I'm going on memory. I'll get back to you if I can find something.

Great point!

Rosenberg is a nihilist (and not just a moral nihilist).

Nihilism is the view that there are there are no composite objects (i.e., objects with proper parts); there are only mereological simples (i.e., objects with no proper parts). The nihilist thus denies the existence of statues, ships, humans, and all other macroscopic material objects. SEP

Our belief in a continuing identical self over a lifetime is an illusion. In praise of nihilism.

No identity overtime means no consciousness over time.

@Isaac Take what you want from this. I know it's not the smoking gun you were hoping for.
Rosenberg may not outright deny consciousness, but he might as well.

I know it's not the smoking gun you were hoping for. — Wheatley

No indeed. I should add some element of arguing against ridiculous strawmen to my 'all the worst argumentative techniques I've recently encountered' fantasy-thread.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into. It's so hard to find quotes from Alex Rosenberg without buying his book. I scoured much of the internet.

Some of you argued about Dennett's view. Let me explain:
1. Dennet doesn't give a damn about the consciousness, his point was to make us believe that it isn't ''extraordinary'', because anything that is out of the ordinary scares the atheist inside him.
2. Therefore, Dennett refutes the panpsychist view by saying everything that consciousness is made of is just dead matter, so it is just an emergent property of dead unconsciouss matter. Panpsychism is far from being a theistic view, but it does imply something extraordinary about reality, and again, everything extraordinary, even if does not directly imply God, simply scares Dennett.
3. The problem with that is that if this were the case, than it would be even more than extraordinary, I would say magic: to add things with 0 value of something and to get something with a value greater than 0. That's not extraordinary, it's magic.
4. So Dennett doesn't say consciousness doesn't exist, because he knows he'd be ridiculous. Dennet, on one hand, denies the ''extraordinary'' and translates the ''magic'' of the emergence into ''tricks'' in order to look banal. As long as everything remains banal, there is simply no room for God.
This is why Dennet is so ambiguous. His purpose wasn't consciousness but that of denying everything that might imply a God, even if very indirectly.
So yes, this guy is truly is a ''bag of tricks''!

I have the same problem when I’m reading a science article in a newspaper or general website. The journalists covering science usually covers a finding in a much more interesting, controversial way to generate clicks than the original finding. — Kmaca

This x 10,000

Our belief in a continuing identical self over a lifetime is an illusion. In praise of nihilism.
No identity overtime means no consciousness over time. — Wheatley

If this is correct then it will be impossible to find physical form for consciousness. As it will always be something different in the future. No enduring physical state.

I have no idea how anyone can take Alex Rosenberg seriously. It's impossible to strawman someone who is made of straw. If @Isaac want's defend Rosenberg, that's fine. I'm out.

And in case you were wondering: No, this isn't an attempt to be a formal argument. :roll:

It is one of the possibilities. If consciousness is constantly reconstructed

It’s terrible right! And, I’m still a sucker for it esp. if it’s found in somewhere generally respectable like the Guardian or NYTimes. I think nutritional science has to be the most frustrating when journalism gets a hold of it. The verdict on eggs, alcohol, coffee, etc switches every 6 months to two years often in the same newspaper or website but when you go to the original source the difference in the findings are not so stark. Scientific articles really need to be made public (ie not be put behind a paywall).

Dennett really does deny that the first-person nature of lived experience is real. What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the illusion of first-person consciousness, which is ultimately devoid of anything personal, as such. Only molecules are real, and we are the consequence of the collective action of their ‘unconscious competence’.

It is, as Nagel says in that review, preposterous. In fact, if Dennett has done a service to philosophy, it is in ably demonstrating, across the span of an entire career, what a preposterous claim ‘eliminativism’ amounts to. — Wayfarer

If you equate 'real' with 'elementary', your error is understandable. But then translating that more reasonable language, we have:

"
What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the emergence of first-person consciousness, which is ultimately devoid of anything personal, as such. Only molecules are elementary, and we are the consequence of the collective action of their ‘unconscious competence’.
"

which is less obviously wrong. But in fact that's not what Nagel is saying either. He can take no issue with the idea that the brain unconsciously preprocesses data, so he instead casts aspersions on Dennett's motives and dismisses the logical conclusion ad hominem.

I guess how compelling that is depends on how inclined you'd be toward Nagel's own biases before the fact. I find it quite stupid and dishonest myself.

I find it quite stupid and dishonest myself. — Kenosha Kid

Emergency clarification: I mean Nagel's review, not anyone here! Phew!

It’s terrible right! And, I’m still a sucker for it esp. if it’s found in somewhere generally respectable like the Guardian or NYTimes. I think nutritional science has to be the most frustrating when journalism gets a hold of it. The verdict on eggs, alcohol, coffee, etc switches every 6 months to two years often in the same newspaper or website but when you go to the original source the difference in the findings are not so stark. Scientific articles really need to be made public (ie not be put behind a paywall). — Kmaca

WAS EINSTEIN WRONG?
<insert 4000 words here>
No.

Lol!

Saying Einstein was wrong is a blasphemy.

I have no idea how anyone can take Alex Rosenberg seriously. — Wheatley

And yet...

It's so hard to find quotes from Alex Rosenberg without buying his book. I scoured much of the internet. — Wheatley

Funny how it's hard to take seriously a man for whom you've no written record of anything he's said.

He's all over YouTube. I saw him in moving naturalism forward, I saw him debate William Lane Craig.

What he says it is, is the consequence of billons of unconscious cellular interactions that give rise to the emergence of first-perso — Kenosha Kid

Magic

He's all over YouTube. I saw him in moving naturalism forward, I saw him debate William Lane Craig. — Wheatley

Well then quote something from his talks on YouTube. This is a discussion forum. There's nothing to discuss regarding your opinion that Rosenberg should not be taken seriously on this, or any, matter.

I'm not going through hours of YouTube material just to get a quote. The Rosenberg thing was more of a suggestion than anything. I didn't expect it to get all serious like this. And you're also acting like this is a super serious thread.

I've learned my lesson now, I have to be extra serious around you, or else...

Quoting is more important than the idea itself. Quote, or otherwise nobody believes you. Trust me, I've been through this before.

I thought I could find a quote in an online article. I was wrong. You don't always win in life.

The Rosenberg thing was more of a suggestion than anything. I didn't expect it to get all serious like this. And you're also acting like this is a super serious thread. — Wheatley

Fair enough.

Nagel is a dick.

That's better!

Let me help you: @Wayfarer

panpsychism is for fags — Eugen

We don't use that word here. I'm serious this time.

Enai De A Lukal

Where's @Banno? My shift is over now. He needs to take over.

Where's Banno? — Wheatley

At church.

I think its time to close this thread... @Baden