raw_thought wrote:Then he accepts qualia. First person narratives describe private experiences. ...
I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read his book?
Or it could have been a comprehension issue. Never continue reading when you come upon a word/concept you're unsure of, always look it up/research it, before continuing to read.
Calling someone ignorant just because they disagree with you is the logical fallacy known as ad hominum.
I guess Searle, Chalmers......are also ignorant and have not eead Dennett. Yes, I called Dennett disingenuous. However, I showed (with links) where he said one thing and then said another. Show me what fact I got wrong.
raw_thought wrote:Then he accepts qualia. First person narratives describe private experiences. ...
raw_thought wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read his book?
Or it could have been a comprehension issue. Never continue reading when you come upon a word/concept you're unsure of, always look it up/research it, before continuing to read.
Calling someone ignorant just because they disagree with you is the logical fallacy known as ad hominum.
I guess Searle, Chalmers......are also ignorant and have not eead Dennett. Yes, I called Dennett disingenuous. However, I showed (with links) where he said one thing and then said another. Show me what fact I got wrong.
You're like a manic squirrel on meth. Slow down my boy, no need to flood messages. The quantity of ones messages does not make them right. It just makes them look like a manic squirrel on meth.
Please stop posting. Some of us want to actually discuss philosophy. We are not interested in you calling us a poopy head and then we call you a poopy head and baxck and forth. Find a playground and play wiith the other kids.
First person narratives do describe qualia. (a private subjective experience ).
Why does Dennett require second person verification? Because first person experiences are private!
raw_thought wrote:
Its actually very simple. Dennett says that he accepts first person narratives if they can be verified (certified, reified). by a second person narrative. In other words, a first person narrative is only real if another first person narrative verifies it. The second person narrative is a first person narrative in the sense that he/she experiences it personally, subjectively and privately. *
Dennett implies that reality requires subjective validation (qualia)!!!
If one sees behaviour that corroborates the first person narrative then the first person narrative is real. Talk about magic! Only by seeing something makes it real! Dennett's "argument" is a bunch of self contradictory statements!
* They experience seeing the subjects behaviour. However, that experience is subjective. No one can see the subject's behaviour in the person's brain that witnesses the subject's behaviour.
I had to quote that to rescue it from the rants of spheres.
It is difficult to debate Dennett because he contradicts himself. He denies that we have feelings (see my quotes from him with sources). And then he says that he never said that we do not have feelings.
raw_thought wrote:It is difficult to debate Dennett because he contradicts himself. He denies that we have feelings (see my quotes from him with sources). And then he says that he never said that we do not have feelings.
It's difficult to debate a person you don't understand and probably have not properly read.
Why not stick to topic you know about, rather than ones in which you seem confused and incapable of seeing subtleties.
I think your main problem is that you are reading and responding to the site's well known Troll, Spheres of Balance. His choice of name is ironic given that his main aim seems to be an undying desire to sow discord by contradicting everything anyone ever says. He has even attacked my counter argument against you, only to use the same argument himself. Until you put him on ignore you will never have any peace.
Dennett is one man. Using him like this does not help you cause, positively or negatively.
Please show where I misrepresented Dennett. I can see why you think I am misrepresenting him bexause he says such nonsense. For example, that feelings do not exist.
I do understand Dennett. My seminar paper was about "quining qualia". My arguments were embraced by the philosophy department.
Thanks for the info about spheres. I thought I was the only one that knew he was a troll.
raw_thought wrote:First person narratives do describe qualia. (a private subjective experience ).
Why does Dennett require second person verification? Because first person experiences are private!
That is an example of Dennett contradicting himself. If there are no private experiences why do they need verification? That doesnt even make sense! But thats Dennett!
raw_thought wrote:It is difficult to debate Dennett because he contradicts himself. He denies that we have feelings (see my quotes from him with sources). And then he says that he never said that we do not have feelings.
It's difficult to debate a person you don't understand and probably have not properly read.
Why not stick to topic you know about, rather than ones in which you seem confused and incapable of seeing subtleties.
I think your main problem is that you are reading and responding to the site's well known Troll, Spheres of Balance. Sorry no troll here, just a hater of falsehood. Only ever a lover of truth.
His choice of name is ironic given that his main aim seems to be an undying desire to sow discord by contradicting everything anyone ever says. My pseudonym is not about me, it's about the universe, shows how much you know. Argue with yourself much?
He has even attacked my counter argument against you, only to use the same argument himself. Where Hobbes? Seriously, where? I'll give you credit if you deserve it.
Until you put him on ignore you will never have any peace. Yes, that is a definitely a way to hide from hard critique. To ensure ones falsehoods stand.
Dennett is one man. Using him like this does not help you cause, positively or negatively.
raw_thought wrote:Please show where I misrepresented Dennett. I can see why you think I am misrepresenting him bexause he says such nonsense. For example, that feelings do not exist.
I do understand Dennett. My seminar paper was about "quining qualia". My arguments were embraced by the philosophy department.
Thanks for the info about spheres. I thought I was the only one that knew he was a troll.
Please cite where he says; "feelings don't exist." Without the context, such a phrase is utterly meaningless.
Why not post your seminar paper?
"Sphere" is usually abbreviated SoB, which is more fitting as it is also Son of a Bitch.
raw_thought wrote:The troll is back. No arguments just insults.
Why do you care if I post a lot. You could simply have said them all in one post, or edited the previous post so as to include them. It seems like you're actually trying to be obnoxious. Roll over your opponents with quantity, versus quality.
You obviously never read them. I've read every single one of those that I've responded to.
Anyway, one should not feed a troll. I'm only a troll to those that fear my commentary. It's easier for them to swallow that way.
Bye
raw_thought wrote:Please show where I misrepresented Dennett. I can see why you think I am misrepresenting him bexause he says such nonsense. For example, that feelings do not exist.
I do understand Dennett. My seminar paper was about "quining qualia". My arguments were embraced by the philosophy department.
Thanks for the info about spheres. I thought I was the only one that knew he was a troll.
Please cite where he says; "feelings don't exist." Without the context, such a phrase is utterly meaningless.
Why not post your seminar paper?
"Sphere" is usually abbreviated SoB, which is more fitting as it is also Son of a Bitch.
Of course it is, though only a scoundrel would demean a mother because her sons argument was better than yours. Better to take on her son instead. That is if you're capable. Of course in your case you're not, so your only recourse is to pick on a mother. I fear for yours and your wife!
