200 BC

I agree

The "public intellectual" is now the attention whore these days.

Philosophers and scientists, but especially philosophers, should be driven by curiosity, not fame.

Dennett is a Pan Psychist in denial.

You provide nothing of value

thank you for outing yourself as philosophically illiterate

>I can't read filenames OR run a simple reverse image search, and I don't recognize one of the most famous philosophers of my own times!

>one of the most famous philosophers of my own times
modern-day mainstream philosophers are universally shit

i'm more of an XOR kind of guy if you get how i feel tbqfhmmidkhyfrnbiapg

>reductionism is bad cause my feefees are hurt cause I need meaning cause if not its bad
Wow, start arguing any time

argue

>I'm ignorant and proud of it!

>look how smart i am mom!
DON'T FUCKING REPLY TO ME AGAIN U LITTLE SHIT

>implying hyper-reductionism can relate metaphysical truths

must be hard being a brainlet

>I'm not only a cretin and an ignoramus, but I get asspained when people point this out to me even tho I wear my ignorance as a badge of honor!

youtu.be/SNWVvZi3HX8

It's the biggest mystery which we yet to discover.

Brainlets, do you even think? The whole system which we've build is based on the very core mechanics of about 1-2kg of neurons and little hybris which takes approximately 20% of our energy. Ability to solve ourselves sheds light on the question where our very limits of thought are and can create insight to artificial intelligence. It unlocks ability to understand learning, memorisation, seeing, senses, group behaviour inner gps etc. It's a science developing fast with the technologies such as fMRI and PET. Cognitive sciences and neurosciences have a lot to offer in the future.

Who the fuck cares about some airplane and locomotive shit anymore.

PS. Daniel Dennett is just old fart making some philosophical perspectives.

>people look to smart people to tell them answers
>people understood as smart get to say whatever

Not hard.

>Why aren't they trying to figure out how cars move or how planes can fly? Planes and cars are important to society.

Epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology are as well. Just in a very different aspect.

>Epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology are as well.

No they aren't. There's a reason scientists leave these """questions""" to baristas, while they work on the actual problems that people care about and that relate in some way to reality.

There's no getting off the ground without the first two. The second one moreso as no matter how you do it a metaphysical framework must be at least implied. The third is the basis of ethics, which your argument appeals to while rejecting it.

>There's no getting off the ground without the first two.

Yes there is. You just assume physicalism, BOOM, there you go. You can waste your whole life arguing that YOU CANT KNO NUFFIN, but it IS a waste of a life because it's irrelevant to the actual questions that matter. You may as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (Spoiler: it's all of them, they have no size because they don't exist).

Why do all hard problem deniers resolve to the "magic trick" argument?

>Consciousness is just a magic trick, and we don't know the trick yet xD

What does this even mean? What is the trick? What physical mechanism could possibly be the trick?

I imagine it will go like this. In the future, we learn that consciousness is fundamentally linked with reality, in a quantum way. the hard problem denier will still have the gall so say "HA I was right all along, the trick was that dualists were right! See I told you it was just a trick!"

I WIL FUK U UP

Rude.

Your prediction is as valid as someone saying it's just the sum of it's parts. That's why neuroscientists haven't really said anything conclusive. It's more likely though, that there isn't really any special quantum property beyond what we observe and you faggs will just go and say "it's immaterial ha".

Describing it as a magic trick is shorthand for saying it's not what it appears to be. There is no "hard problem of consciousness" because consciousness is not what it seems to be, and when you understand what consciousness actually is, you realise there is no mystery involved. This is just like a magic trick, there is no "hard problem of conjuring" because conjuring is not what it seems to be, and when you understand what it actually is, you realise there is no deep mystery to be explained.

>There's no getting off the ground without the first two.
>Yes there is. You just assume physicalism, BOOM, there you go.

So you work off the groundwork already done for you, assume a large swath of it, and call that getting off the ground without it?
user please.

You don't need any of the "groundwork", assuming physicalism is the default position. Prove there is such a thing as a non-physical "thing" and we'll talk, until then, the physical is all we can observe.

>You don't need any of the "groundwork", assuming physicalism is the default position.

>And why do Philosophers completely evacuate any question that has been settled through scientific or engineering methods? Why aren't they trying to figure out how cars move or how planes can fly? Planes and cars are important to society.
This is the most fucking retarded shit I've read all day.

It's because that's not what philosophy is about you moron. You might as well have asked "Why aren't aerospace engineers busy trying to fight cancer?"

>our interpretation reality is an illusion created by consciousness
>hard problem deniers think consciousness is an illusion
>hard problem deniers think that an illusion caused by an illusion will eventually explain the illusion that caused the illusion.

Nice explanation

I thought the more fun debate of consciousness was how to explain intentionality.

Nice argument retard.

There wasn't an argument. What you read was ridicule.

>It's because that's not what philosophy is about you moron.

You should go tell Aristotle that, because he devoted plenty of thought to it, as did countless philosophers after him, right on up to when Newton BTFO them all with his elegant, EMPIRICAL, model of motion. Then, suddenly, the philosophers stopped pontificating endlessly about motion, how strange! And guess how many of the philosophical positions on the argument turned out to be correct? That's right, none of them! Some day the "problem" of consciousness will be a settled matter,and the answer will come from science, not philosophy. At that point philosophers will be reduced to theology as it's sole preserve.

What it was is a pathetic attempt to crawl away from an argument you lost with some dignity. It was as sad as the rest of your efforts in this thread. Thanks for the trip, filtered.

Go back to >>>/reddit/ . I'm sure the stemlords will greet you with open arms.

Larger image

Same attention seeking faggot.

Why is Bill Nye the undergraduate degree guy on here?

>Why do people think and discuss about deep issues fundamental to our existence and place within our world?
>Why can't we all just focus on the mechanics of cars and planes and whatnot
Fucking Christ there really are people like you out there, I thought you were a strawman.

This actually pisses me off in the context of """AI"""

Let neurologists and computer scientists debate what a conscience is and whether computers can have it. Philosophers have literally nothing to say.

>when you throw a stone, it will fly until it expands its energy, and then it will stop and fall straight down to the Earth because that is where it belongs

So if we let neurologists and computer scientists debate what consciousness is, wouldn't they be doing philosophy?

People tried to use philosophy to answer those questions because they hadn't yet realized the limitations of philosophy. Then when science was invented philosophers gradually came to understand that science much better suited for answering that type of question.
And now we have the opposite problem, where autistic stemfags are the ones who don't realize the limitations of science and insist on using it to answer questions that it's incapable of answering, or else insist that questions that science can't answer are less important than the ones it can.

I think his point is that there's no such that as just a philosopher, only people that do science, math, and/or engineering then do philosophy. Ie it's easier to start at science and then work your way over the the utility of crystal healing and tesla bullshit than the other way around. Not that you can't derive utility from mysticism that is.

>sky, moon, and stars
All external objects that you can only understand through observation.

>consciousness
The very thing that makes you who you are and the only thing you can infer actual knowledge about unlike the stars/sky/etc.

Are you trying to tell me dennett is a philosopher?

>*no, I'm not saying that science isn't a subset of philosophy or that logical positivism is true.
You are saying philosophy is useless, and by extension that things only have use in terms of some kind of immediate utility. That is basically equivalent to positivism.

Brainlets can't even step.

Sorry for the late response.

Your position is simply contradictory. You're going to assume an entire metaphysical framework to argue how you can do scientific study without needing metaphysics and epistemology to get off the ground. And of course your reasoning for assuming IS your epistemology.

And this wouldn't touch on the more basic stuff like the understanding of the nature of causality and whatnot.

These disagreements with metaphysics as a field are dominated by people that have no idea of what they speak about.

The current model of motion was revolutionized by the coming of inertia but the study of the nature of motion has not stopped whatsoever. You're mistaken. And also trolling about the rest of the post, but Ill take the bait.

>ur just a stupid same fag u basterd bich u!!!

Not an argument

>right on up to when Newton BTFO them all with his elegant, EMPIRICAL, model of motion.
Did he BTFO John Philoponus and his theory of impetus?

>unfalsifiable
babby lern'd a new werd

kek
all the "im speshcal" cunts in the comments posting their intangible -ists and -isms to discard what is common sense if you briefly glance at how anything works in the universe.

>to discard what is common sense if you briefly glance at how anything works in the universe.
To take a brief glance is not give shit about something. That's to see but not to think. Most of the times it still crosses the mind that the first impression wasn't the right one, like Simpsons' paradox

Look anything long enough and it'll become quite far from the "common sense". That's pretty much how all sciences have evolved even the worst ones like gender studies. That's the whole point in philosophy and the reason most fields of study major as master of philosophy. The whole point in philosophy is to sink in some very specific problem so far it's humanly possible and find something new or to logically reason to support the old paradigm.

The quite funny thing is with this specialisation that in all cases you see the whole world with the lens of choice. Welder may take that common man's stand and make erotically charged comments on seams and joints. Engineers can joke about their shit math and strength coefficients etc.

It's quite weird from OP, and in many cases from this board in general too, to take down some field of study and mock it. What the fuck? In this capitalistic western society of ours (I don't except anyone from N-Korea to be here and waste time) it doesn't matter what you study but if you can get some meaningful work done. In most cases this works.

Now talking about consciousness for a laymen is near impossible. Most what comes is "I want the D"-stuff such as I think therefore I fucking exists and so on. Now Descartes, as an example, as we know wasn't some dumbfuck from France back in the day. He had all the right to think about the very core of our existence, and one could say he set the first milestone for cognitive sciences and critical philosophy of science. After developing leaps for mathematics in analytical in such a degree that cartesian coordinates are named after him.That little leap didn't come from taking a glance at a triangle

So these great orators and aggressors such as (Hitler,) Dennet, Minsky, Chomsky fuck even Turing who talked on this gray area such as cognitive sciences, rarely talk absolute horseshit. They are there for gener public to acknowledge the progress made in such areas such as neurology or linguistic universality of brains. What's so important then? Why spout for them? Well, rarely are them even discussed anywhere, even here since it's more mathematical equation circlejerking, so to give a small thought, or glance on that matter might resolve some vastly different problem in mind. Or it goes from ear right through the other and disappeas like fart in Sahara, but they still give a hint that even though we've developed hugely as a species technologically so that we can fly with aeroplanes, use very complicated computing machines everyday and drive and automobile for a thousand miles if we like to we don't understand shit what's going around us. We don't have super unifying theory in nuclea physics or even that good link to relativity, there is ton of stuff in the sky we yet don't know, we don't know how we came here exactly, we don't exactly know what SEPARATES us from ANIMALS. We don't even know what we do and why we do as we do. Core elements are quite far from being resolved. That's why those philosophers exists. They may give some tools to approach a problem.

Even though we may know how to talk a talk and walk a walk, we don't much know other than that and those tasks either far enough. The simple fact that mathematics works is still, in some sense, a mystery. It just werks, eh?

The thing about philosophy is you can never be wrong. All you need to do is practice mental gymnastics, bad analogies and word diarrhea to appear like you have it all figured out.

This is attractive to a lot of people who don't want to do the hard work to learn something.

That's not how modern philosophy works at all.

Do tell us more about the progress made in Philosophy in your next TedX event.

Well you can do two things. You can either attend a lecture in philosophy and learn something, expand your understanding of something or you can shove your arrogance in your ass along with your head. Makes no difference with me. You don't need me for either so I'm not gonna bother with you.

>Typical arrogant philosophy cuck

...

Every culture has their own philosophy. Nobody's wrong because it's all philosophy.

Philosophy does not make progress, but that doesn't mean that the pursuit of it is not worthwhile.

Denying philosophy in favor of science is a lot like denying science in favor of engineering. You are only looking at the short term cash profits.

You can ignore philosophy and lead a hedonistic life all you want, but note that a lot of people do not think this way, and would rather stop and think about the life they're living.

The only reason people pursue it is because they want to appear to be like those old wise men you hear about in fairy tales. Only an educated person knows how retarded these people are, really.

That doesn't mean all Philosophers are brainlets but the vast majority of them are smug assholes who have no scientific understanding.

It's fine to pursue it like you pursue music, arts, history and other useless things but let's stop pretending that there is anything you're really learning from it.

...

> but let's stop pretending that there is anything you're really learning from it.

There's quite a lot to learn from it in fact. At least that's how I feel and have felt. Once I picked a general introduction to philosophy book in library which was little better than average book on the same subject. The book consisted of original writings of influental philosophers (Leibniz, Popper, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida...) and critical analysis of those essays from various modern critics. It struck my mind how intense the writings were: full of extremely insightful perspectives on questions such as what is knowledge and what constitutes life and meaning. All this was way above my understanding at that time and I sure learnt to respect the general philosophy not just the "love of knowledge" as the greek etymology indicates.

The hard part really is to apply it to own life and rhetoric. For example the whole justice system is just an applied layer from ethical philosophy, one could say that jurists and lawyers are just engineers in ethics, just like whole society are layers of thoughts of what is good society, starting from Plato's Republic. Let's not forget that formal logic derived from philosophy of approximately 2500 years ago. But how does this relate to normal life? Not easily, not without a struggle at least. Philosophy seems to only give some tools and points of view to understand the system around you. It gives some words of play for conversations though.

(cont)

...

One important modern subset of philosophy is the philosophy of science. It is important to remember that most things we measure is quite far from reflecting the objective universe that really is there. We only measure the little things that we think we have made the tools to. The data can tell you a lot more or less than you try to make out of it. Most of our statistics are also primitive and based mostly on estimates. On those estimates we then base and trust everything on? Risk of it being false is much larger than we let it to be. Where is the hard sciences then? We don't have any tools of metering something which doesn't have risk for error. That's why humanities have their own mutual masturbation with a prior claims that they can argue on without ever even touching a ruler.

...
One must draw a line between academically reasoned philosophy and some café philosophers (or café revolutionists what ever the distinction is) to see the difference. Television is full of those who think they know. Books? Some authors think they know something. Some books are full of information but no insights, some books on the other hand have the property of giving more than taking time and effort. There is even some fiction which may have in it a disturbingly a posterior ways of understanding what is that surrounds us. Mostly it's just personal interests of these mediums which mattes, there too some have a bad taste and others do not have the vague uncritical sensing.

Myself, I like to think that the use of general philosophy comes after the work you've done in other aspects of research whether it is biomed, fintech, chem, math, psy or physics but not the other way around. Politicians, for one big example, do it mostly the wrong way. They start telling people what to do before they've themselves figured what can you do. These television figures also do it just for the entertainment and own publicity, not for the knowledge itself. Spreading the knowledge is not necessary to make it. There it come easy to hate or to pity philosophy in general. The trending conversations of feminism and ever-repeating mantras of "you are the universe" "you really don't know anything". Vsauce's "or is it?" and other bullshit. It's easy to generalize that pity to all even though that's just the modern day and the biggest circle in Venn diagram, but definitely not all. The generalization of ideas, the grand explanations of universe, game theories that connect everything and our being, is only achievable after minor researches and works in areas that don't try to get out to the sky and space.

>Philosophy does not make progress
I wouldn't say it doesn't but to measure the progress? Hard. It's like trying to measure every oxygen molecules in the air. It makes some progress whole time and something very new every now and then pops up.

fucking charecter limits

PhD

>"philosophy is trash,reeee"
t. undergrad

>"me?"
t. PhD

>unfalsifiable
babby's new buzzwerd

>what is knowledge
science

>what constitutes life and meaning
derp

The brain is a non-intuitive way of looking at consciousness.
Sure, neural activity and consciousness are correlated. Sure, the brain can be seen as a representation of consciousness... but that's as far as the brain takes us.

For those that think we understand that the brain produces consciousness, what is the pattern of chemical activity that does it? Can it be recreated on an artifically created organ?

What about sleep? We retain our identity through moments of unconsciousness every night. There is an underlying substantiality to awareness.

If you claim it is the brain, then what happens if you were to take two brains, separate all the neurons, and then combine one half grouping of neurons with the other and vice versa. Where did the underlying consciousnesses go to?

And here we have a literal perfect example of fpbp

Philosophy has been superseded by science.

I'm going to bite the bullet and take the bait here.

Philosophy has been superseded by science in terms of questions about reality. But there is more to life than just 1s and 0s and equations. Philosophy can also help science with metascience questions such as what distinguishes science from non-science. Philosophy of science is still very influential to the methodologies of science.

Oh, I guess I'm not really seeing the color blue then? Because that single thing is the reason consciousness can't be described purley with physics and maths.