I was wrong

[Win]

Having read Dan Dennett's Consciousness Explained for the first time just this last week, I realise now that my property dualist position has been misconceived. Of course it is the case, as Dennett had written earlier in a paper I was only led to by the vast respect his pop-philosophy tome engendered in me, physicalist explanations of phenomenal judgements "exhaust our immediate consciousness."

I don't know what I've been thinking. If only I had paid more attention to Stimpson's explications of the nature of causation. If only I hadn't let pride blind me to AS's deep and nuanced understanding of the question of phenomenal consciousness, particularly since it too owes something to Professor Dennett's aforementioned pop-philosophical masterwork.

What irks me the most is that I have might have led people astray. Sou, property dualism is patent nonsense. Loki, I regret having wasted so much of your time with my wrongheaded attempts to justify a philosophical position that, in retrospect, can only be seen as a reflection of my inability to face the truth.

In the end, while I might want to blame David Chalmers, I can only blame myself. I appeal to all those who have failed, through their own weakness and stupidity, and who shall remain nameless pachyderms, to come back to true path.

Materialism is true!

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Win
Having read Dan Dennett's Consciousness Explained for the first time just this last week, I realise now that my property dualist position has been misconceived.



Let me guess... April Fools?

Win, you've got a lot of class.

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
Win, you've got a lot of class.

Hmm. To put that in my signature, or not? Decisions, decisions.

[Win]

Estimated:

Win, you've got a lot of class.

Thank you so much. I realise that my new found understanding of the errors of my ways having come on this unauspicious day, when others less classy perhaps than myself are taking the opportunity to mock their various betes noirs, might be a little suspicious.

I, however, am completely sincere, and felt simply that the calendar couldn't dictate my sharing my revelation.

Again, thanks for your kind words. That you elected to share them with me, out of all those with whom you might have, makes your sentiments all the more special to me.

Originally posted by Win
Having read Dan Dennett's Consciousness Explained for the first time just this last week, I realise now that my property dualist position has been misconceived. Of course it is the case, as Dennett had written earlier in a paper I was only led to by the vast respect his pop-philosophy tome engendered in me, physicalist explanations of phenomenal judgements "exhaust our immediate consciousness."

I don't know what I've been thinking. If only I had paid more attention to Stimpson's explications of the nature of causation. If only I hadn't let pride blind me to AS's deep and nuanced understanding of the question of phenomenal consciousness, particularly since it too owes something to Professor Dennett's aforementioned pop-philosophical masterwork.

What irks me the most is that I have might have led people astray. Sou, property dualism is patent nonsense. Loki, I regret having wasted so much of your time with my wrongheaded attempts to justify a philosophical position that, in retrospect, can only be seen as a reflection of my inability to face the truth.

In the end, while I might want to blame David Chalmers, I can only blame myself. I appeal to all those who have failed, through their own weakness and stupidity, and who shall remain nameless pachyderms, to come back to true path.

Materialism is true!

Yes, it's true....I need to get it off my chest....Berkeley really was a lunatic....there is no reason to believe that materialism is false....I've sent off for "Why People believe weird things."

It was PixyMisa who did it for me....qualia both are and aren't brain processes...no logical problem there.....just a bit of linguistic confusion......

:(

From "I was wrong and You were right" (Badly Drawn Boy)

And you,
Were right to bide your time and not buy into my misery
Well the good things are never free
Do the colours of the rainbow look the same to everyone?
And I,
Was rushing round in circles for a reason to believe.....
Wipe the slime from off your sleeve
You could follow me for weeks
And I'm not going anywhere.....

:D

Originally posted by Win
Estimated:

Again, thanks for your kind words. That you elected to share them with me, out of all those with whom you might have, makes your sentiments all the more special to me.

Now you've gone and done it... I'll have to love you forever.

(is that more sigline material? :D )

[Loki]

Win,

Sorry, but even on April 1st I still think P-Zombies are a poor anti-materialism concept! But that's just me, I guess...

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It's April the 2nd and no retractions from the First post......:p

[metacristi]

Win

Materialism is true!


Interesting,though I consider myself a materialist [in an extended sense however:qualia is something fundamental to nature as in Penrose's acception or,at limit as Chalmers' proposal],I am not at all sure it is true.I haven't read Dennet's book,I am curious what made you change your mind so radically?
Has Dennet the empirical proof that dualism [in the sense:mind and matter do not interact though they can transform in each other-cause each other] is false?After all,as far as I know,no one has disproved yet the possibility that the fundamental material 'particles' have mind [a proto consciousness not as our's-our mind appear as an emergent phenomenon] as an intrinsic property attached [protopsychism,vitalism]?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by metacristi
Win




Interesting,though I consider myself a materialist [in an extended sense however:qualia is something fundamental to nature as in Penrose's acception or,at limit as Chalmers' proposal],I am not at all sure it is true.I haven't read Dennet's book,I am curious what made you change your mind so radically?
Has Dennet the empirical proof that dualism [in the sense:mind and matter do not interact though they can transform in each other-cause each other] is false?After all,as far as I know,no one has disproved yet the possibility that the fundamental material 'particles' have mind as an intrinsic property attached [panpsychism,vitalism]?

um :D

Sou

[metacristi]

um


'Um'?I suppose you forget to end your phrase...