RE: Philosophical zombies
March 3, 2018 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2018 at 4:32 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 3, 2018 at 4:05 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I don't know how many times I'll have to tell you that this is your misconception of his opinion, and to go read his footnotes..until you actually do it?
I've read and listened to Dennett repeatedly on the subject. You blurting over and over that I haven't read some particular footnote without bothering to even tell me what footnote you're talking about... doesn't make Dennett any less confused.
He's made it abundantly clear, repeatedly, that his ontology is fucked. He acts like science can trump things it can't trump. If he's unable to test the sense of consciousness that MUST be true, he'll act like that sense of consciousness doesn't exist (because he thinks that anything that can't be tested by science can't be real... which is hilariously ironic considering without consciousness there would be nothing for science to test), and yes he has redefined consciousness and he's made it very clear that he has done that, and he has made it very clear that he takes the same stupid approach with free will... and he DOES take the same stupid approach with free will. And it's all as silly as pantheism.
Quote:The problem is that you refuse to go read the relevant footnote. Ham..you agree with dennet on exactly what you think you're discussing in his positio, here.
No that's not the problem. Your approach to debate is so fully of fallacies it's laughable, and it's sad that so many people can't see through them that they actually think you're a good debater. You blurting over and over "Well you can't have read the footnote I won't specify then!" doesn't score you brownie points, you're talking out of your arse. It's very clear that Dennett is full of shit, so stop playing devil's advocate and trying so hard to defend his terrible arguments.
(March 3, 2018 at 4:05 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I put a winky and everything, lighten up, lol. Yes, it -is- what you claimed, but only by the ambiguity of the grammar in the claim, lol.
I am lightened up. I'm enjoying myself a lot. That doesn't change the fact that I see you as the atheistic version of William Lane Craig.
No, it isn't what I claimed. I mentioned epiphenomenalism to Polymath during a debate with him, and I made it very clear why I brought it up. You are once again obfuscating in full WLC style. And you bank on the majority of people being too thick to spot your obfuscation.
