(September 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 12, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Chas Wrote: Daniel C. Dennett is one of the "new atheists". To claim he is "stupid ... in philosophy" is absurd.

Agreed. He's not stupid; he's a zombie. It's the people who take him seriously that I wonder about.

A zombie? Really?

Quote:

(September 12, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Chas Wrote: And the claim that naturalism makes reason and morality impossible is ignorant.

Actually, those are are the logical conclusions of naturalism.

No, they aren't. Reason is an emergent, evolved property of the brain.
The basis of morality is evolutionary.

(September 12, 2013 at 11:11 pm)InevitableCheese Wrote:

(September 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Agreed. He's not stupid; he's a zombie. It's the people who take him seriously that I wonder about.

Actually, those are are the logical conclusions of naturalism.

I'd assume you're not a naturalist. Haha. What do you mean by zombie? Just curious of your whole take on the subject.

I call Dennett a zombie because his speculations lead him to conclude that mental properties, like qualia and intentionality, are illusions. His claim is that intentionality, which applies to the whole brain, can be broken down into smaller parts. As such, specific brain functions contribute to the overall sense of intentionality with smaller, more specialized intentions. He carries this process all the way down to individual neurons and concludes that intentionality disappeares. Poof. The problem with this is that even a very small bit of something is still something, so you cannot completely get rid of intentionality. He intends to show that intentions do not exist. That makes Dennett a modern day sophist. He uses verbal slight of hand to distract from his circular logic. Thus you have knowing subjects incapable of actually knowing. There goes reason. Poof.

If you extend this naturalistic logic to morality you get a similar result, since the distinction between living and inanimate things disappears. Life becomes a stable electro-chemical reaction. So if humans are moral agents, it is the result of an amoral physical process. That is a contradiction.

---

(September 13, 2013 at 9:11 am)Chas Wrote: Reason is an emergent, evolved property of the brain.

Other than the human mind, please provide an example of another emergent property. Functions do not count because those are names applied to physical processes and not qualities in-themselves.

(September 15, 2013 at 1:12 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I call Dennett a zombie because his speculations lead him to conclude that mental properties, like qualia and intentionality, are illusions. His claim is that intentionality, which applies to the whole brain, can be broken down into smaller parts. As such, specific brain functions contribute to the overall sense of intentionality with smaller, more specialized intentions. He carries this process all the way down to individual neurons and concludes that intentionality disappeares. Poof. The problem with this is that even a very small bit of something is still something, so you cannot completely get rid of intentionality. He intends to show that intentions do not exist. That makes Dennett a modern day sophist. He uses verbal slight of hand to distract from his circular logic. Thus you have knowing subjects incapable of actually knowing. There goes reason. Poof.

If you extend this naturalistic logic to morality you get a similar result, since the distinction between living and inanimate things disappears. Life becomes a stable electro-chemical reaction. So if humans are moral agents, it is the result of an amoral physical process. That is a contradiction.

As I've said before, I'm not familiar with Dennett's arguments or philosophical position - but I've been told that my own position often resembles his. However, if Chad's summary here is an accurate representation of Dennett's philosophy then I would like to state for the record that mine is nothing like it.

However, it'd be an error to call this logic "naturalistic" or to assume that all naturalistic philosophies take the same position with regards to intentionality, qualia, reason or morality.

(September 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm)genkaus Wrote: mistake to...assume that all naturalistic philosophies take the same position with regards to intentionality, qualia, reason or morality.

Touche. I consider Dennett an eliminative materialist, although Apo seems to be most familiar with his work. I take you as a functionalist, the merits of which we have often debated.

(September 13, 2013 at 9:11 am)Chas Wrote:

(September 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Agreed. He's not stupid; he's a zombie. It's the people who take him seriously that I wonder about.

A zombie? Really?

Yeah, didn't you hear? Dennett totally turned into a zombie months ago.