On 8/20/2011 6:10 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:02 am, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
Now, Dennett would be the
first to say that it just 'seems' to me that I have a phenomenology but
that is the point isn't it? If it seems to me then I have it. How can
anyone think otherwise??
Exactly. The fact that we feel is not contingent upon any external
validation of the content of those feelings. Subjective phenomenology
is a legitimate and irreducibly primitive part of the universe at the
same level as probability or cause and effect. Since it's ontological
advantage is private orientation, it is actually where subjectivity
underlaps externality that is significant and signifying...the extent
to which interior fiction has the potential to diverge from objective
fact is where teleology derives it's power, and therefore a great
improvement over a zombie universe of pure logical physics.
And Dennett is a zimbo. James Randi too. They are the same zimbo.
Can you quote anything to that effect. In Dennett's actual writing, as
opposed to what other people have said, he says zombies are preposterous.
"I can’t see why a belief in zombies isn’t simply ridiculous, and I’m
going to go on comparing zombies to epiphenomenal gremlins and other
such prepostera until some philosopher mounts a proper
defence, showing that the belief in the possibility of zombies is
somehow better supported
than these other cases."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at