So you posted all this because...? — Isaac

I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world. — Eugen

I don't think they have said outright consciousness is not real. — Forgottenticket

I wasn't talking about Dennet, I have actually mentioned he admits consciousness is real.

You really need to cite your sources if your making that kind of claim.

You really need to cite your sources if your making that kind of claim. — Wheatley

The video you've posted. He says consciousness is ''a bag of tricks'', it is not magic, and it does not reflect the reality with 100% accuracy. I don't deduce from that consciousness isn't real, I just deduce it isn't what we believe it is.

Who specifically are you talking about when you mention these scientists and philosophers.

Although such a stupid statement, this is very popular among people who form the philosophical and scientific world. How is this possible?!?! — Eugen

Sounds like an anecdote to me.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
that's a good article

Let's focus on this part.

Who are the Deniers? I have in mind—at least—those who fully subscribe to something called “philosophical behaviorism” as well as those who fully subscribe to something called “functionalism” in the philosophy of mind.

So you posted all this because...? — Isaac


I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world. — Eugen — Eugen

Yes, but why would we all want to know what you find problematic? We're not your therapists.

Thats very helpful, thanks. :up:

Than why you replied?

Who are the Deniers? I have in mind—at least—those who fully subscribe to something called “philosophical behaviorism” as well as those who fully subscribe to something called “functionalism” in the philosophy of mind. — Wheatley

Exactly! And it is said they represent the majority nowadays.

Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett. Ned Block once remarked that Dennett’s attempt to fit consciousness or “qualia” into his theory of reality “has the relation to qualia that the US Air Force had to so many Vietnamese villages: he destroys qualia in order to save them.”

Im pretty sure behaviorism went out of style a while ago. And I doubt functionalism is the dominant view in the philosophy of mind.

But materialism seems to have a fragile majority according to John Searle, Chalmers, and others. They also claim materialists simply deny consciousness, and I've heard these guys saying this over and over again. Maybe they are lying, but I have also seen people doing it.

John Searle — Eugen

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/07/02/former-professor-john-searle-loses-emeritus-status-over-violation-of-sexual-harassment-retaliation-policies/

Maybe they are lying — Eugen

Maybe they are.

but I have also seen people doing it. — Eugen

Who have you seen?

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-36282019000100009 another example. I do not remember their names, I just read stuff on the internet.

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/07/02/former-professor-john-searle-loses-emeritus-status-over-violation-of-sexual-harassment-retaliation-policies/ — Wheatley

- I don't find it relevant. I think the guy brings good arguments on the table. I also do not believe all those who are not materialists accuse materialists of denying consciousness for no reason.

Perhaps I’ll read it later. This seems more of a political issue than philosophical.

It is not a philosophical question, but it's about philosophy.

Fair enough. I’m sure you will find some noble men on your crusade against materialism. :party:

Terminologies are not important for me. If materialism is an atheistic view and it does not believe in a magic soul for example, I have no problem with it. But denying fundamentally obvious things just because you're afraid that it might be a weak point in your atheistic view or just because it shows science is limited, it represents a problem for me, especially because it's so anti-science.

I respect that point of view.

Thank you for bringing up this topic, I too have been scratching my head about this for some time.

I have found, and been told on a number of occasions, that there exists a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness, in the west. Engaging with consciousness for idealists is not a problem, but for materialists it is a major issue.

My still evolving understanding is:
In the West, for the past 2000 years, consciousness has been the domain of the soul, - In the possession of the clergy - and as such has been off limits to philosophy. I wonder if Descartes would have gone further if he could have? That he could have gone further seems likely, given Buddha managed to some 2000 years before him. I think therefore I am begs the question why / how do you think? But he stops there, just short of consciousness! – and consciousness remains off limits – in some peoples minds – the unknowable – ineffable - deniable!

This is the tradition of Cartesian dualism / materialism. It seems to be rooted in political expediency rather then open minded philosophy - hence difficult to defend - but it is a belief system! And it persists - It is the basis of western sanity.

I wasn't talking about Dennet — Eugen

Okay, but both articles you've linked revolve around philosophical behaviorism and functionalism which he is affiliated it and are both penned by Galen Strawson. Dennett even wrote a direct response to the article you posted on the third page here: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/03/magic-illusions-and-zombies-an-exchange/

Please have a closer look at some of these people who claim that consciousness doesn’t exist. When you work through their position, It usually becomes something like ‘our traditional idea of consciousness isn’t quite what we think it is”. ‘Consciousness doesn’t exist‘ is like the click bait title on a well considered position. It sounds provocative the content isn’t quite so. People like Daniel Dennett, who is a great writer, are sometimes a bit too concerned about book sales rather than working within the general philosophical community in a piecemeal, gradual way.
By the way 24% represents the number of people who consider that position a possibility not a legitimate possibility or the likely case.

:up: :up:

Journalists writing about philosophy and philosophers themselves are two very different types of writers. The journalists want to amplify the outrageous claims because they want people reading the article.

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. But, when you scratch beneath the surface, my reaction is usually ‘Oh, that’s what you meant. That doesn’t quite seem so shocking’. It’s not a bad way to first be introduced to an idea, but please take everything with a grain of salt.

Ok, I think you have a point. I have also noticed the toxic influence of the media. I also think Dennett is a "cool guy", but I also think he cares more about being popular. My yesterday sources were simple google searches, nothing more. I have heard and seen different folks stating absurd things, but I simply cannot remember the names of the documentaries, or of the magazines or websites. Maybe with a more advanced search I would be able to find them, but I won't do it. But maybe they were just for sensational publicity, I do not deny this possibility. I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so I don't dig for deeper meanings when it comes to opinions.