:rofl:

Ah, so you live in their future too? I was sleeping.

Since you're not familiar with Dennett's views or the arguments for them, you're not in a position to be making a post like this. Go acquaint yourself with what Dennett or eliminativists actually hold, then report back and tell us what you've learned.

Ok so not just willfully ignorant and unserious, but a homophobe to boot. Yikes. Mods could probably go ahead and trash this one...

But Dennet, although not a sofisticated guy, he actually does not deny the 1st person experiences, nor consciousness. — Eugen

The gist I got from Dennett is that the subjective experience of consciousness is real, but it's the result of physical processes, not an objective metaphysical entity (e.g. Soul). So, the semantic debate comes down to definitions of "physical" and "metaphysical"; which philosophers and theologians have been gnawing on for millennia. So, I have adopted a personal worldview which reconciles those seemingly incompatible semantic concepts. It's based on the common denominator between Materialism and Spiritualism as worldviews : multi-functional Information. :smile:

Ok so not just willfully ignorant and unserious, but a homophobe to boot. Yikes. Mods could probably go ahead and trash this one... — Enai De A Lukal

1. You are ignorant: I didn't mention Dennett when I posted the question. Moreover, I said he doesn't deny consciousness.
2. Regarding your other accusation, I don't even bother responding to such a silly accusation.
Please ignore this thread!

Despite having edited the post, you've explicitly admitted you used the word "fag" as a slur/insult. So, a homophobe. Again, the mods really should consider acting on this clown-show. Not only low philosophical quality (or, more precisely, no philosophical content at all), but I imagine homophobic/racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted smears are explicitly disallowed by the posting guidelines and you not only broke that, but continued to make excuses for having done so. This forum (or any other for that matter) is well rid of such as yourself.

Using "fag" as a pejorative is offensive to the group of people to whom it apples - gay folk. In any case, it is the mods who decide who stays and who goes, not you. I think they might be going to have a word with you.

You used it at as a pejorative- as a smear or insult, to imply something negative/derogatory- and even if you hadn't, it wouldn't really have been any less offensive or over the line. Same for any other racial/sexist/homophobic slur. They're extremely offensive and harmful, you shouldn't use them, full stop.

And people shouldn't need to actively ignore or avoid threads with no philosophical content or that contain extremely offensive bigoted language- those threads ought not exist in the first place, and in the event that they do, they should be deleted and their authors moderated appropriately (warned, restricted, banned, whatever is deemed warranted by the situation).

Using "fag" as a pejorative is offensive to the group of people to whom it apples - gay folk. — Banno

I am not a native speaker, but I searched the Eglish dictionary and this is what I found: https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03X1xjc7bfjXW-czrnQzzq469LZWA%3A1593501079604&ei=l-X6Xvm0JLGSrgTmgrzoBA&q=fag+meaning&oq=fag+meaning&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECAAQR1DPPFj9QWCeR2gAcAJ4AIABdYgBmAWSAQM1LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi53LGO_qjqAhUxiYsKHWYBD00Q4dUDCAw&uact=5
The term ''offensive'' or any other synonyme was missing.

On the other hand, for the word ''nI**&r'', I found this: ''a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person.'' Contemptuous is indeed offensive, so if I had used the word ''n%**%r'', that would have been racist indeed. But as long as the English dictionary doesn't mention ''fag'' being offensive in any way, you shouldn't consider it this way and even if you do, you cannot force other people to think that way.

I think they might be going to have a word with you. — Banno

- too bad, exactly when I was becoming so popular. I guess I'll never be as popular as Dennett :(.

You used it at as a pejorative- — Enai De A Lukal

You are an ignorant:
1. You accused me of posting a question related to Dennett.
2. You didn't bother to go check the English dictionary.
3. You accused me of admitting the word is offensive, without mentioning the ''if'' part, which changes radically the whole point.

And people shouldn't need to actively ignore or avoid threads with no philosophical content or that contain extremely offensive bigoted language — Enai De A Lukal

Keep accusing people left and right they are being racist and homophobes and one day you will have a huge majority tired of being accused for no reason. I wish you good luck with a huge mad crowd!
And remember: your opinion regarding a word is completely irrelevant as long as the English dictionarydoesn't agree with you. So go check it!

uses a homophobic slur = "you're accusing people left and right they are being homophobes!"

nice try

Neither the dictionary, nor the admins help you, so I guess it is time to admit you were wrong. Calling me homophobe was very insulting and some excuses will be welcome. Thank you!

nor the admins help you

We'll see. Your refusal to acknowledge that using homophobic slurs is not acceptable is not going to help your case, that's for certain.

I can't find the full context in which you used the word "fags" (even from our changelog). But your interlocutors are right to point out it's a homophobic slur and its use could get you banned. Back to topic now, please (or the thread will be closed).

That is an excellent piece of writing by Nagel. He's always been a great writer. He's also right. Dennet tries to dress it up, but he's essentially denying consciousness, which is stupid and a non-starter with anyone who's not emotionally invested in materialism. Any "ism" that ends up denying conscious experience is doomed from the start.

I can't find the full context in which you used the word "fags" (even from our changelog). — Baden

I said it indeed and I did a more detailed research on google, and it is indeed a bad word, especially in North America. So I need to accept I made a mistake and I apologize! But I am not a native, I didn't know it's slur, I thought it is simply a synonym for gay, and I didn't have the intention to offend.

That is an excellent piece of writing by Nagel. He's always been a great writer. He's also right. Dennet tries to dress it up, but he's essentially denying consciousness, which is stupid and a non-starter with anyone who's not emotionally invested in materialism. Any "ism" that ends up denying conscious experience is doomed from the start. — RogueAI

OOOO that was a really strong one! But I don't believe Dennett is denying it, I just believe he wants to convince people there's nothing special about it or about anything in this reality. So he simply reduced it to banal elements that come up together and form something... banal. I need to read more about this Nagel guy.

It's fascinating how the asking of a question such as Eugen's can evolve/devolve into personal insults, judgement and calls for moderator action.
I wonder what intentions lay behind the asking of the question and in the decision to respond to any part of the thread.
I could speculate that Eugen had noticed that a common theme among scientists and philosophers was a claim that "consciousness does not exist" and it was not an idea supported by his view of the World. I don't know. I don't know who the scientists or philosophers are or how they define consciousness.
A view of consciousness I'm currently exploring is akin to my experience of reading this thread on my phone. In my busy mind a thought will pop up, an observation, and it will precipitate a question that invites an answer. And the answer may generate a question or lead to a conclusion.

"Hm, that's another scientist that thinks consciousness doesn't exist"
"But I'm thinking, feeling, experiencing the World. There is some consciousness that I am aware of that is experiencing"
"This seems like nonsense, I wonder if other people have noticed this silliness?"

Tappety-tap on the keyboard.

What answer is being sought?
Simple confirmation that what we concluded was correct or an inquisitive exploration of the possible answers?
What does it mean when someone disagrees or interprets the question differently? Are they an idiot?
Do some answers stimulate some outrage or frustration that we feel as an attack and demand a defensive or aggressive response?

Perhaps in these reactionary scenarios consciousness takes a back seat. There is a sensation of positive or negative emotion in response to a stimulus and a reaction. Some would say that in these circumstances we have no choice about how we respond. We have formed a system of beliefs and values which form the basis of our identity. And it is the identity, who we think we are, and the chattering of our brains that is confused as out consciousness.

The thread is the chatter, the identity, the negative self talk, the outage when our values are violated and the defensiveness when our beliefs are challenged.

The consciousness is the observer watching this play put on the phone, unattached to thoughts and evident emotions. It is in the present and non-judgemental. It notices the thoughts and emotions, good and bad, but does not confuse it with the identity we believe we are.

Anyway, the intention of this was to offer a viewpoint that might be interesting and to encourage a respectful and humble approach to discussions. Maybe think about how what you write might be hurtful to others and if you feel outraged by something, try not to take it personally and seek to educate and bridge a gap.

But nobody insulted. I made a mistake using a term I didn't know it was a slur. I am not native and I really didn't know. Other than that, I think the discussion was civilized.

I listened to your advice and I did some research on this topic. I read about Chruchland's view. I think that unlike Dennett he didn't have any agenda other than disproving dualism and I think he actually did a decent job. The problem with his view is that he wasn't able to fix the problems of materialism and he ended up in the exact trap of contradicting himself.

Curious guy: Mr. Churchland, is the 1st person experience something true?
Mr. C.: Of course it is.
C.g.: So can you explain it?
Mr.C: Of course, everything can be reduced to the moving of the particles in the brain = this is not a correlation, it is the same thing = moving particles is the same with 1st person experience.
Well, this is very hard to grasp, and it basically denies experience.
So he basically contradicts himself.

Consciouness doesnt need to exist if we assume naturalism. Science doesn't have to care about consciouness. It's out of its picture by the very nature of the concept. You canno't say consciouness exist without immediatly begging the question. Consciouness as a "thing" doesnt need to be for a human to declare that he's conscious. It's just human thinking that they're function of self-awareness is "fundumatental" for the world, this is how humans treat the world.

Only 24% consider it a metaphysical possibility which is a much weaker claim than saying consciousness doesn’t exist. — Kmaca

56% of the best minds in the world think that the best way to decide philosophical questions is by consensus. Furthermore, of this 56%, a 32% think that if consensus can't be achieved, then at least a 2-point margin must be validated by voting to make true what the largest minority thinks.

The source information is lost. However, 64% of all Hindustani-speaking car mechanics and 32% of all left-handed dentists residing on South Hokkaido Island, believe that the industry borrowed the two-point lead idea from Ping-Pong.

Afterall it depends on what you mean by exist :
If you mean something that fits in a human conception of the world, i agree that consciouness exist.
If you mean something that is a variable of the natural world, no it doesnt.
We could have the theory that humans only attribute consciousness to themselves, and other things that they can have empathy for.
There is two view-point:
- The common-sense, innate viewpoint : Consciouness exist and this is an objective fact.
- A very strict physicalist viewpoint : Consciouness isnt a variable of the natural world(it doesnt exist), humans say that they are conscious an can rarely be reasoned out of it.
Now, if human aren't conscious, they have quite a lot of neurons structured in a quite complex architecture, wich may explain why they are able do intellectual activity such a science or philosophy.

I don't even have to get into it too deep to see how ludacris that is:
1. How can you do science if you are not conscious in the first place? — Eugen

Extremely ludicrous.

My guess is that science and society in general are influenced by materialistic and atheistic systems in many different ways.

As society becomes more and more materialistic, people become increasingly engrossed in material things and trapped in material concerns. This gives rise to an irrational fear of non-material things that science can't explain and people come to feel they must reject, sometimes even violently, anything higher than their physical selves e.g. concepts such as soul, afterlife, God, or anything that doesn't fit a materialist worldview.

As consciousness is something that can't be measured or defined by science it is either dismissed as a product of the nervous system/brain or its existence is simply denied.

Consciouness isnt the variable of anything. This is more ludicrous to say that consciouness exist than say god exist. Atleast the last would have created the universe.
But the concept of consciouness is probably useful for things such a empathy or self-control.
But ask yourself why don't innately think that things such a computer, earth or anything that you don't have empathy for are conscious.
Have you wondered if the ground you are walking you on could suffer, are you a monster ?

Consciouness isnt the variable of anything. This is more ludicrous to say that consciouness exist than say god exist. Atleast the last would have created the universe. — Nzomigni

I bet great scientists like Mao Zedong would have said something similar.

So something exist if it please you ? It fits the common-sense, innate vew point i described earlier.
I don't mean that we shouldn't have empathy for menber of our species, the situation we are in shouldn't be changed. But i don't think you should expect to find consciousness somewhere.

So something exist if it please you ? It fits the common-sense, innate vew point i described earlier — Nzomigni

That's exactly what I meant. Good to see that we agree.

So i suppose you aren't a physicalist, it's understandable. But i just want to indicate that the physicalist position isnt incorehent.

As I said, I agree. Agreement and consensus and, above all, commonsense are without doubt of the essence.