Posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 15:20:55
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ..., posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 4:28:30
alexandra k,
let me assert my total tyro rank with academic philosophy:
there are no threats to my amateur status.
the philososphy of consciousness is strictly an avocation with me.
i am much more intuitive than scholarly about these issues.> > ... i relished his thoroughgoing
> > physicalist eliminativism ...
>
> hmm. i don't think he would approve of your saying that he is an eliminativist...i recall now that he disaows eliminativism ... my apologies.
> he is determined that he is not... whether he is right about that is, of course, another matter...
>his word is good with me.
> > 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.
>my memory being what it is, no ... time and tide ... maybe vaguely ...
> evolutionary accounts of consciousness, intentionality, and... free will. its worth a read if you are into that stuff :-)
>i read slow like.
i am working on the amazon excerpt you offered.
i need to read his "Intentional Stance" to get a grip on his view.
i found this http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/intentionalstance.html> > i am trying to imagine an eliminativist political party.
>
> lol. he doesn't think he is an eliminitivist.yeah.
> he thinks he is a compatabilist.
i am googling "compatabilist" now: tyro jim says, "wooo whee!"> 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...
>excellent.
> (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)
>i was moved by his elimination of consciousness.
it struck me as Zen-esque, if not parallel with buddhism's Anatman, or "No-Self".> > 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...
>penrose has made hs own inroads into the the theory of the mind.
he is a Platonist.> have you read any Searle or Chalmers?
only some articles by them.
and their attacks on penrose's proposals.
most of the philosophers repudiate penrose.
he is a mathematical physicist.
he uses godel to disembowel algorithmic analogs for consciousness, hence no strong AI is possible.as soon as i find out about "Compatabilism" i will be suggesting
a Compatabilist Political Party.~ jim's a party animal ... not
poster:lil' jimi
thread:558860
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/576047.html