|
|
|
|
|
|
by samth
4735 days ago
|
|
|
I think you'll find that (a) Dennett knows a lot of things you're assuming he doesn't, (b) that whether a brain in a vat is plausible is not easily answered by appeal to complex systems theory, and (c) that the role of thought experiments in philosophy is more complicated than you make it out. Also, the link to TED is broken. |
|
|
a) I in no way critiqued Dennett - in fact, you'll notice that my last statement about how mind / consciousness is not separate to the body, or the world or the universe is explicitly his position (of course, he is deeper than that, but at the level of my response, it was clearly in line with his thought).
b) That was the point: how you failed to understand that I was making a Category case I'm not sure. We are, after all, responding to the accusation that "No philosophy is worth reading". I was making an argument of how a Scientific / STEM background might make philosophy seem "pointless", and was taking the position of the argument, not my own, and attempting to answer it gently (it's called empathy, dear, learn some).
c) You've totally misunderstood my entire argument, and as such I think it embarrassing on your behalf that you've been so confrontational.
I'll disengage - you failed to understand what was being said, you failed to acknowledge that I was uncertain of how technical to make the argument, so pitched it at a Ted Talk level, and you were rude. Not interested, especially if you cannot understand the point being made.
I have fixed the link, however.