On Aug 20, 5:58 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 8/20/2011 6:10 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 8:02 am, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: > > >> Now, Dennett would be the > >> first to say that it just 'seems' to me that I have a phenomenology but > >> that is the point isn't it? If it seems to me then I have it. How can > >> anyone think otherwise?? > > > Exactly. The fact that we feel is not contingent upon any external > > validation of the content of those feelings. Subjective phenomenology > > is a legitimate and irreducibly primitive part of the universe at the > > same level as probability or cause and effect. Since it's ontological > > advantage is private orientation, it is actually where subjectivity > > underlaps externality that is significant and signifying...the extent > > to which interior fiction has the potential to diverge from objective > > fact is where teleology derives it's power, and therefore a great > > improvement over a zombie universe of pure logical physics. > > > Craig > > > And Dennett is a zimbo. James Randi too. They are the same zimbo. > > Can you quote anything to that effect. In Dennett's actual writing, as > opposed to what other people have said,
I mainly know Dennett's views from watching him give talks in videos. Both he and Randi start from a presumption that the 3p world is the standard by which reality is measured, and then they demonstrate how 1p perception doesn't always faithfully render 3p realities and therefore is an 'illusion'. What they fail to address is the fact that our perception is much, much more than adequate for any evolutionary purpose and quite effective at rendering our interior and exterior environments to us with precision and accuracy under typical conditions we encounter. For an illusion, it's a helluva good one and there is no conceivable alternative. What's more, it is only through perception that we can question perception, so if we can't trust it, then why can we trust not trusting it either? Why is he even talking if we are all just biochemical machines acting out our evolutionary destiny? As long as we survive and reproduce, it shouldn't matter what we think is true. > he says zombies are preposterous. That's exactly what a zimbo would say ;) > "I can’t see why a belief in zombies isn’t simply ridiculous, and I’m > going to go on comparing zombies to epiphenomenal gremlins and other > such prepostera until some philosopher mounts a proper > defence, showing that the belief in the possibility of zombies is > somehow better supported > than these other cases." Yeah, I'm not saying he believes in zombies, I'm saying that maybe he IS a zombie. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
