Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2015, 07:31:57 am »

Please, post entire book here, for context.

Seriously :S  You don't think one sentence, with no indication of being located within an argument (let alone indication as to what the structure and conclusion of the argument is) might require extra context in order to declare it "irrelevant" or a fallacy?
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

1

JudeNebula

  • ***
  • 2387 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2015, 07:33:55 am »
All of this is out of context since dennett doesn't believe in p-zombies.

Not does Dennet deny consciousness or subjective experience. He just thinks that they are more complex and different than what is commonly meant by the term. This whole thing is a straw man by pch.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 07:36:14 am by JudeNebula »
--This account has been banned--

2

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2015, 07:35:47 am »
All of this is out of context since dennett doesn't believe in p-zombies.

He's a strict functionalist so...yes he would have to conclude that people were p-zombies. He simply defines p-zombies as "conscious enough" in his work.
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

3

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2015, 07:42:31 am »

Please, post entire book here, for context.

Seriously :S  You don't think one sentence, with no indication of being located within an argument (let alone indication as to what the structure and conclusion of the argument is) might require extra context in order to declare it "irrelevant" or a fallacy?

I took the whole post as rather a joke, honestly.  I was not being completely serious.

I do think Dennett´s  statement is quite capable of sustaining an independent meaning, but, one can be shown incorrect, it has happened before.

It might turn out you are right, why not.




4

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15473 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2015, 07:45:45 am »
Wikipedia...

Another response is denial of the idea that qualia and related phenomenal notions of the mind are in the first place coherent concepts. Daniel Dennett and others argue that while consciousness and subjective experience exist in some sense, they are not as the zombie argument proponent claims. The experience of pain, for example, is not something that can be stripped off a person's mental life without bringing about any behavioral or physiological differences. Dennett believes that consciousness is a complex series of functions and ideas. If we all can have these experiences the idea of the p-zombie is meaningless.

Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition".[3][4] He coined the term "zimboes" – p-zombies that have second-order beliefs – to argue that the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;[12] "Zimboes thinkZ they are conscious, thinkZ they have qualia, thinkZ they suffer pains – they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!".[4] Under (reductive) physicalism, one is inclined to believe either that anyone including oneself might be a zombie, or that no one can be a zombie – following from the assertion that one's own conviction about being, or not being a zombie is (just) a product of the physical world and is therefore no different from anyone else's. P-zombies in an observed world would be indistinguishable from the observer, even hypothetically (when the observer makes no assumptions regarding the validity of their convictions). Furthermore, when concept of self is deemed to correspond to physical reality alone (reductive physicalism), philosophical zombies are denied by definition. When a distinction is made in one's mind between a hypothetical zombie and oneself (assumed not to be a zombie), the hypothetical zombie, being a subset of the concept of oneself, must entail a deficit in observables (cognitive systems), a "seductive error"[4] contradicting the original definition of a zombie.

"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

5

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2015, 07:51:06 am »
Wonderer again remember Dennet is a strict functionalist who simply declares the functional P-zombie to be "conscious enough". He denies denying the existing of conscious experience, but if you read his position on it he simply declares functionalism consciousness despite it not being possible logistically. I've seen other philosophers mock his book, "Consciousness explained" by renaming it "Consciousness ignored".

He was also the one who declared the universe could create itself if I recall.
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

6

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15473 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2015, 08:00:20 am »
Wonderer again remember Dennet is a strict functionalist who simply declares the functional P-zombie to be "conscious enough".

Where does Dennett say this?

"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

7

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2015, 08:37:00 am »
Quote
Where does Dennett say this?

I read a PDF copy of his book which isn't on this computer, but its a fairly common objection across the board if you google around. Dennet denies experiential knowledge of consciousness to a degree by saying it needs to be explained, but only in experiential manners (making it less important, rather than vitally important as it actually does). He doesn't really give us any reason to accept this apart from opinion. He also compares consciousness to a collection of memes which have been ingrained by society; provides no reason why this is, and effectively equates consciousness as a functionalistic view which evolved culturally. How? It's not explained.

Also if you read the book he says on page 406 of Consciousness Explained: "Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." In a footnote Dennett states: "It would be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty to quote this assertion out of context!"

I've never been a fan of Dennet due to this back and forth philosophy, especially when he lambasted the idea of a self created God (even though God is logically necessary, not self created) only to later declare the universe to have committed the ultimate "bootstrap" trick of creating itself. Self creating God? Nope. Self creating universe? Sure why not!
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

8

JudeNebula

  • ***
  • 2387 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2015, 09:36:02 am »
So dennett says don't quote me out of context and lawless does anyway.. LOL
--This account has been banned--

9

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2015, 09:41:42 am »

I took the whole post as rather a joke, honestly.  I was not being completely serious.

I do think Dennett´s  statement is quite capable of sustaining an independent meaning, but, one can be shown incorrect, it has happened before.

It might turn out you are right, why not.

It isn't really an issue of me being right, I have no idea whether what he said was a fallacy, or irrelevant, because we can't know that without context.
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

10

HIJ

  • ****
  • 5192 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2015, 09:52:06 am »
Guys....the zombie part wasn't the most serious thing I've ever written.

11

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2015, 09:55:23 am »
Quote
So dennett says don't quote me out of context and lawless does anyway.. LOL

You missed the point of why I included that. He declared P-zombies true and then added the caveat to not quote it out of context so that later if someone called him on it with an addendum that P-zombies are ridiculous then he could cite his own caveat to back out of his affirmation.

In essence his caveat was just an escape route.
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

12

JudeNebula

  • ***
  • 2387 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2015, 09:58:26 am »
Quote
So dennett says don't quote me out of context and lawless does anyway.. LOL

You missed the point of why I included that. He declared P-zombies true and then added the caveat to not quote it out of context so that later if someone called him on it with an addendum that P-zombies are ridiculous then he could cite his own caveat to back out of his affirmation.

In essence his caveat was just an escape route.


No you misunderstood him, and because of that you quoted him out of context. He said in reference to EPIPHENOMANLISM, we are all zombies, because EP is ridiculous. But to say we are zombies in any other context is take him out of context. He clearly doesn't believe in p-zombies.
--This account has been banned--

13

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2015, 09:59:46 am »

I took the whole post as rather a joke, honestly.  I was not being completely serious.

I do think Dennett´s  statement is quite capable of sustaining an independent meaning, but, one can be shown incorrect, it has happened before.

It might turn out you are right, why not.
No problem. I still think Dennett doing a psychological report on what Plantinga wants is slightly funny.

Thanks for the exchange.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 10:13:53 am by ontologicalme »

14

Lawlessone777

  • *****
  • 13838 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel Dennett: A Zombie Trying (and failing) to Understand the EAAN
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2015, 10:03:31 am »
Quote
No you misunderstood him, and because of that you quoted him out of context. He said in reference to EPIPHENOMANLISM, we are all zombies, because EP is ridiculous. But to say we are zombies in any other context is take him out of context. He clearly doesn't believe in p-zombies.

You...do know that epiphenominalism is the only recourse to naturalism right? To say dualism is not true, and epiphenominalism is not true would entail actual p-zombies.
God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.