Daniel Dennett lecture on Consciousness

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kudos to Dennet for breaking up the "Cartesian theatre". It has taken scientists 350 years to debunk Descartes theory, and now they're back to the 700 year old debate of Hylomorphism which has its root in the 2300 year old theory of Aristotle.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you trying to say? That an old an unsettled debate is laughable?

[/ QUOTE ]

His position is that its an unanswerable question (at least, unless we are God) and so anything that makes it look like science is impotent or that we are spinning our wheels needs to be highlighted. Regardless of how irrelevant it is.

[hexag1]

that certainly seems to be the MO of Peter666.
I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method.

Peter666, are we wrong about your position??

[evil twin]

Great lecture, thanks for posting.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
that certainly seems to be the MO of Peter666.
I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method.

Peter666, are we wrong about your position??

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong if you assume that philosophy has made a linear progression in the last 700 years. It hasn't. To put it simply, what Descartes started was a new theory of philosophy based on a subjective foundation. The major modern philosophers since then have been using this as their base more or less, and forming highly elaborate systems off it. It is inevitable that empirical science will debunk aspects of these theories. Science will find an ally in the moderate realism espoused by Thomas Aquinas, as his explanation of hylomorphism and Dennett's explanation shows how they can interact without contradiction.

And when I mentioned the debate of hylomorphism, I did not mean it in a disparaging way. It was a theory with some slightly differing positions.

It is a major modern error to assume that because empirical knowledge and technology progress, that all other aspects of human understanding and culture will too. Are modern pop artists better than Bach? Are modern English writers superior to Shakespeare? We can say there is progression when it comes to the empirical sciences, but we cannot say that about the humanities in the same way.

[m_the0ry]

So let me paraphrase your claim,

"Disproving a major, central theory about consciousness through epistemological contradiction is not a sign of progress in understanding consciousness. Rather it's proof that we are stagnating."

This makes a lot of sense!!

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that certainly seems to be the MO of Peter666.
I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method.

Peter666, are we wrong about your position??

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong if you assume that philosophy has made a linear progression in the last 700 years. It hasn't. To put it simply, what Descartes started was a new theory of philosophy based on a subjective foundation. The major modern philosophers since then have been using this as their base more or less, and forming highly elaborate systems off it. It is inevitable that empirical science will debunk aspects of these theories. Science will find an ally in the moderate realism espoused by Thomas Aquinas, as his explanation of hylomorphism and Dennett's explanation shows how they can interact without contradiction.

And when I mentioned the debate of hylomorphism, I did not mean it in a disparaging way. It was a theory with some slightly differing positions.

It is a major modern error to assume that because empirical knowledge and technology progress, that all other aspects of human understanding and culture will too. Are modern pop artists better than Bach? Are modern English writers superior to Shakespeare? We can say there is progression when it comes to the empirical sciences, but we cannot say that about the humanities in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

...... is anyone here arguing any of these points? you are just setting up straw men here.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that certainly seems to be the MO of Peter666.
I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method.

Peter666, are we wrong about your position??

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong if you assume that philosophy has made a linear progression in the last 700 years. It hasn't. To put it simply, what Descartes started was a new theory of philosophy based on a subjective foundation. The major modern philosophers since then have been using this as their base more or less, and forming highly elaborate systems off it. It is inevitable that empirical science will debunk aspects of these theories. Science will find an ally in the moderate realism espoused by Thomas Aquinas, as his explanation of hylomorphism and Dennett's explanation shows how they can interact without contradiction.

And when I mentioned the debate of hylomorphism, I did not mean it in a disparaging way. It was a theory with some slightly differing positions.

It is a major modern error to assume that because empirical knowledge and technology progress, that all other aspects of human understanding and culture will too. Are modern pop artists better than Bach? Are modern English writers superior to Shakespeare? We can say there is progression when it comes to the empirical sciences, but we cannot say that about the humanities in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

...... is anyone here arguing any of these points? you are just setting up straw men here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been comments in this thread suggesting that it will take generations for people to realize what Dennet is talking about, as if philosophy is constantly evolving in a linear progression. I just want to clarify that that's not how it works. I am not arguing against you if you don't believe in a linear philosophical progression.

You made the comment: "I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method." Some aspects of philosophy have not progressed or been examined with the erudition of the middle ages. That is what Bertrand Russell says about Logic. The scientific method is an aspect of knowledge, not the fulness of knowledge, so we must be careful when speaking about scientific versus philosophical progression.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

...... is anyone here arguing any of these points? you are just setting up straw men here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been comments in this thread suggesting that it will take generations for people to realize what Dennet is talking about, as if philosophy is constantly evolving in a linear progression. I just want to clarify that that's not how it works. I am not arguing against you if you don't believe in a linear philosophical progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked through the thread again and I couldn't find any such comments. Perhaps you could quote them? I know that I haven't argued that philosophy progresses in a straight line. It seems like this point could be made in any discussion of philosophy or science, so why now? Why this thread? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

[ QUOTE ]
You made the comment: "I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method." Some aspects of philosophy have not progressed or been examined with the erudition of the middle ages. That is what Bertrand Russell says about Logic. The scientific method is an aspect of knowledge, not the fulness of knowledge, so we must be careful when speaking about scientific versus philosophical progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I went to far in characterizing your viewpoint. Even so, that comment in no way means that I view philosophy as a simple ladder. You could view philosophy as a messy fractal tree, and still find a measure of progress. All I'm saying is that we know more now, and that we know how to learn better and faster than we did before hard science.
Did Russell make the logic comment before or after Godel made his incompleteness theorems? That seems like progress to me (even if it is disheartening). I recall that John von Neumann called him the greatest logician since Aristotle.
As for the scientific progress versus philosophical progress, I think you are right about that, but I still think that hard science is the most important and effective branch of philosophy we have.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

...... is anyone here arguing any of these points? you are just setting up straw men here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been comments in this thread suggesting that it will take generations for people to realize what Dennet is talking about, as if philosophy is constantly evolving in a linear progression. I just want to clarify that that's not how it works. I am not arguing against you if you don't believe in a linear philosophical progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked through the thread again and I couldn't find any such comments. Perhaps you could quote them? I know that I haven't argued that philosophy progresses in a straight line. It seems like this point could be made in any discussion of philosophy or science, so why now? Why this thread? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

[ QUOTE ]
You made the comment: "I wonder what planet he lives on, thinking that no philosophical progress has been made since the mankind discovered the scientific method." Some aspects of philosophy have not progressed or been examined with the erudition of the middle ages. That is what Bertrand Russell says about Logic. The scientific method is an aspect of knowledge, not the fulness of knowledge, so we must be careful when speaking about scientific versus philosophical progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I went to far in characterizing your viewpoint. Even so, that comment in no way means that I view philosophy as a simple ladder. You could view philosophy as a messy fractal tree, and still find a measure of progress. All I'm saying is that we know more now, and that we know how to learn better and faster than we did before hard science.
Did Russell make the logic comment before or after Godel made his incompleteness theorems? That seems like progress to me (even if it is disheartening). I recall that John von Neumann called him the greatest logician since Aristotle.
As for the scientific progress versus philosophical progress, I think you are right about that, but I still think that hard science is the most important and effective branch of philosophy we have.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was referring to these comments by soon2bepro:

"Nice video, he says some interesting things, but I expect this subject is too much for today's minds. Maybe a couple generations from now.

In any case, I think he could've made it easier for the feeble-minded (ahem, theists and such) to understand his point."

Those feeble minded Scholastic theists seems to have been considerably ahead of their time.

As to the Russell comments, I don't remember the exact source, except that it was a quote from one of his books. Regardless, I defer to Copleston for all my opinions on the history of philosophy.