Judy, replying to your comment about Dennett and his selfness:  I think that 
what such bright people are missing is the understanding that one can have from 
SCI that consciousness is the Subject, the Knower as well as being the Object, 
the Known.  I've encountered this in other spiritual groups.  The minute they 
start talking about awareness, they have turned it into an Object which is only 
a partial picture, and they as if get trapped in that.  I think we also see 
that with the materialists and the scientists and anyone who thinks that 
objectivity is the ultimate and therefore most reliable reality.  But as I sit 
here writing this, I am this subjectivity:  awareness exists.     




________________________________
 From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sjn99YTh4U
> 
> Oh, yes - one of the classics.

One of my favorite songs of the period. I cracked up
when I read MP's post about it. 

> This zombie issue is an interesting one, eh? Xeno posted an
> objection from Dennett, but I couldn't really follow his
> thinking. It felt a bit like bluster.

Dennett does tend to bluster. I don't think there was all
that much to follow in the quote Xeno posted.

I suspect Xeno is right in what he said in yesterday,
that Dennett just does not grok what Searle and Chalmers
and Tallis and McGinn and Nagel and others are referring
to as the basis of the Hard Problem. It's as if he isn't
aware of his selfness somehow--his FPO, as Robin would
call it--he doesn't have a sense of its being peculiar
and intimate to himself. It's weird, but some people
seem simply to miss or overlook this most fundamental
aspect of human experience, even extremely bright people
like Dennett. I don't see how he could dream of
suggesting that consciousness is an illusion, or scoff
at the zombie concept, otherwise.

Here's a fun exchange between him and Searle, if you haven't
seen it, from the New York Review of Books awhile back:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/dec/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/

http://tinyurl.com/qek9or8

Searle has his own blind spots about consciousness,
but jeez, he very coolly nails Dennett right to the wall.

> I subscribe to Maverick Philosopher's RSS feed. I think
> he's very good - although I think you would not care for
> his politics!

I'd run across him awhile ago but didn't bookmark him,
and then just forgot about him. I'm delighted you called
him to my attention again.

Yeah, not too appealing politically.

> Here's another post of his in response to a recent UK Guardian
> article. I thought this may be appropriate given our resident
> 20th century positivist's recent claim that "Metaphysics
> explains nothing, it is tripe."

I thought he was a unnecessarily rough on Tallis, who is a
very good guy. Tallis was addressing the readers of the
Grauniad, not a philosophical conference, and didn't have
much space to get across his points, so he took some
shortcuts, which MP appears to have resented more than he
needed to, IMHO.

> Philosophy Always Buries Its Undertakers
> ----------------------------------------
> http://goo.gl/xQ29E
> http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/philosophy-always-buries-its-undertakers.html
> 
> On neo-atheist Lawrence Krauss, this seemed spot on I
> thought:
> 
> "The author is right, however, to smell 'conceptual confusion
> beneath mathematical sophistication' when it comes to attempts
> by Lawrence Krauss and others to explain how the universe arose
> ex nihilo from spontaneous fluctuations in a quantum vacuum,
> as if those fluctuations and that vacuum were not precisely
> something."

*chortle*

Did you read David Albert's review of Krauss's "Universe
from Nothing" in the NY Times? It's a thing of beauty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

http://tinyurl.com/d84oev8

Question for you: In the paragraph from "Philosophy Always
Buries Its Undertakers" that begins "We are also told that
physics mishandles time," what does the locution "abstracts
from" mean? And in the post "Why Do We Need Philosophy?"
what does "time is not exhausted by the B-series" mean? (I
understand what the B-series is, but I don't get "exhausted
by."

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/why-do-we-need-philosophy.html

http://tinyurl.com/pglr7xx

> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > > > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > John Searle at CERN (TEDxTalks)
> > > > > http://youtu.be/j_OPQgPIdKg
> > > > > [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_OPQgPIdKg ]
> > > > 
> > > > Searle, Dennet & Zombies:
> > > 
> > > Oh, very nice indeed!
> > > 
> > > I liked his response to the newbie's comment:
> > > 
> > > "You are getting at a tension between philosophy as metaphysics, as the 
> > > attempt to penetrate appearances to arrive at ultimate reality as it is 
> > > in itself, and philosophy as phenomenology, as the attempt to describe 
> > > and understand the world, not as it is in itself, but as it is i[n] its 
> > > human involvement. Scientism could be understood as an extreme form of 
> > > the metaphysical tendency. It suffers shipwreck on the reef of certain 
> > > appearances that are simply undeniable."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > http://goo.gl/K6NsO
> > > > 
> > > http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/04/searle-dennett-and-zombies.html


 

Reply via email to