Thoughts on this book?

>>8744248
The cover is not very pretty.

>>8744248
You can safely dismiss anything by a modern philosopher on anything besides topics on how a human should live their life

>>8746036
What about the computational theory of mind?

>>8746036
Which is unfortunately the ONE thing that they gradually stopped doing after the Greeks.

They had ONE job and they fucked it up.

File: speed racer.gif (2MB, 400x167px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x167px

>>8746031
Your opinion even less so.

An animated cover like this is probably more your speed.

>>8746063
Unless a theory about the universe rigorously uses mathematics and experiment it is nothing more than a suspicion

>>8746036
You can't safely dismiss Dennet's work on the grounds that most of it is founded upon scientific findings. He worked closely with the top scientists of the day on every topic he discussed.

Philosophers just flail about within the space of unfalsifiable ideas. This book is no different. Why do people take this more seriously than the man on the street's idea if they're both consistent with scientific consensus? Marketing.

And as soon as scientists discover more stuff, philosophers will stand on their shoulders and claim that, yes, scientists may have completely isolated the neuroalgorithms / particles for consciousness, but scientists can't tell us *unknown*! Science has failed! We NEED philosophy!

Note, I'm not saying that the scientific method can tell us how to live, or that science isn't philosophy, or that there is a single scientific method, or any over reaching shit like that. I'm simply saying that there are infinitely many viewpoints (and criteria for judging viewpoints (and criteria for judging criteria...)) and academic philosophy does not exhaust these. If you point this out to philosophy fans, they will go crazy because you're challenging their dominance of the discourse.

>>8746078
There are mathematical models of the computational theory of mind. But even if there weren't, I think you're a bit harsh with your call for dismissal. You need the idea before you can mathematize it. If ideas are dismissed before they are formalized, they'll never be formalized.

>>8746090
>>8746085
I guess my comment is relevant for this.

>>8746089
Most philosophers don't do this anymore. You're tilting at windmills.

>>8746090
If you're experienced with philosophy in college and popular topics you'll see it's lack of rigor. The modern scientist is capable of philosophizing as much as needed for him to continue his work. In mathematics information can actually be used. In philosophy everything is grey.

>>8746109
It really depends. While I didn't major in philosophy, I've done my fair share in university. I'm not claiming philosophy is as rigorous as most of science, but it can still be interesting, especially when dealing with subjects such as mind and language. Obviously, we know so little about either that whether a cognitive scientist or a philosopher is discussing the issue doesn't make that much of a difference. If anything, philosophy is a good place to pool ideas.

>>8746031
lol pleb
can't even into dada

>>8746135
Philosophy is an art. Take it if you're interested in it, but any scientist and mathematician can philosophy themselves sufficiently to continue their work.

This opinion may be harsh, but philosophy teaches such a wide collection of completely wild ideas and teaches people to ponder these as if they had an answer, making it one of the only subjects where you know less coming out than going in.

>>8746147
I do think your opinion is a little too harsh, but you're right that scientists and mathematicians can do their work themselves, I'm not saying they can't. My only point is that philosophy is a good source of ideas. I study linguistics myself, which like all cognitive science is very young and very naive. Philosophy of mind and language are good reads for cognitive scientists because, as I've said before, we hardly know anything about those subjects. I do think philosophers trying to school physicists is a bit ridiculous, but understanding cognition is still very much tied to philosophy.

>>8744248
>names book "Consciousness Explained"
>doesn't actually explain consciousness

Douchebag Daniel

>consciousness, unlike everything else, actually keeps going when we look away, this means...it's the only thing that is fake and everything else is real...yeah