Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 4:28:30
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ... » alexandra_k, posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 2:36:47
> ... i relished his thoroughgoing
> physicalist eliminativism ...hmm. i don't think he would approve of your saying that he is an eliminativist... he is determined that he is not... whether he is right about that is, of course, another matter...
> i would be surprised by dennett being so expansive ...
oh. well. remember the stuff in the second half of consciousness explained where he starts talking about 'the birth of reason' and so forth. start with the molecules and build up to... intentionality? well... this is a continuation on this theme.
evolutionary accounts of consciousness, intentionality, and... free will. its worth a read if you are into that stuff :-)
> i am trying to imagine an eliminativist political party.
lol. he doesn't think he is an eliminitivist. he thinks he is a compatabilist. but... well... he rejects the current conceptions (from both sides fairly much) before carving out his own view... kind of like he (tried to?) do with consciousness...
(i have sympathy. he is an eliminativist about qualia or consciousness. i don't really buy his account of consciouness. though... i do buy his account of intentionality)
> alternatively, have you read roger penrose's "shadows of the mind"?
> penrose served as a counterpoint to dennett at the time i read them.:-)
no. haven't read any penrose. tend to stick to the philosophical literature really...have you read any Searle or Chalmers?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:558860
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/575891.html