that the mind is produced by the brain and yet still believe in intentionality as a real feaure of the mind.
"The philosophical lesson I learned from my biology teacher is this: when not much is known about a topic, don't take terribly seriously someone else's heartfelt conviction about what problems are scientifically tractable. Learn the science, do the science, and see what happens." Patricia Smith Churchland "Now I know what it must have felt like to be a cop at Woodstock." Daniel Dennett on the Towards a Science of Consciousness Conference

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 02/02/04 - 11:08 PM:	#30
jk236 wrote: I'm pretty sure he takes issue with Dennett's claim that intentionality is not a feature of human beings but is rather just a way of describing them. You can believe that the mind is produced by the brain and yet still believe in intentionality as a real feaure of the mind. Exactly. Thank you. Was I not clear?
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.