Philosophical zombies

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I won't have too, that's the irony of the convo.   The basis of your misconception is so widespread that it will return on any google search of the comments in question with many hits across the top few pages.  

Responding explicitly to the notion of consciousness as the little man in the head, or the insistence that the difference between a p zombie and a human being was the existence of the little man in the head in one...Dennet characterized this as an illusion, and then commented that we would all be p zombies, if the p zombie where the one without the little man in the head.  

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.

Eliminativism seeks a more accurate definition (and or description) of consciousness.  Current and traditional ones are, in the view of that position, folklore.  

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.

I'm not having a debate with you.  I;m flat out telling you that you've got dennet wrong in a particular thing, a thing that alot of people got wrong..because of quote mining from his detractors so obvious and so frequent that it deserved a footnote......

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.

Good, good, good.  The funbus is important.

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.

I kick puppies too.  That's worth mentioning, surely?