RE: Philosophical zombies
March 4, 2018 at 12:54 am
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2018 at 1:17 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 4, 2018 at 12:16 am)Hammy Wrote: Merely asserting that I'm falling into a widespread misconception doesn't make it so. What ISN'T fucking misconception is that Dennett takes the same silly approach with consciousness as he does with free will, and it is analgous with the silliness of pantheism. It ISN'T purifying a concept and stripping it of its folk psychological baggage, it's talking about something else together.He's pretty sure that consciousness -is- "something else" altogether, with respect to the conceptions of both consciousness and the free will he discusses.
Quote:He doesn't explain consciousness, he explains how consciousness works and then pretends that a hard problem doesn't remain. And he pretends it doesn't remain by not fucking addressing the hard problem.If someone explains to you how a light bulb works, they have explained light bulbs to you. Now, you could posit that the light doesn't actually come from any of the described workings..but you'll still have had light bulbs explained to you all the same. You could, conversely, posit that it works some other way (that would be the less petulant option, I think we'd both agree)..but even there your objection would be to the description of operation, not to the fact that they didn;t even make the attempt.
He doesn't think there's a hard problem. Why do you think that there's a hard problem? What do you think the hard problem is, or is supposed to be? As a point of interest, he considers the hard problem folklore, a problem that existed only because of an inability to reconcile the operation of the body with it's interface with the spirit who was that singular little man in the head experiencing things, and of not fully considering what was being proposed in positing that such a hard question existed. In the view of people who share his broad position on this issue, consciousness is just as functionally definable as any other aspect -of- consciousness. It is, in their view, the aggregate of all of the other functinally definable explanations that will provide the explanation for the combined function (or even side effect) that we call consciousness.
Quote:You don't describe something by eliminating it.If some x in the description isn't actually in the thing being described, it's probably best to remove it from the description.
Quote:Says someone who doesn't understand modal logic. But then, you're in good company... Khem doesn't understand it either.I drink milk straight from the jug, with my mouth, at midnight...... too. You're really just missing all the worst things about me here, Ham.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
