Philosopher and scientist Daniel Dennett has died.
Press T to tip fedora
>>16135984I wonder what his reaction was when he started floating out of his body lmao
What was his contributions?
>>16135984You don't even know who or what you are referring to schizo. Neurological activity? Qualia? Soul? Narrative? An appearance in your mind?
YOU'RE NOT CONSCIOUS AHHH
>>16135984RIP, he's made hundreds of thousands of consciousness schizos seethe.
>>16135984got really into a phil of mind during early covid.consciousness explained is a great book.I'll probably read some of his other ones at some point.
>>16136035But can we deal with what we can know, but don't yet know? Some people take comfort in not knowing
Well, did his state of consciousness change when he died?
>>16136049not from his perspective.
>>16135984>Philosopher and scientist and child molester and habitual liar and philosophical zombie and dumb fucking asshole Daniel Dennett has died.You missed some.
Quite a loss. I agree with folks like Andrew Brook and Don Ross that Dennett (on whom I have written) built a full philosophical system. His last interview must have been a YouTube chat with Jordan Peterson, just days ago. Looking back now, I am even more annoyed that Peterson (on whom I have also written) spoke so much and listened so little… R.I.P., mister Dennett.
>>16136232What a total waste of a final moment for a great philosopher
>>16135984He was my favourite philosopher. I considered him the greatest philosopher of his generation, due to his charisma, the ease at which he danced with ideas, and his legendary sense of humour
>>16135984>investigates scamming, propaganda, etc that AI enables>is killedhuh
He was a frequent passenger on Epstein's Lolita Express.
>>16135984>>16135996>>16136024>>16136030One of the best to ever do it. And he lived a rich, full life in all facets. An endearing figure even if in the moments of deep disagreement. His work is so conversational that this loss feels personal even if you haven’t met him.
>>16135996Daniel Dennett's contributions to philosophy were not only profound but also transformative, reshaping how philosophy interacts with science. His approach exemplified a critical yet constructive engagement with scientific disciplines, a methodology that has deeply influenced philosophical inquiry across various fields.Dennett was a staunch advocate for the integration of philosophy and science, arguing that philosophical assumptions underpin all scientific endeavors. He famously stated that there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; rather, there is only science that has not critically examined its philosophical underpinnings. This perspective highlighted the importance of philosophy in providing a deeper understanding and foundation for scientific research, urging that philosophical inquiry should not be an afterthought but a precursor to robust scientific methodology. One of Dennett's most significant impacts was on how philosophy grapples with evolutionary theory. He recognized that modern science, especially evolutionary biology, profoundly transforms the questions at the heart of philosophy. This acknowledgment wasn't just theoretical; it had practical implications, influencing fields as diverse as the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of physics. His ideas encouraged philosophers to reconsider and reframe traditional philosophical problems in light of scientific advancements, particularly those offered by evolutionary theory.Dennett's work extended well beyond his "home territory."
>>16135996>>16136260His philosophical insights have had a notable impact on the philosophy of physics, among other areas. This influence is evident in how philosophical discussions about physical phenomena now often incorporate evolutionary principles, a testament to Dennett's advocacy for a cross-disciplinary approach. His ability to connect complex scientific concepts with philosophical discourse has made his work a cornerstone in contemporary philosophical and scientific discussions.Beyond his academic achievements, Dennett was celebrated for his ability to communicate complex ideas with clarity and enthusiasm. His writings and lectures have not only educated but also inspired many in and outside of academia. His approach made philosophy accessible and relevant, bridging the gap between abstract philosophical inquiry and everyday scientific applications.
>>16136260>>16136262this is composed by a collection of artificial neurons
>>16135985>>16135989>>16136024>>16136035>>16136077>>16136222>>16136245look at all those Russian bots repeating the same shit
>>16136232>>16136234count your blessing at least it's not a Lex Fridman interview
>>16135984he was not even conscious so can this really be considered a sad event?
>>16135984Looks like he thought so much his eyes started thinking
>>16136302wait, did he argue that conciousness doesn't exist?
>>16136280In Dennett's view that's no different than natural neurons
>>16136307He argued against the existence of qualia, so in a sense....maybe
>>16136308In my view as well, as long as they are part of a whole brain, like natural neurons are. And connected exactly the same, allowing for the same type of electric activity. LLMs are at most *part* of consciousness
>>16136310Oh so consciousness is qualia when it suits your argument but qualia si absolutely not consciousness when it doesn't suit you?
I am watching this guy last interview with Juden Peterson the christ cocksucker. so far it seems both of them are just talking nonsenses to me.how is his philosophy different from the chuds here argueing conciousness lmao?
>>16136313Is there any difference in turning off an LLM and turning off an instance of Dennett?
>>16136232I agree with Jordan on a lot of things but his podcast is unlistenable because he talks for 80% of it. Regardless of what you think of someone like Rogan at least he lets his guests run the show mostly
>>16136315>so far it seems both of them are just talking nonsenses to me.They both seem like those vids of two Iphones with Siri on both phones talking to each other.
>>16136316we know there isn'thttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest
>>16136321 mebut again, LLMs are at most a subset of consciousness.
What happens to consciousness when you die? Dennett would have loved this question.
>>16136332well, at least if conciousness is supernatural, he has gotten the answer by now.
>>16136332clearly stops manifesting here and now. that's all you can know. you can't know what happens from that consciousness's perspective.supposing you freeze the patient during this operation >>16136321 (thought experiment, perfect non destructive freezing) and thaw (again, perfectly without damage) him in a million years and continue the operation, saw him up and jumpstart him again, he wouldn't have perceived the time in between. he'd think a few hours passed. so him not existing here and now has nothing to do with his perspetive, which can be enabled here, by matter. clearly...if you still have the info (hence the cryo though experiment, you keep the info).
>>16136339 menow he basically insta travels to any point in time or space (or universe with "similar" laws) where he is possible. whatever that implies
>>16135984Vaxx status?
He isn't dead. Death is just an illusion.
There is an idea of a Daniel Dennett. Some kind of intentional stance. But there is no real me. Only a deepity. Something illusory. And though I can quine my cold qualia, and you can intuition pump my Cartesian theater and M-detect philosopher's syndrome exorcising yours, and maybe you can even sense our heterophenomenologies are probably comparable, I simply am not there.
Oh no, Santa is dead. Who is gonna deliver my presents now?
He was a transphobe. That's how he will remembered because autists rule the seven seas, but that's ok because Dennett contributed fuck all anyway. Except his contribution that dreams are fake, based on an anecdote by a 19th century man called Alfred Maury.
>>16135985Apart from being an atheist, he also was quite innovative philosopher, so let's show some respect.Also, hate is not a christian emotion, we shouldn't hate people, especially for their beliefs
>>16136604Final interview, Peterson!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWpm2NOF2Zwclearly has just had brain surgery, rip Santa
>>16136607>hate is not a christian emotionNTA but hate is actually a very christian emotion. christfags used to behead and kill anyone they deemed heretics. the crusades were full of rage and vengeful emotion. only in the recent decades christfags restrained their power level because of scrunity from the leftards.
>>16136024https://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
>>16135984Here's a story about what would have happened if Daniel Dennett did LSD. Dennett never did any psychedelics throughout his entire life.https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/08/06/that-time-daniel-dennett-took-200-micrograms-of-lsd/
damn daniel
>>16136626>the crusades were full of rage and vengeful emotionAnd no non-christians had rage in them? Don't want to turn this thread into theo-sociological discussion, but the fact that some cristians were asholes doesn't eliminate the fact that hatred is a sin in cristianity.We only humans, after all, so being cristian doesnt make you imune to sins, that just means you shold restrain them to live by precepts, that's kind of the point. So beliving in Christ and being a good cristian are two different thingsSo, what's i'm saying is dont judge christians by our worst representatives
>>16136763k cool sry
>>16136556kek diss nibba went in hard fr fr no cap
https://youtu.be/TzN-uIVkfjg?t=2m
>>16136317Yes. On the JBP podcast, Jordan Peterson is the guest on every episode.
>>16136315>with Juden Peterson the christ cocksucker
>>16136787he knew what's up
2nd most idiotic thought experimentalist ever after john searle.
>>16136743>It turns out that it is possible to distinguish a zombie from a person. A zombie has a different philosophy. That is the only difference. There's another difference actually, zombies are concise
>>16136234watched it today and he was surprisingly sharp for someone who had brain surgery.
So we have no free will, there's no reason for our existence or for the universes existence and no God or afterlife. Now I know why we haven't met any aliens. Why bother? His philosophy will be the death of the human race
>>16137596it's more productive to try to make something out of the rubble than to be a disingenuous reactionary. you can't just tell people>yeah believe this bullshit for the sake of itespecially after the past 120 years. it was a natural reaction to the destruction that beliefs about ascendancy and destiny inflicted on the world
>>16137602There's nothing productive about this. People need reasons to get up in the morning. His philosophy makes reality feel like a sick joke. I'd say we're in hell but that doesn't exist does it? It'd have been better if we were never born at all
>>16137609His generation was standing in the rubble of what all past human beliefs led to
>>16135984I will primarily remember him for this incredibly kino introhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFTTn-Co5F8It instantly converted me to eliminative materialism (without listening to the actual presentation).
>>16137609We have way bigger problems than this. Humans will start being replaced with AIs which make the same work for a fraction of a human price, and can seriously scale up. When humans are not needed for jobs, that's when humans + Christianity and other religions will go away. Well, most humans anyway.Religion was always a means to an end. Used concepts like free will for the "greater good". Not seeing reality for what it is is clearly a show stopper, sooner or later.
>>16135984He is in paradise now because NDEs are actually irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7oSo any atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."If NDEs were just hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
>>16137596>His philosophy will be the death of the human raceIt's not his philosophy, he was one of the many people having the same views. If you're not developing the atom bomb, somebody eventually will. He's more like an avatar, not the reason.Blaming him or Dawkins for your failures is shortsighted and childish. They are not "the reason" for your issues. It's not because of them that AI and other technologies are being developed. Even if you killed them long time ago we'd still be exactly here, in the very same state of things, and most likely others would have taken their place.When ideas of this scale start popping out it's not a matter of silencing certain people, the ideas naturally arise from the current state of things, at any time, in more people than one.
>>16136339Maybe that's the true reason why we should do our best to live happy lives, and to make others happy too.
>>16136344>>16137703
>>16135984RIP. May he find rest wherever he is (or isn't?).
I had dinner with DD once. He was getting old but still very intelligent and great to talk to
>>16137703sure>>16137714the best I can think of it is that he's tagging along with everybody else that has ever lived (in inactive form), until the end of these times. who knows what happens then, we all get spawned in some heaven or hell or new game or who the fuck knows. depends if there's some form of God (game master, alien, simulation nerd) and if he has access to our information, and does anything with it.
>>16137719Nice, just the two of you?
>>16137730nah it was a dinner party with like 15 people. my PI had worked with him and invited me along
>>16137721I like that theory. The part that maybe would kinda suck, though, is that death happens when brains are damaged enough, so maybe we all go into the unkown as drooling veggies. Well, maybe not those submarine guys because they died in a flash.
>>16137763well if your brain can't enable your consciousness it's basically "dying" from your perspective. you experience and collect those experiences. if that's broken no more experiencing for you. at least now/here.from what I understand, if we are enabled by our brains, after death we should insta travel to "judgement day" if there is such a thing. or whatever, next thing you can experience, which would have some justification for happening. this reality is kind of weird. so theoretically you should experience the most likely thing you can, after you "die" here/now. stands to reason you get out of sync with here/now, so whatever happens next should be in some other time/place.also excluding some quantum immortality thing.
>>16137775>it's basically "dying" from your perspectivefrom our perspective
>>16137775Oh, now I got it. So maybe the experience wouldn't be as linear? Not >from A to B>from A to B to A to C to X to A to B to B to B K to Qand so on. >>16137777Check 'em!
>>16136302kek
>>16137798If you think of this universe as a sort of analog computer which computes us, then (if there's value to us) the most important state would always be the latest (our self state/brain state). if that's what's always "saved" by God, then your experience should be linear.if God (simulation architect, whatever) decides some earlier state is the best one, you'd continue from there in other time/place. but you'd forget anything else you experienced past that point, here.the most we're (sort-of) certain of is this life. so we don't know if we existed before, and how God could manipulate this reality to make it so (You) eventually form, at least .. at genetic level? I can't quite schizo my way into reincarnation. I tried but couldn't really find something that would make sense here. not saying it's not possible, just that I could find a way. for all intents and purposes this seems at most like a sort of "soul farm", we pop up here and *maybe* continue indefinitely (?) in a linear/serial fashion.so either there's a God having access to your information, either there's some quantum immortality thing, many worlds or weird shit like that, which also makes for you to pop up and have a long and strange experience based on what is ... possible I guess.
>>16137811Yeah, that sounds quite plausible. It sure is going to to be a wild ride, whatever it is that awaits conscious beings at large. Simple eternal oblivion sounds maybe a bit too simple, because that would require the observer (that just died) to exist in some form to be able to be in said oblivion.
>>16135984thought you meant Dan Bennett, the 10s only season bloke
>>16136743nice read. web version: https://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
>>16136050how could you possibly know that, or even know enough to be able to assume that?
>>16138217ask people who've been through general anesthesia? in commas etc. they have no sense of how much time has passed, with no cerebral activity. as far as (You) are concerned you insta travel over any period you are not active.
>>16138231confirm, was in a general anesthesia when I had appendectomy.everything just went dark suddenly without me even realizing and then I woke up.
Qualia status?
>>16138231>>16138242i don't doubt how anesthesia works or that it works but it's pretty far to assume that consciousness shuts off when the brain dies as we cannot account for the material origin of consciousness.
>>16138245going by observation it does. >>16136321you are clinically dead during the procedure, up to one hour, no heartbeat, no brain activity.why would we suppose extra unfounded bullshit? because your brain told you so? lol
>>16136024>>16136030>>16136049>>16136050>>16136302>>16136307>>16136310>>16136556Brian Tomasik is another NPC that thinks that consciousness doesn't exist.https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether>The mantra of the more radical version of eliminativism is that we're not conscious but only think we are. How is that possible? "I just know I'm conscious!" But any thoughts you have about your being conscious are fallible. I believe there are bugs in the vast network of computation that produces thoughts like "I'm conscious in a way that generates a hard problem of consciousness." No thought you have is guaranteed to be free from bugs, and it seems more likely -- given the basically useless additional complexity of postulating a metaphysically privileged thing called consciousness -- to suppose that our attribution of metaphysically privileged consciousness to ourselves is a bug in our cognitive architectures. This is a relatively simple way to escape the whole consciousness conundrum. If it feels weird, that's because the bug in your neural wiring is causing you to reject the idea. Your thoughts exist within the system and can't get outside of it.>Your brain is like a cult leader, and you are its follower. If your brain tells you it's conscious, you believe it. If your brain says there's a special "what-it's-like-ness" to experience beyond mechanical processes, you believe it. You take your cult leader's claims at face value because you can't get outside the cult and see things from any other perspective. Any judgments you make are always subject to revision by the cult leader before being broadcast. (Similar analogies help explain the feeling of time's flow, the feeling of free will, etc.)
>>16138330who else is arguing consciousness doesn't exist? apart from the dude you linked
>>16137596dennett argued in favour of free will (though he did deny libertarian free will)
>>16138332Rob Bensinger
>>16138340https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/12/16/a-debate-on-animal-consciousness/>Rob Bensinger: I don’t believe in phenomenal consciousness. I think if you try to put quotation marks around a patch of your visual field (e.g., by gesturing at ‘that patch of red in the lower-left quadrant of my visual field’), some of the core things included in your implicit intension will make the gesture non-referring. Asking about ‘but what am I really subjectively experiencing?’ is like going: ‘but what is my deja-vu experience really a repetition of?’ The error is trickier, though, because the erroneous metarepresentation is systematic and perception-like (like a hallucination or optical illusion, but one meta level up) rather than judgment-like (like a delusion or hunch).>Like Luke said, believing I’m a zombie in practice just means I value something functionally very similar to consciousness, ‘z-consciousness’. But ‘z-consciousness’ is first and foremost a (promissory note for a) straw-behaviorist, third-person theoretical concept. Thinking in those terms — starting with one box, some of whose (physical, neuronal, behavioral…) components I sometimes misdescribe as ‘mind’, rather than starting with separate conceptual boxes for ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ and trying to glue them together as tightly as possible — has been a really weird (z-)experience. It’s had some interesting effects on my intuitions over the past few years.
>>16136250>And he lived a rich, full life in all facetsWhat does that mean? Was he a drag queen?
>>16136232>His last interview must have been a YouTube chat with Jordan PetersonSus...
LOL >Big Boys of English Speaking academia >Singer The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK" A buffoon. >Chomsky A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe. Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic. >Dawkins A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe. Never was a great thinker, never will be. >Rorty A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil. >Chalmers About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault. >Dennett Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling Not a serious academic. This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
Science and Atheism are utterly retarded and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?If the universe is uncaused then why does it have physical laws that it must follow? Clearly those laws are actually imposed on the universe.Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons and a positron , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence whereas what they call ''physical laws'' are not found inside their tiny particles (inside particles there are just other particles lmao who scripted this crap).... Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's true cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death, which will never leave him until he dies.You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women anthropomorphized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is like their high-school calculators too, but bigger lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.
its sad seeing a great philospher die
>>16138712>who will leave exactly zero mark on actual scienceDidn't he solve altruism?
>>16137648Damn that was kino.
Supposedly this is his last interview?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r8vMk0ZgdsHe's also dunking on Sapolsky
Did he ever define consciouness?
>>16138911At least this one is listenable unlike the JP one.
>>16138330>Your brain is like a cult leader, and you are its follower. If your brain tells you it's conscious, you believe it. If your brain says there's a special "what-it's-like-ness" to experience beyond mechanical processes, you believe it.So I am separate from my brain? Like some kind of... conscious entity separate from the physical structures of my body?
humans are hopeless
>>16139072>Like some kind of... conscious entity separate from the physical structures of my bodythat one is retarded lmao. that "philosopher" is so far up his arse he doesn't realize he's just making a circular argument and just back to square one.
>>16138911Thank God, Peterstein didn't deserve the honour.
>>16138911>He's also dunkingHe was
>>16136799>file deletedjannies disrespecting Dennett. that photo was cherry picked by the man himself, and is from the linked video
RIP
>>16138339which is weird. I think the libertarianism position on free will is the correct onehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
fags
>>16136050Well, it went from having a perspective to not having one.
>>16136285Friedman >> Peterson and Friedman sucks
>>16141097here and now yes clearly. he's what we call "dead". (You) don't see him anymore. that's at most you can know.
>>16139249Tjis
>>16135984
>>16139994Ways it might be scientifically possible for free will to exist:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE
>>16135989T
>>16136556>Based Bateman
oh no a jew who believed nothing exists died.... S
>>16136281What does this have to do with Russia?
