Dennett's Functionalism

Self-consciousness relates to important themes, such as sentience and personhood, and is often the cornerstone of moral theories (Warren, 1997). However, not much attention is given to future moral creatures of the earth: robots. This may be due to the unsettled status of their experience, which is why I have chosen to find the necessary features of self-consciousness in them. Philosophy of mind is also my interest which I have developed since I rejected the idea of souls and could not (...) account for my own phenomenal experiences. Among the current answers to the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) one stood out to me – Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts model of consciousness presented in “Consciousness Explained” (Dennett, 1991) and his other works. Daniel Dennett is a self-described illusionist (Dennett, 2016) and a functionalist. His position is synonymous to holding self-conscious experiences, such as deliberating over one’s pain or reflecting over one’s actions insufficient to postulate existence of a metaphysical self. He believes instead that experiences are functional realizations which do not require any self, and the feeling of being conscious or self-conscious is actually a ”user-illusion” (Dennett, 1991), a term describing the unjustified belief of being in control of one’s actions. In his views, a selfhood as it is popularly conceived is contradictory. Therefore, he rejects realism about mental events, a position also called naïve realism (Siegel, 2011), on the basis that it is unverifiable and there are insufficient grounds to accept mental events (Dennett, 1988). He adopts a similar scepticism towards other theories of minds, hence nearing eliminative materialism in self-consciousness and related theme of pain (Dennett, 1978). His multiple drafts model of consciousness seeks to ground our beliefs about self-consciousness in the specific architecture of mind, which is particular to every species and kind of being. As such it is a particularly flexible theory that examines experiences of non-humans without falling into binary thinking – believing that a being has as rich inner life as humans do or none. This is why it is a great starting point for establishing necessary conditions for consciousness in robots. In this essay, I will often use words computer, programme, robot interchangeably for the purpose of clarity and take as the working definition “autonomous machines capable of sensing their environment, making decision and performing tasks similar to human actions”. I chose to explore self-consciousness instead of committing to the issue of consciousness, because consciousness can be defined in a weak sense, in which even a thermostat is “conscious” of the temperature, and consciousness in a strong sense, which invokes the internalism and externalism debate that is less connected to the nature of experiences than self-consciousness. My exploration pertains first and foremost to the philosophy of mind, of which I will examine the most relevant positions and decide to commit to functionalism (Block, 1980). Then I will advocate for explaining away of some of phenomena of self-consciousness and believing self-consciousness to be a sort of illusion. From there I will conclude that robots could fall for the same illusion of self-consciousness and therefore become self-conscious. I will argue, that self-consciousness can be established using a modified Turing Test, which would determine if a robot believed in a meaningful narrative about itself (Ricoeur, 1991) and hence be self-conscious. This will lead to answering the question of this essay: what are the features necessary for a self-conscious robot in the light of “Consciousness Explained” by Daniel Dennett? (shrink)

We aim to develop a take on the meaning of works of art that builds on Dennett’s view on the nature of intentionality, namely, that the intentionality exhibited by mental phenomena is not original, but derived. Regarding the meaning of works of art, theories that hold that the meaning is determined by the intentions of the author when creating the work are considered intentionalist. Adopting the view of derived intentionality implies that it is no longer possible to maintain that the (...) semantic content of a work of art is closely linked to the creative act that gave rise to it; accordingly, intentionalist theories should be, broadly speaking, abandoned. However, we claim that one aspect of intentionalist theories is accurate and, moreover, compatible with the perspective on intentionality we adopt: The fact that part of the meaning of a work of art is given by the interpretations that arise when it is assumed that the work was produced by an agent with the purpose of transmitting something. We call this interpretative strategy the work-of-art stance and argue that it should be understood as a subtype of the intentional stance. According to our proposal, this interpretive strategy is part of a view that tries to explain the meaning of works of art as partially indeterminate, relative to a history (and not to a foundational origin) and dependent on interpretive attribution. En este artículo elaboramos una propuesta sobre el significado de las obras de arte que se apoya en la perspectiva de Dennett acerca de la naturaleza de la intencionalidad de los fenómenos mentales. De acuerdo a ella, la intencionalidad que estos exhiben no es original, sino derivada. Adoptar la perspectiva de la intencionalidad derivada implica que ya no será posible sostener que el significado de una obra de arte esté vinculado al acto creativo que le dio origen o que esté determinado por las intenciones que tuvo su autor al crearlas, como han sostenido las teorías intencionalistas. Ahora bien, creemos que hay un aspecto de estas que no es incompatible con la perspectiva de intencionalidad derivada. Se trata del hecho de que parte del significado de la obra de arte está dado por las interpretaciones que surgen sólo cuando se asume que la misma fue producida por un agente con el propósito de transmitir algo. Llamaremos a esta estrategia interpretativa actitud de la obra de arte y defenderemos que debe ser entendida como un subtipo de la actitud intencional. Esta estrategia interpretativa forma parte de una propuesta que intenta explicar el significado de las obras de arte como siendo parcialmente indeterminado, relativo a una historia y dependiente de la atribución interpretativa. (shrink)

Dennett elabora una concepción del “yo” entendido como un centro de gravedad narrativo. Uno de los obstáculos principales para valorar esta propuesta radica en que resulta dificultoso entender cuál es la naturaleza del concepto dennettiano de “yo”: concretamente, cuáles son los compromisos ontológicos y epistemológicos que cabe atribuir al fenómeno en cuestión. En este artículo defendemos que el mejor modo de realizar una reconstrucción interpretativa de su noción de “yo” es apelando a la distinción elaborada por Reichenbach entre tres clases (...) de entidades, Concreta,a e Illata, y entendiendo a los centros de gravedad narrativos como un caso de Abstracta reichenbachiano. Sostenemos que resulta pertinente e iluminador entender los centros de gravedad narrativos como Abstracta en el sentido de Reichenbach, apoyándonos en que: i) aunque no la aplica directamente al problema de la naturaleza del “yo”, Dennett sí emplea la distinción de Reichenbach en otras partes de su obra; ii) Dennett traza explícitamente una analogía del “yo” con los centros de gravedad que son, justamente, uno de sus ejemplos de Abstracta; iii) este modo de entender al “yo” permite dar sentido y entender mejor ciertos aspectos de la teoría narrativista dennettiana. Además de permitirnos clarificar las metáforas empleadas por Dennett en la elaboración de su teoría narrativa, dicha elucidación conceptual permite comprender mejor la distinción entre las tres clases de psicología intencional trazada por Dennett y es útil para sugerir a cuál de estos tres tipos pertenece el concepto de “yo”. Dennett's theory of personal identity argues that the “self” is no more than a center of narrative gravity. One of the main hurdles to assessing this proposal lies in the fact that it is difficult to understand what the nature of Dennett's concept of "self" is; specifically, what are the ontological and epistemological commitments that can be attributed to the phenomenon in question. In this article, we claim that the best way to make an interpretative reconstruction of his notion of "self" is appealing to the distinction elaborated by Reichenbach between three classes of entities, Concreta, Abstracta, and Illata, and understanding the narrative centers of gravity as a case of Reichenbachian Abstracta. We defend that understanding the narrative centers of gravity as Abstracta in the sense of Reichenbach is pertinent and illuminating given that: i) although he does not apply it directly to the problem of the nature of the "self", Dennett does use Reichenbach's distinction in other parts of his work; ii) Dennett explicitly draws an analogy of the "self" with the centers of gravity that are, precisely, one of his examples of Abstracta; iii) this way of understanding the "self" allows us to give sense and better understand certain aspects of Dennett’s narrative theory. Besides allowing us to clarify the metaphors used by Dennett in the elaboration of his narrative theory, such conceptual elucidation allows us to better understand the distinction between the three classes of intentional psychology drawn by Dennett (1987) and is useful in suggesting to which of these three types the concept of "self" belongs. (shrink)

«Les gens disent encore et encore que la philosophie ne progresse pas vraiment, que nous sommes toujours occupés avec les mêmes problèmes philosophiques que les Grecs. Mais les gens qui disent cela ne comprennent pas pourquoi il doit en être ainsi. C’est parce que notre langue est restée la même et continue de nous séduire à poser les mêmes questions. Tant qu’il continue à y avoir un verbe qui ressemble à s’il fonctionne de la même manière que de manger et (...) de boire, tant que nous avons encore les adjectifs 'identiques', 'faux', 'false', 'possible', tant que nous continuons à parler d’une rivière du temps, d’une étendue d’espace, etc., etc., les gens continueront à trébucher sur les mêmes difficultés déroutantes et se retrouveront à regarder quelque chose qui ne semble pas capable de se dégager. Et qui plus est, cela satisfait un désir pour le transcendant, parce que, dans la mesure où les gens pensent qu’ils peuvent voir les ‘«limites de la compréhension humaine », ils croient bien sûr ce ils peuvent voir au-delà de ceux-ci. Cette citation est de Ludwig Wittgenstein qui a redéfini la philosophie il ya 70 ans (mais la plupart des gens n’ont pas encore de le savoir). Dennett, bien qu’il ait été un philosophe pendant une quarantaine d’années, est l’un d’entre eux. Il est également curieux que lui et son antagoniste principal, John Searle, étudié sous les célèbres Wittgensteiniens (Searle avec John Austin, Dennett avec Gilbert Ryle) mais Searle plus ou moins obtenu le point et Dennett n’a pas, (bien qu’il est étirer les choses à appeler Searle ou Ryle Wittgensteinians). Dennett est un déterministe difficile (bien qu’il essaie de se faufiler la réalité dans la porte arrière), et peut-être cela est dû à Ryle, dont le célèbre livre "Le concept de l’esprit" (The Concept of Mind) (1949) continue d’être réimprimé. Ce livre a fait un excellent travail d’exorciser le fantôme, mais il a quitté la machine. Dennett aime faire les erreurs Wittgenstein, Ryle (et beaucoup d’autres depuis) ont exposé en détail. Notre utilisation des mots conscience, choix, liberté, intention, particule, pensée, détermine, vague, cause, arrivé, événement (et ainsi de suite sans fin) sont rarement une source de confusion, mais dès que nous quittons la vie normale et entrer dans la philosophie (et toute discussion détachée de l’environnement dans lequel la langue a évolué-c’est-à-dire le contexte exact dans lequel les mots avaient un sens) chaos règne. Comme la plupart, Dennett n’a pas un cadre cohérent - que Searle a appelé la structure logique de la rationalité. J’ai développé sur ce considérablement depuis que j’ai écrit cette revue et mes articles récents montrent en détail ce qui ne va pas avec l’approche de Dennett à la philosophie, que l’on pourrait appeler Scientism sur les stéroïdes. Permettez-moi de terminer par une autre citation de Wittgenstein-- «L’ambition est la mort de la pensée. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systèmes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2020) et autres. (shrink)

사람들은 철학이 실제로 진보하지 않는다고 거듭 말하며, 우리는 여전히 그리스인과 같은 철학적 문제에 몰두하고 있습니다. 그러나 이 말을 하는 사람들은 왜 그렇게 해야 하는지 이해하지 못합니다. 그것은 우리의 언어가 동일하게 유지되고 같은 질문을 우리에게 유혹 유지하기 때문이다. 'to'라는 동사가 계속 있는 한, '먹고 마시는 것과 같은 방식으로 기능하는 것처럼 보이는', 우리가 여전히 형용사를 가지고 있는 한, ', ', ', 'false', ́', '가능한', 우리가 시간의 강, 넓은 공간 등에 대해 계속 이야기하는 한, 사람들은 똑같은 수수께끼의 어려움을 계속 발견하고 설명이 없는 무언가를 (...) 쳐다보고 있을 것입니다. 그리고 더 많은 것은, 사람들이'인간의 이해의 한계'를볼 수 있다고 생각하는 한, ‘그들은 물론이것들을 넘어서볼 수 있다고 믿기 때문에 초월에 대한 갈망을 만져봅습니다. 이 인용문은 약 70년 전에 철학을 재정의한 루드비히 비트겐슈타인(Ludwig Wittgenstein)의 인용문입니다(그러나 대부분의 사람들은 아직 이 것을 발견하지 못했습니다). 데넷은 40년 동안 철학자였지만 그 중 한 명입니다. 그것은 또한 그와 그의 주요 길항제, 존 Searle, 유명한 비트 겐슈타인에서 공부 (존 오스틴과 시얼, 길버트 라일과 덴넷) 하지만 Searle 다소 포인트를 가지고 덴넷하지 않았다, (그것은 Searle 또는 라일 비트 겐슈타인을 호출하는 것들을 스트레칭하지만). Dennett는 어려운 결정주의자이며 (비록 그는 뒷문에서 현실을 몰래 하려고 하지만), 아마도 이것은 그의 유명한 책 '마음의 개념'(1949)이 계속 재인쇄되는 라일 때문일 것입니다. 그 책은 유령을 추방하는 훌륭한, 일을했지만, 그것은 기계를 떠났다. 데넷은 비트겐슈타인, 라일(그리고 그 이후로 많은 다른 사람들이) 실수를 자세하게 드러내는 것을 즐긴다. 의식, 선택, 자유, 의도, 입자, 사고, 결정, 파도, 원인, 일어난, 사건 (등끝없이) 혼란의 근원은 드물지만, 우리가 정상적인 삶을 떠나 철학에 들어가자마자 (그리고 언어가 진화한 환경과는 모든 토론이 -, 즉, 단어가 의미를 가진 정확한맥락)이 혼돈으로 지배합니다. 대부분의 경우와마찬가지로, Dennett는 일관된 프레임워크가 부족합니다 - Searle은 합리성의 논리적 구조라고 불렀습니다. 나는이 리뷰를 작성하고 내 최근 기사는 철학에 Dennett의 접근 방식에 무엇이 잘못되었는지 자세히 보여 이후이 상당히 확장했다,하나는 스테로이드에 Scientism을 호출 할 수 있습니다. 비트겐슈타인의 또 다른 인용문으로 끝내자- '야망은 생각의 죽음'이다. 현대 의 두 systems보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 3 rd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타에서 자살 유토피아 망상. 사람들은 철학이 실제로 진보하지 않는다고 거듭 말하며, 우리는 여전히 그리스인과 같은 철학적 문제에 몰두하고 있습니다. 그러나 이 말을 하는 사람들은 왜 그렇게 해야 하는지 이해하지 못합니다. 그것은 우리의 언어가 동일하게 유지되고 같은 질문을 우리에게 유혹 유지하기 때문이다. 'to 먹기'와 ''음료를 마시는 것과 같은 방식으로 작동하는 것처럼 보이는 동사'가 계속 되는 한, 우리가 여전히 형용사를 가지고 있는 한, ''false', ́ ́, '가능' 최대. 그리고 더 구체적으로, 이것은 초월에 대한 갈망을 만지며, 왜냐하면 사람들이 '인간의 이해의 한계'를 볼 수 있다고 생각하는 한, 그들은 물론 이 것들을 넘어서볼 수 있다고 믿기 때문입니다. (shrink)

"La gente ripete più e più volte che la filosofia non progredisce davvero, che siamo ancora occupati con gli stessi problemi filosofici come erano i greci. Ma le persone che dicono questo non capiscono perché deve essere così. È perché il nostro linguaggio è rimasto lo stesso e continua a sedurrci a fare le stesse domande. Finché continua ad essere un verbo - per essere - che sembra come se funziona allo stesso modo come "mangiare e bere", fintanto che abbiamo (...) ancora gli aggettivi , identici , , , , , false , , possibile , fino a quando continuiamo a parlare di un fiume di tempo, di una distesa di spazio, ecc. , ecc, la gente continuerà a inciampare sulle stesse difficoltà sconcertanti e si troverà a fissare qualcosa che nessuna spiegazione sembra in grado di chiarire. E per di più, questo soddisfa il desiderio del trascendente, perché, nella misura in cui la gente pensa di poter vedere i limitidella comprensione umana, credono ovviamente chepossano vedere al di là di questi.` ' Questa citazione è di Ludwig Wittgenstein che ha ridefinito la filosofia circa 70 anni fa (ma la maggior parte delle persone deve ancora scoprirlo). Dennett, anche se è stato un filosofo per circa 40 anni, è uno di loro. È anche curioso che sia lui che il suo primo antagonista, John Searle, abbiano studiato sotto famosi Wittgensteinians (Searle con John Austin, Dennett con Gilbert Ryle) ma Searle ha più o meno ottenuto il punto e Dennett no, (anche se si sta ccmute cose per chiamare Searle o Ryle Wittgensteinians). Dennett è un duro determinista (anche se cerca di intrufolarsi nella porta sul retro), e forse questo è dovuto a Ryle, il cui famoso libro - Il concetto di mente (1949) continua ad essere ristampato. Quel libro ha fatto un ottimo lavoro di esorciscazione del fantasma,, ma ha lasciato la macchina. Dennett si diverte a commettere gli errori che Wittgenstein, Ryle (e molti altri da allora) hanno esposto in dettaglio. Il nostro uso delle parole coscienza, scelta, libertà, intenzione, particella, pensiero, determina, onda, causa, accaduto, evento (e così via all'infinito) sono raramente fonte diconfusione, ma non appena lasciamo la vita normale ed entriamo nella filosofia (e qualsiasi discussione staccata dall'ambiente in cui il linguaggio si è evoluto,cioè, regna il contesto esatto in cui le parole avevano significatoilcaos). Come la maggior parte, Dennett manca di un quadro coerente - che Searle ha chiamato la struttura logica della razionalità. Ho ampliato su questo considerevolmente da quando ho scritto questa recensione e i miei articoli recenti mostrano in dettaglio cosa c'è di sbagliato con l'approccio di Dennett alla filosofia, che si potrebbe chiamare Scientismo sugli steroidi. Permettetemi di concludere con un'altra citazione di Wittgenstein-- l'ambizione è la morte del pensiero. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'Talking Monkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

"Люди говорят снова и снова, что философия на самом деле не прогресс, что мы по-прежнему заняты теми же философскими проблемами, что и греки. Но люди, которые говорят это, не понимают, почему это должно быть так. Это потому, что наш язык остался прежним и продолжает соблазнять нас задавать те же вопросы. До тех пор, пока по-прежнему существует глагол, который выглядит так, как будто он функционирует так же, как «есть и пить», до тех пор, пока у нас есть прилагательные «идентично», «правда» ( (...) « » » » » » » » » » возможно, до тех пор, как мы продолжаем говорить о реке времени, просторы пространства и т.д., и т.д., люди будут держать спотыкаясь над темже загадочные трудности и найти себя глядя на то, что никакое объяснение, кажется, способны очистки. И более того, это удовлетворяет стремление к трансцендентной, потому что, поскольку люди думают, что они могут видеть ‘"пределы человеческого понимания", они считают, конечно, тони могут видеть за этим. Эта цитата из Людвиг Витгенштейн, который пересмотрел философию около 70 лет назад (но большинство людей до сих пор не выяснить это). Деннетт, хотя он был философом в течение 40 лет, является одним из них. Любопытно также, что и он, и его главный антагонист Джон Сирл учились у знаменитых Витгенштейнов (Сирл с Джоном Остином, Деннет с Гилбертом Райлом), но Сирл более или менее получил точку, а Деннет т , (хотя это растяжение вещей, чтобы назвать Сирл или Райл Витгенштейнов). Деннетт является жесткий детерминант (хотя он пытается проникнуть реальность в задней двери), и, возможно, это связано с Райл, чья знаменитая книга "Концепция разума" (1949) продолжает быть перепечатаны. Эта книга проделала большую работу по изгнанию призрака, но он покинул машину. Деннетт любит делать ошибки Витгенштейна, Райл (и многие другие с тех пор) разоблачили в деталях. Наше использование слов сознание, выбор, свобода, намерение, частицы, мышление, определяет, волна, причина, произошло, событие (и так далее бесконечно) редко источником путаницы, но как только мы оставляем нормальную жизнь и введите философию (и любое обсуждение отделены от среды, в которой язык развивался-т.е., точный контекст, в котором слова имели смысл)хаос царит. Как и большинству,, Деннетне не хватает когерентной структуры - которую Сирл назвал логической структурой рациональности. Я расширил на этом значительно, так как я написал этот обзор, и мои последние статьи показывают подробно, что случилось с подходом Деннетк к философии, который можно было бы назвать Scientism на стероидах. Позвольте мне закончить с другой цитатой из Витгенштейна - "Амбиции является смерть мысли. Те, кто желает всеобъемлющего до современных рамок для человеческого поведения из современных двух systEms зрения могут проконсультироваться с моей книгой"Логическая структура философии, психологии, Минd иязык в Людвиг Витгенштейн и Джон Сирл" второй ред (2019). Те, кто заинтересован в более моих сочинений могут увидеть "Говоря обезьян - Философия, психология, наука, религия и политика на обреченной планете - Статьи и обзоры 2006-2019 3-й ed (2019) и suicidal утопических заблуждений в 21-мst веке 4-й ed (2019) th и другие. (shrink)

[लोग बार बार कहते हैं कि दर्शन वास्तव में प्रगति नहीं करता है, कि हम अभी भी एक ही दार्शनिक समस्याओं के साथ कब्जा कर रहे हैं के रूप में यूनानियों थे. लेकिन जो लोग यह कहते हैं, वे समझ नहीं पा रहे हैं कि ऐसा क्यों होना चाहिए। ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि हमारी भाषा वही रही है और हमें एक ही सवाल पूछने में seducing रहता है. जब तक कोई क्रिया होती रहती है, तब तक ऐसा प्रतीत होता है (...) जैसे कि वह उसी तरह कार्य करता है जैसे कि वह खाने और पीने के लिए उसी तरह कार्य करता है, जब तक कि हमारे पास अभी भी विशेषण [अद्वितीय] है, [गलत] , [गलत] , जब तक हम समय की नदी की बात करना जारी रखते हैं, तब तक हम समय की एक नदी की बात करते रहते हैं , अंतरिक्ष के विस्तार, आदि, लोगों को एक ही puzzling कठिनाइयों पर ठोकर रखने के लिए और खुद को कुछ है जो कोई स्पष्टीकरण को साफ करने में सक्षम लगता है घूर पाते हैं. और क्या अधिक है, यह उत्कृष्ट के लिए एक लालसा को संपीड़ित करता है, क्योंकि, जहाँ तक लोग सोचते हैं कि वे 'मानव समझ की सीमाओं को देख सकते हैं], वे निश्चित रूपसे था टी वे इन से परे देख सकते हैं पर विश्वास करतेहैं. यह बोली लुडविग Wittgenstein से है जो दर्शन को कुछ 70 साल पहले फिर से परिभाषित किया है (लेकिन ज्यादातर लोगों को अभी तक यह पता लगाना है). Dennett, हालांकि वह कुछ 40 साल के लिए एक दार्शनिक किया गया है, उनमें से एक है. यह भी उत्सुक है कि दोनों वह और उनके प्रधानमंत्री विरोधी, जॉन Searle, प्रसिद्ध Wittgensteinians के तहत अध्ययन किया (जॉन ऑस्टिन के साथ Searle, गिल्बर्ट Ryle के साथ Dennett) लेकिन Searle अधिक या कम बात है और Dennett नहीं किया था, (हालांकि यह बातें खींच रहा है Searle या Ryle Wittgensteinians फोन करने के लिए). Dennett एक कठिन determinist है (हालांकि वह पिछले दरवाजे में वास्तविकता चुपके की कोशिश करता है), और शायद यह Ryle, जिसकी प्रसिद्ध पुस्तक के कारण है - मन की अवधारणा (1949) के लिए reprinted जारी है. उस किताब ने भूत को भगाने का बहुत अच्छा कामकिया, लेकिन उसने मशीन छोड़ दी। Dennett गलतियों Wittgenstein बनाने आनंद मिलता है, Ryle (और कई अन्य लोगों के बाद से) विस्तार से उजागर किया है. शब्द चेतना, पसंद, स्वतंत्रता, इरादा, कण, सोच, निर्धारित करता है, लहर, कारण, हुआ, घटना (और इतने पर अंतहीन) का हमारा उपयोग शायद ही कभी भ्रम का एक स्रोत हैं, लेकिन जैसे ही हम सामान्य जीवन छोड़ और दर्शन में प्रवेश (और किसी भी चर्चा उस वातावरण से अलगहो गई जिसमें भाषा विकसित हुई थी ,अर्थात्, जिस संदर्भ में शब्दों का अर्थ था) अराजकता राज करतीहै। सबसे अधिक कीतरह, Dennett एक सुसंगत ढांचे का अभाव है - जो Searle तर्कसंगतता की तार्किक संरचना कहा जाता है. मैं इस पर काफी विस्तार किया है जब से मैं इस समीक्षा लिखा था और मेरे हाल के लेख विस्तार से क्या दर्शन के लिए Dennett दृष्टिकोण के साथ गलत है दिखानेके लिए , जो एकस्टेरॉयड पर वैज्ञानिकता कह सकते हैं. मुझे Wittgenstein से एक और उद्धरण के साथ समाप्त करते हैं - महत्वाकांक्षा सोचा की मौत है. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019). (shrink)

「人々は、哲学は本当に進歩していない、私たちはまだギリシャ人と同じ哲学的問題に占領されていると何度も何度も言います。しかし、これを言う人々は、なぜそうでなければならないのか理解していません。それは、私 たちの言語が変わらず、同じ質問をするように誘惑し続けているからです。食べたり飲んだりするのと同じように機能しているかのように見える動詞が続いている限り、 私たちがまだ形容詞を持っている限り、時間の川、空間の広がりなどについて話し続ける限り、人々は同じ不可解な困難につまずき続け、説明が晴れることができないものを見つめています。さらに、人々が「人間の理解の 限界」を見ることができると考える限り、彼らはもちろんこれらを超えて見ることができないと信じているので、これは超越への憧れを満たしています。 この引用は、約70年前に哲学を再定義したルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインからのものです(しかし、ほとんどの人はまだこれを見つけていません)。デネットは、彼が約40年間哲学者であったが、そのうちの一つ です。また、彼と彼の主要なアンタゴニスト、ジョン・サールの両方が有名なヴィトゲンシュタイニアン(ジョン・オースティンとサール、ギルバート・ライルとデネット)の下で学んだが、サールは多かれ少なかれポイン トを得て、デネットはしなかった(しかし、それはサールやライル・ヴィトゲンシュテニアンと呼ぶものを伸ばしているが)。デネットは難しい決定論者であり(裏口で現実をこっそり見ようとしますが)、おそらくこれは 有名な本「心の概念」(1949年)が転載され続けているライルによるものです。その本は幽霊を追い出すのに大いに役,立ったが、機械を置き去りにした。 デネットは、ヴィトゲンシュタイン、ライル(およびそれ以来)が詳細に暴露したミスを作ることを楽しんでいます。私たちの言葉の意識、選択、自由、意図、粒子、思考、決定、波、原因、起こった出来事(そして無限に )の使用はめったに混乱の原因ではありませんが、,通常の生活を離れて哲学に入るとすぐに(そして言語が進化した環境から切り離された議論、すなわち言葉が意味を持っていた正確な文脈)カオスが支配します。ほとん どの場合と同様に、デネットは一貫した枠組みを欠いており、サールは合理性の論理的構造と呼ばれています。私はこのレビューを書いて以来、私はこれにかなり拡大しており、私の最近の記事は、ステロイドのScien tism (（説明としての科学の不適切な使用）を呼び出すかもしれない哲学へのデネットのアプローチの何が間違っているかを詳細に示しています。ヴィトゲンシュタインからの別の引用で終わらせましょう - '野心は思考の死です。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

"Die Leute sagen immer wieder, dass die Philosophie nicht wirklich vorankommt, dass wir immer noch mit den gleichen philosophischen Problemen beschäftigt sind wie die Griechen. Aber die Leute, die das sagen, verstehen nicht, warum es so sein muss. Weil unsere Sprache gleich geblieben ist und uns immer wieder dazu verführt, dieselben Fragen zu stellen. Solange es weiterhin ein Verb "zu sein" gibt, das so aussieht, als ob es genauso funktioniert wie "essen und trinken" Solange wir noch die Adjektive "identisch", "wahr", (...) "falsch", "möglich" haben, solange wir weiterhin von einem Fluss der Zeit, von einer Weite des Raumes usw. sprechen, werden die Menschen immer wieder über dieselben rätselhaften Schwierigkeiten stolpern und auf etwas starren, was keine Erklärung zu klären scheint. Und darüber hinaus erfüllt dies eine Sehnsucht nach dem Transzendenten, denn insofern die Menschen denken, sie können die "Grenzendes menschlichen Verständnisses" erkennen, glauben sie natürlich,dass sie darüber hinaus sehenkönnen." Dieses Zitat stammt von Ludwig Wittgenstein, der vor etwa 70 Jahren die Philosophie neu definierte (aber die meisten Leute haben das noch nicht herausgefunden). Dennett ist einer von ihnen, obwohl er seit etwa 40 Jahren Philosoph ist. Es ist auch merkwürdig, dass sowohl er als auch sein Hauptgegner, John Searle, unter berühmten Wittgensteinianern studierten (Searle mit John Austin, Dennett mit Gilbert Ryle), aber Searle mehr oder weniger den Punkt bekam und Dennett nicht, (obwohl es die Dinge dehnt, Searle oder Ryle Wittgensteinians zu nennen). Dennett ist ein harter Determinist (obwohl er versucht, die Realität in die Hintertür zu schleichen), und vielleicht liegt das an Ryle, dessen berühmtes Buch "The Concept of Mind" (1949) immer wieder nachgedruckt wird. Dieses Buch hat einen großartigen Job gemacht, den Geist zu exorzisieren,, aber es verließ die Maschine. Dennett macht gerne die Fehler, die Wittgenstein, Ryle (und viele andere seither) im Detail aufgedeckt haben. Unsere Verwendung der Worte Bewusstsein, Wahl, Freiheit, Absicht, Teilchen, Denken, bestimmt, Welle, Ursache, Geschehen, Ereignis (und so weiter endlos) sind selten eine Quelle derVerwirrung, aber sobald wir das normale Leben verlassen und in die Philosophie eintreten (und jede Diskussion losgelöst von der Umgebung, in der sich die Sprache entwickelthat –d.h. der genaue Kontext, in dem die Worte Bedeutung hatten)herrscht Chaos. Wie die meisten, fehlt Dennett ein kohärenter Rahmen - den Searle die logische Struktur der Rationalität genannt hat. Ich habe auf diese erheblich erweitert, da ich diese Rezension geschrieben und meine jüngsten Artikel zeigen im Detail, was falsch mit Dennettansatz zur Philosophie,die man Scientismus auf Steroiden nennen könnte. Lassen Sie mich mit einem weiteren Zitat aus Wittgenstein enden - "Ambition ist der Tod des Denkens". Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

人们一再说,哲学并没有真正进步,我们仍然被和希腊人一样的哲学问题所占据。但是说这一点的人不明白为什么会这样。因为我们的语言保持不变,并不断引诱我们问同样的问题。只要继续有一个动词,看起来好像它的作用与 吃和喝一样,只要我们仍然有形容词[相同],[真],[false],只要我们继续谈论时间的河流,在广阔的空间,等等,人们会不断绊倒同样的令人费解的困难,发现自己盯着的东西,似乎无法解释,无法清除。更重要 的是,这满足了对超然的渴望,因为只要人们认为他们能看到"人类理解的极限",他们当然相信他们能看到超越这些。 这句话出自路德维希·维特根斯坦,他在大约70年前重新定义了哲学(但大多数人还没有发现这一点)。德内特,虽然他已经作为一个哲学家约40年,是其中之一。也奇怪的是,他和他的主要对手,约翰·西尔,在著名的维 特根斯坦人(西尔与约翰·奥斯汀,德内特与吉尔伯特·莱尔)下学习,但西尔或多或少得到了这一点,而德内特没有,(虽然它正在拉伸的东西打电话给西尔或莱尔·维特根斯坦人)。丹内特是一个强硬的威慑者(尽管他试图 在后门偷偷摸摸现实),也许这是由于莱尔,他的名著 《心灵的概念》(1949年)继续被重印。那本书在驱除鬼魂方面做得非常好,但它离开了机器。 德内特喜欢犯维特根斯坦、莱尔(以及许多其他人)已经详细揭露的错误。我们使用词的意识,选择,自由,意图,粒子,思维,决定,波,因,发生,事件(等等无休止)很少是混乱的来源,但只要我们离开正常生活,进入哲 学(和任何讨论脱离了语言演变的环境——即,单词含义的确切背景)混乱。和大多数人一样,德内特缺乏一个连贯的框架——西尔称之为理性的逻辑结构。我已经大大扩展了这一点,因为我写了这个评论,我最近的文章详细显 示了什么与Dennett的哲学方法是错误的,这可能称为类固醇的山达主义。让我以维特根斯坦的另一句话结束——野心是思想的死亡。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

La actitud del diseño es una estrategia interpretativa propuesta por Dennett, que consiste en tratar al sistema, cuyo “comportamiento” se quiere predecir, bajo el supuesto de que sus partes cumplen funciones que obedecen a un diseño satisfactorio. Sin embargo, estudios recientes sobre atribución funcional en artefactos técnicos consideran que la actitud del diseño supone una estrategia inadecuada para entender qué hace un artefacto técnico. En particular, dos críticas han ganado visibilidad. Por una parte, Vermaas et al. (2013) señalan una inconsistencia (...) en la propuesta dennettiana de la actitud del diseño: las intenciones del diseñador a veces desempeñan un papel en la interpretación de los artefactos y a veces no lo hacen, sin tener finalmente una intuición clara sobre su rol. Por otra parte, Vaesen y Van Amerongen (2008) sostienen que la actitud del diseño admite dos interpretaciones, una descriptiva y una normativa, y que ambas son implausibles. No obstante, en este trabajo argumentamos que estas críticas son rebatibles y que el problema reside en que ambas acusaciones, i.e. inconsistencia e implausibilidad, suponen una interpretación incorrecta de la posición de Dennett. The design attitude is an interpretive strategy proposed by Dennett, which consists of treating the system, whose “behavior” is to be predicted, under the assumption that its parts fulfill functions that accomplish a satisfactory design. Recent studies on technical artifacts' functional attribution claim that the design attitude is an inadequate strategy to elicit what a technical artifact does. In particular, two criticisms have gained visibility. On the one hand, Vermas et al (2013) remark an inconsistency in Dennett’s design stance. The very designer's intentions sometimes play a role in the interpretation of artifacts and sometimes they don´t, without finally having a clear intuition about their role. On the other hand, Vaesen and Van Amerongen (2008) argue that the design stance admits two interpretations, a descriptive and a normative one and that both are implausible. However, we argue that these criticisms miss the point given that both accusations, i.e. of inconsistency and of implausibility, result from a wrong interpretation of Dennett's position. (shrink)

A leading theoretical framework for naturalistic explanation of mind holds that we explain the mind by positing progressively "stupider" capacities ("homunculi") until the mind is "discharged" by means of capacities that are not intelligent at all. The so-called homuncular fallacy involves violating this procedure by positing the same capacities at subpersonal levels. I argue that the homuncular fallacy is not a fallacy, and that modern-day homunculi are idle posits. I propose an alternative view of what naturalism requires that reflects how (...) the cognitive sciences are actually integrating mind and matter. (shrink)

The most promising approaches to understanding phenomenal consciousness are what I’ll call cognitive approaches, the most notable exemplars of which are the theories of consciousness articulated by David Rosenthal and Daniel Dennett. The aim of the present contribution is to review the core similarities and differences of these exemplars, as well as to outline the main strengths and remaining challenges to this general sort of approach.

Evolutionary epistemology (Lorenz, Vollmer) and value-driven decision theory (Pugh) are used to explain the fundamental properties of consciousness. It is shown that this approach is compatible with global workspace theory (Baars) and global neuronal workspace theory (De Haene). The emotions are, however, that what drives consciousness. A hypothetical evolutionary tree of the emotions is given – intended to show that consciousness evolves and is probably qualitatively different in different groups of animals.

A dramatic problem facing the concept of the self is whether there is anything to make sense of. Despite the speculative view that there is an essential role for the perceiver in measurement, a physicalist view of reality currently seems to be ruling out the conditions of subjectivity required to keep the concept of the self. Eliminative materialism states this position explicitly. The doctrine holds that we have no objective grounds for attributing personhood to anyone, and can therefore dispense with (...) the concept. That implication would require us to dispense with many of the most basic commitments of our manifest or common sense image of the world. And it would require us to abandon, to maintain as an act of bad faith, or radically to adjust, virtually every significant basic commitment underlying the variety of traditions that have evolved historically from the (natural) platform of common sense. Daniel Dennett’s sympathies seem to be divided over this issue. He is reluctant to eliminate the most fundamental linguistic-conceptual-institutional commitments that have evolved from common sense. Yet, I will argue, the basis of his support for these, beneath the surface of his rhetoric, is a mirage. His view of persons and related (intentional) concepts is a case in point. In place of the eliminative materialist position, Dennett recommends that we regard the self as a highly useful “theorist’s fiction.” He adopts a similar epistemic stance toward intention, belief, mind, and so on. In this paper I aim to show that Dennett’s recommendation is based on a subtle version of the dualism of subject and object (or scheme and content), which he seems to agree that we should transcend. Against Dennett’s view of the self as a “theorist’s fiction,” I argue in favour of a version of Donald Davidson’s realist thesis that, once we properly appreciate the significance of abandoning this pervasive dualism, we can maintain the self and associated intentional items – belief, mind, and so on – within a thoroughly realist ontology. (shrink)

Realism about consciousness conjoins a claim that consciousness exists with a claim that the existence is independent in some interesting sense. Consciousness realism so conceived may thus be opposed by a variety of anti-realisms, distinguished from each other by denying the first, the second, or both of the realist’s defining claims. I argue that Dennett’s view of consciousness is best read as an anti-realism that affirms the existence of consciousness while denying an important independence claim.

A review of Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps (W.V. Norton: 2013).

I respond to Ned Block’s claim that it is ridiculous to suppose that consciousness is a cultural construction based on language and learned in childhood. Block is wrong to dismiss social constructivist theories of consciousness on account of it being ludicrous that conscious experience is anything but a biological feature of our animal heritage, characterized by sensory experience, evolved over millions of years. By defending social constructivism in terms of both Julian Jaynes’ behaviorism and J.J. Gibson’s ecological psychology, I draw (...) a distinction between the experience or what-it-is-like of nonhuman animals engaging with the environment and the secret theater of speechless monologue that is familiar to a linguistically competent human adult. This distinction grounds the argument that consciousness proper should be seen as learned rather than innate and shared with nonhuman animals. Upon establishing this claim, I defend the Jaynesian definition of consciousness as a social–linguistic construct learned in childhood, structured in terms of lexical metaphors and narrative practice. Finally, I employ the Jaynesian distinction between cognition and consciousness to bridge the explanatory gap and deflate the supposed hard problem of consciousness. (shrink)

Over 35 years, Daniel Dennett has articulated a rich and expansive philosophical outlook. There have been elaborations, refinements, and changes of mind, exposi- tory and substantive. This makes him hard to pin down. Does he, for example, think intentional states are real? In places, he sounds distinctly instrumentalist; elsewhere, he avows realism, ‘sort of’. What is needed is a map, charting developments and tracing dialectical threads through his extensive writings and the different regions of his thought. This is what Matthew (...) Elton’s impressive book supplies. Accessibly written, with a useful glossary and detailed guides to the literature, it will be ex- tremely helpful to students and professionals alike. (shrink)

1. Was ist ein Homunkulus-Fehlschluß? 2. Analyse des Mentalen und Naturalisierung der Intentionalität 3. Homunkulismus in Theorien der visuellen Wahrnehmung 4. Homunkulismus und Repräsentationalismus 5. Der homunkulare Funktionalismus 6. Philosophische Sinnkritik und empirische Wissenschaft Literatur .

Although Symons' recent book, On Dennett (Wadsworth, 2002), provides scientists with ahelpful, general introduction to Dennett'sthought, it presents a skewed version of the history of the philosophy of mind. In particular, the continental tradition is almost entirely ignored, if not glibly dismissed. As aresult, the unwary reader of this book wouldnever realize that Dilthey, Sartre and Husserl,like Dennett, offer a ``middle ground'' between naturalistic realism and naturalistic eliminativism. However, unlike Dennett, the respective positions of Dilthey, Sartre and Husserl are not (...) ontologically indifferent, but instead, present a non-naturalistic form of realism that does not simultaneously invoke Cartesian dualism. (shrink)

In the worlds of philosophy, linguistics, and communications theory, a view has developed which understands conscious experience as experience which is 'reflected' back upon itself through language. This indicates that the consciousness we experience is possible only because we have culturally invented language and subsequently evolved to accommodate it. This accords with the conclusions of Daniel Dennett (1991), but the 'hermeneutic objection' would go further and deny that the objective sciences themselves have escaped the hermeneutic circle. -/- The consciousness we (...) humans experience is developed only within the context of crossing the 'symbolic threshold' (Percy 1975; Deacon 1997) and one of the earliest and most important symbols we acquire is that of the self, or 'the subject of experience'. It is only when we achieve self-awareness that the world, as such, comes to exist for us as an object (which contains categories and sub-categories of objects). Any consciousness imputed to prelinguistic stages of development is based on projection and guesswork, since we can know nothing directly of it. It can be said that any experience which does not separate an inner subject from an outer world is probably a continuum of sensation in which environmental stimulus and instinctive response are experienced as a unity; it may be 'lived experience' but it is experience 'lived' non-consciously. -/- Speech requires assertion and by learning to speak we find ourselves asserting, in essence, our selves into the world. The narrative form of language allows us to develop life stories, self-knowledge, and, most important, narrative memory coincident with narrative time. All this is made possible with the intersubjective 'net' of language which allows us to know ourselves by first identifying with the viewpoint of others; and, later, such allows us to identify with other minds as we anticipate their reception our communication. These three, assertion, narrative, and intersubjectivity are the essence of what language is and are the keystones that make culture possible outside of nature. (shrink)

The paper argues that Daniel Dennett’s reductive account of consciousness in Consciousness Explained goes against theoretical commitments driving much of his previous work. I focus on considerations for the plurality of distinctive explanation of ourselves, as they have been articulated in Dennett's earlier work, and argue that Dennett's reductive framework is not adequately supported in the face of these considerations. The paper details tensions in Dennett’s work and shows how Consciousness Explained departs from the diagnoses of the mind/body problem offered (...) by Ryle, Wittgenstein and Sellars with which Dennett casts it as continuous. (shrink)