|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 20, 2018 15:16:56 GMT
Yeah re the change blindness experiment, you can't just ask folks to raise their hands and leave it at that. You need to first obviously correlate the hand-raising with particular views on qualia, then you need to clarify why each person did or didn't raise their hand. You can't take a non-unanimous vote as sufficient to indicate "See, you all can't even agree on what qualia are, therefore there are no qualia, because obviously qualia only exist when it's the case that everyone agrees on just what phenomena the term refers to." Are you making a qualiafication here? <rimshot> Dennett's denial of qualia has never made much sense to me, by the way, and that's partially his own fault. His "alternative neurosurgery" argument, for example, wouldn't really make any sense as stated if we are denying qualia outright, because the argument hinges on us reasoning about qualia we're experiencing. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 20, 2018 15:42:07 GMT
I find him inconsistent in his reasoning though perhaps that is because I haven't read him thoroughly enough to appreciate the nuances of his arguments.
His view on consciousness for instance rejects qualia as vague and adding nothing to understanding consciousness. Fine, I don't exactly agree, but it's a decent argument.
Then on free will, he says it does exist even though it seems to lack any function and he can't define exactly what it is. His argument seems to be it is dangerous to suggest it doesn't exist so we should assume it exists. Again, nothing wrong with this argument in and of itself.
But then if you compare his reasoning in both arguments, his reason for rejecting qualia he refuses to apply to free will, while his reason for accepting free will he won't apply to qualia.
More generally, he's the best philosopher of the 4 horsemen by a mile, but in fairness only 2 of them actually consider(ed) themselves philosophers.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 20, 2018 15:57:01 GMT
I may have to read up some more on this Dennett fellow. I'm a layman when it comes to qualia, but it seems to me there is a lack of evidence to support the idea.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 20, 2018 16:25:52 GMT
I may have to read up some more on this Dennett fellow. I'm a layman when it comes to qualia, but it seems to me there is a lack of evidence to support the idea. I suppose it's kind of hard to say what kind of evidence might support the idea. How can you tell someone is experiencing a qualia? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 20, 2018 16:38:49 GMT
Why are the called the atheist horsemen? "On September 30, 2007 four prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett) met at Hitchens' residence in Washington, D.C., for a private two-hour unmoderated discussion. The event was videotaped and titled "The Four Horsemen".[21] During "The God Debate" in 2010 featuring Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza, the men were collectively referred to as the "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 20, 2018 17:16:29 GMT
Yeah re the change blindness experiment, you can't just ask folks to raise their hands and leave it at that. You need to first obviously correlate the hand-raising with particular views on qualia, then you need to clarify why each person did or didn't raise their hand. You can't take a non-unanimous vote as sufficient to indicate "See, you all can't even agree on what qualia are, therefore there are no qualia, because obviously qualia only exist when it's the case that everyone agrees on just what phenomena the term refers to." "Experts" in philosophy of mind keep telling us, in various ways, that qualia are the most fundamental, basic, and obvious aspect of conscious experience. And yet a room full of them couldn't agree on whether this intimate aspect of their own consciousness was present or changing in a specific context. The hand raising most certainly indicated different views on what qualia are supposed to be and most certainly indicated that there is no consensus about what they are--that is, outside of very vague, unspecific outlines that are insufficient to compel belief in qualia at this time. It was a "Gotcha!" moment and Dennett knew exactly what he was doing. At any rate, whatever your position is on qualia (I'm solidly with Dennett on this one: qualia are nothing but an artifact of bad philosophy), there is simply no consensus that they exist or what they are, and not all philosophers of mind buy into them. This is just a sociological fact about the state of the field today. But someone very bright could be working on a solution right now and maybe in a generation or so the issue will get worked out one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 20, 2018 17:18:46 GMT
His "alternative neurosurgery" argument, for example, wouldn't really make any sense as stated if we are denying qualia outright, because the argument hinges on us reasoning about qualia we're experiencing. Which one was that? He's made a couple thought experience involving malicious neurosurgery.  |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 20, 2018 17:20:28 GMT
Then on free will, he says it does exist even though it seems to lack any function and he can't define exactly what it is. In two books on free will he has never said anything remotely like this. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 20, 2018 17:57:39 GMT
Then on free will, he says it does exist even though it seems to lack any function and he can't define exactly what it is. In two books on free will he has never said anything remotely like this. That's more my take on his view then what he's actually said - it's not that he says it lacks function or he can't define it, more that I feel his attempts to describe it or its function seem vague and wishy-washy, much like pro-qualia arguments seem to him. I admit though I find his thoughts on free will very hard to get a handle on and I have never read either of his books on the matter which doesn't help matters and I am perhaps being unfair to him. It seems to me that when it comes to qualia he's very precise but when it comes to free will he's a lot less so. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 20, 2018 18:16:25 GMT
I don't know who the hell he is and I would be cautious about people who are categorized in groups such as "Four horseman of xyz..." The other creep Hitchens was supporter of war which turned a country into graveyard.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 20, 2018 18:23:47 GMT
Yeah re the change blindness experiment, you can't just ask folks to raise their hands and leave it at that. You need to first obviously correlate the hand-raising with particular views on qualia, then you need to clarify why each person did or didn't raise their hand. You can't take a non-unanimous vote as sufficient to indicate "See, you all can't even agree on what qualia are, therefore there are no qualia, because obviously qualia only exist when it's the case that everyone agrees on just what phenomena the term refers to." "Experts" in philosophy of mind keep telling us, in various ways, that qualia are the most fundamental, basic, and obvious aspect of conscious experience. And yet a room full of them couldn't agree on whether this intimate aspect of their own consciousness was present or changing in a specific context. The hand raising most certainly indicated different views on what qualia are supposed to be and most certainly indicated that there is no consensus about what they are--that is, outside of very vague, unspecific outlines that are insufficient to compel belief in qualia at this time. I wonder if a similar experiment with proponents of free will would have a similar result? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 20, 2018 20:13:13 GMT
My view on Dennett? He needs to repent and turn to Christ for salvation.
His high IQ and articulate rhetoric is not going to be enough to save his soul when he’s standing before the Most High on the day of judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 20, 2018 20:17:56 GMT
My view on Dennett? He needs to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. His high IQ and articulate rhetoric is not going to be enough to save his soul when he’s standing before the Most High on the day of judgement.  |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 20, 2018 20:26:46 GMT
My view on Dennett? He needs to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. His high IQ and articulate rhetoric is not going to be enough to save his soul when he’s standing before the Most High on the day of judgement. I strongly suspect you didn't even know who he was until you read this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 20, 2018 20:31:50 GMT
My view on Dennett? He needs to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. His high IQ and articulate rhetoric is not going to be enough to save his soul when he’s standing before the Most High on the day of judgement. I strongly suspect you didn't even know who he was until you read this thread. No I knew Dennett. I know he’s generally very well respected within the atheistic community and he’s clearly a smart guy. That doesn’t ultimately though change the fact that he needs to repent and trust in Christ like every other lost soul. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 20, 2018 20:35:31 GMT
I strongly suspect you didn't even know who he was until you read this thread. No I knew Dennett. I know he’s generally very well respected within the atheistic community and he’s clearly a smart guy. That doesn’t ultimately though change the fact that he needs to repent and trust in Christ like every other lost soul. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 0:11:29 GMT
Then on free will, he says it does exist even though it seems to lack any function and he can't define exactly what it is. His argument seems to be it is dangerous to suggest it doesn't exist so we should assume it exists. Again, nothing wrong with this argument in and of itself. He doesn't so much say that we should assume it exists, but that we should just tailor the definition of free will to describe something that incontrovertibly does exist, because 'the little people' can't be trusted with knowing that they don't have free will in any meaningful sense. So it's moving the goalposts to wherever they would need to be in order for people like him to be able to say that we have free will and prevent the superstitious morons from being spooked by finding out how meaningless and arbitrary everything is. I understand his definition of free will as being essentially moral accountability (so you're accountable if you have a normally functioning brain, but not if you're out of your mind on some kind of medication, even though in both cases the action could not have been avoided were the exact same circumstances and parameters to repeat themselves) but not absolute responsibility. This appeasement of the ignorant doesn't really seem like something that a supposed paragon of atheistic thought ought to be doing, so that (as well as the fact that the term 'four horsemen of atheism is cheesy and cringeworthy) is why I don't think that he merits being called one of the 'horsemen'. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 21, 2018 2:27:40 GMT
Then on free will, he says it does exist even though it seems to lack any function and he can't define exactly what it is. His argument seems to be it is dangerous to suggest it doesn't exist so we should assume it exists. Again, nothing wrong with this argument in and of itself. He doesn't so much say that we should assume it exists, but that we should just tailor the definition of free will to describe something that incontrovertibly does exist, because 'the little people' can't be trusted with knowing that they don't have free will in any meaningful sense. So it's moving the goalposts to wherever they would need to be in order for people like him to be able to say that we have free will and prevent the superstitious morons from being spooked by finding out how meaningless and arbitrary everything is. I understand his definition of free will as being essentially moral accountability (so you're accountable if you have a normally functioning brain, but not if you're out of your mind on some kind of medication, even though in both cases the action could not have been avoided were the exact same circumstances and parameters to repeat themselves) but not absolute responsibility. This appeasement of the ignorant doesn't really seem like something that a supposed paragon of atheistic thought ought to be doing, so that (as well as the fact that the term 'four horsemen of atheism is cheesy and cringeworthy) is why I don't think that he merits being called one of the 'horsemen'. Dillahunty should be the forth horseman (sorry Dennet, I just really dunno much about you) |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 21, 2018 7:24:32 GMT
Dillahunty should be the forth horseman (sorry Dennet, I just really dunno much about you) Nah, if anything Dennett should ditch the other 3 - a bad philosopher and two amateurs (one of which is dead). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 10:45:31 GMT
|
|
