Most important philosophical writer in a generation

>Find a single problem with his explanation of consciousness

I don't have to find a problem because it's not an explanation.

Wrong picture

>[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course
what an absolute twat

What are the merits of his explanation of consciousness?
What is his explanation of cosciousness?

It has changed though exactly because of Dennet, you just need to read more.

I read it sometime last year but to my best recollection our consciousness is a running narrative we have imposed on external objects developed evolutionary for means of survival.

The narrative angle I like.
The evolutionary I suspect to be as nonsensical as most evolutionary psychology.

*blocks your path*

Rhodopsin AKA visual purple is missing from his 'where is this afterimage?' intuition pump that is a cornerstrone of his theories.

>Rejecting a hypothesis outright because it conflicts with your previously held beliefs, lifestyle, or feelings.

This is true retardedness. Moreover, your beliefs seem to amount to a form of idolatry, since you have tacitly made the spiritual demand (or at least the presupposition) that the human mind must be ontologically distinct from the material world, that materialism must be false, that the human soul. . ., etc., and that the human 'soul' (if one might call it that) or this worldly creation which we inhabit would have to be somehow lesser in your eyes if this were not the case.

But if you really had an appreciation for the eternal and for God's true wonder, then you would understand, that however things turn out to be, it can make no difference as regards the majesty and wonder of existence. If it turns out that the mind can be accounted for by material processes, then so be it, and if it turns out otherwise, then just as well, but either way your appreciation of existence should no more or less waiver than it had before. If, for some reason, you cannot imagine the mind as part of corporeal reality, and then this as being the work of God (or whatever divine entity you believe in), then this perhaps reflects more so on you an the presuppositions and reservations you have about the finite and the eternal.

In short, your belief in God should not be so easily swayed by an empirical hypothesis.

For me personally, it couldn't make any difference whether dualism or materialism is true. I'm interested in this question only as a matter of natural science. (And roughly speaking I think functionalism is true.)

Lmao this dork still presupposes Being without examining it and believes in the substratum of matter that we cannot point to except by flimsy synthetic hypotheses superimposed over everything in order to keep the hypotheses relevant without questioning it.

This dipshit would have been backing Caloric as a theory of heat.

Evolutionary science is a meme.

Rest in Peace Steve Irwin.

I'm actually not a dualist, either. If anything I'm a staunch Catholic, and thus believe that the complete human being is both body and soul united. This is why the Church has the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. At the end of time, when Christ comes again, everyone will get their bodies back and we'll be complete human beings again.

The dumbfucks of Veeky Forums are such brainlets that they keep confusing lack of coherence and meaning for depth. They still haven't understood that their continental garbage senseless speak has been thoroughly rebutted and is now only taught for historical reasons, as you continue to try and impress your professors and social group by pretending to understand the incomprehensible (as there's nothing to comprehend), the descendants of the logical positivists are busy doing real academic work.

*Blocks your path*