I have stated myself that belief is merely perception. What you perceive is what you believe. Although, Dennett means that no synaptic connections nor neurological arrangement can be shown as evidence for what we call belief. Personally I suspect he is looking for the belief instead of the neurological arrangement and physiological chemistry that results in the belief. He is sort of looking for the musical notes that can be stimulated into existence in the person's memory via an electric probe.
well, beliefs may be the commonalities shared among many of your perceptions, but perceptions change much quicker than some beliefs. perhaps you're saying that he's looking for the "content" of the belief. right. he is, but he only admits of answers that can be provided in terms of physiological explanations, and so he's painted himself into a corner where the hypothesis of beliefs is a gap-filler.
@legodesi, visual perception can be changed rather easily by showing the subject, for example, the design of the room and the people inside so that he can become aware that his brain is misinterpreting what he is seeing. I'm not talking about perception as determined by eye brain interaction, but rather perception as a formation of a concepts in the brain as a result of personal experiences. This latter perception is usually fixated with emotion & survival mechanisms, and is difficult to change.
Now as far is the super-advanced alien race finding this thing called belief in the brain: I suspect he is saying in other words what I have said in the past. When a religious person holds a particular perception based on his life's experiences, we call the perception "belief." Yet, "belief" is a bias term for describing development of particular perception. See, when a scientist or atheist holds a particular perception based on his life's experiences we call it scientifically or logically based
@unseenstrings I think you have a misconception of what belief is. Belief is a state of mind where you hold a proposition to be true. Thus, if hold the proposition that the Earth revolves around the Sun to be true. I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is empirically based, but it still classifies as a belief
@npa992, to believe something is not true is still a belief, even if it happens to be empirically based. If experience causes me to develop the perception that the sun is round, I will likely believe the sun is round based on that perception. That is the reason I have stated, "What one perceives, one believes." However, I realize we all have cognitive biases. And that awareness helps me deny the belief bubbling up from the cognitive biases of perception. Thus, we TEND to believe what we perceive
lego, I find it amusing that so many comments simply don't understand what you're explaining of what Dennett believes... er, "postulates." You should probably have included a short explanation of eliminative materialism. I think your video here was excellent; merely explaining Dennett's position suffices to refute it, if you believe as I do?
yeahh, i probably should have extended the video to explain more carefully what dennett says. i mean, i thought the quote at the end was clear enough! dennett says, strictly speaking, ontologically speaking, beliefs don't exist, but they are practically indispensable (until, of course, we want to explain "actual, empirical" behavior, at which point beliefs are dispensable.
There is no such thing, as only the person experiencing the idea can tell you that it is happening. The thing is is that the person who is thinking cannot tell if another is, therefore it is strictly personal. So, it is more or less not there, as we don't know if the others around us can think or not. We can make the assumption that they do think, but it may not be the cause.
this is not what dennett is saying. dennett is saying much more than this. he's not merely saying we don't know what beliefs other people have - he says that what a belief precisely is is merely a postulation to aid one in predicting behavior. if you'd like, read jerry fodor's paper. it clarifies the argument i'm making.
@legodesi Really? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Perhaps he needs to clarify the idea further. I can understand that actions in animals can sometimes be wrong, like with the faith in animals experiment. Maybe he is trying to make a connotation to that.
sorry i only got to this question now. to answer your question, no, i'm not saying that dennett cannot really believe that beliefs are not real. i haven't argued that it's self-refuting.
He's not saying 'we cannot know that a thing has beliefs by looking at it's physical properties' , I don't know how you concluded this, maybe you assume there's only one way to know if things have beliefs, i.e. two ways can't both be usable at the same time, ? This is clearly a false-dichotomy, so could you explain how one follows necessarily from the other?
I don't think you know what ontologically means... there are no forests or countries either, ontologically.
he does say that. here's what he says of the physical stance: "determine its physical constitution (perhaps all the way down to the microphysical level)..." and he says that intentional states cannot be discerned by the physical stance, which means they cannot be discerned by determining the micro-physical/macro-physical properties of a thing.
let's assume i don't know what it means. what do you mean by "strictly speaking, ontologically speaking"?
@legodesi Yes, but you are using it as "we can't know, now or at any point in the future" which I'm sure is not what he meant. He simply meant it is beyond our ability 'at present' (especially without any tools whatsoever which I think is his context since he's talking about the general human experience).
I know it doesn't mean that they don't exist at all on any perspective and entirely without consequence.
watch my video again, and listen carefully when i convey dennett's own thought experiment. in that thought experiment, dennett says that a laplacean scientist who has thorough and complete physical knowledge of me does not know that i have beliefs.
@legodesi If you think that the truth of dennett's statement necessitates the truth of your statement (there is no information in the physical body that could allow the extraction of a belief) then you'll have to show why. I believe this is erroneous.
Having complete knowledge of all the pieces in a chess game will not tell you who the winner will be, but that doesn't necessitate that it is not enough for a more advanced player.
please read the essay. dennett states the intentional stance is the ONLY stance from which one can discern beliefs. he says beliefs don't strictly exist. he says to explain behavior most accurately, beliefs should not be invoked. if you don't believe this, i can't help you.
it won't tell you what the winner is, but this analogy is flawed. if someone were to know exactly all the properties of a brainstate, and if a belief were a brain state, he'd discern the belief.
dennett's thought experiment was about a scientist with a complete science - a complete knowledge of how our brains work. he says the scientist does not know we have beliefs. then you tell me it's because we don't know enough - obviously, you haven't read it.
I wrote a paper on this very topic in my very first philosophy class, 10 years ago haha. I agree with Lenny here, what is your objection to the position, besides that it is perhaps counter-intuitive (and obviously physicalist)?
ten years ago? how old were you then, like 12? anddd, i replied to lenny. among philosophers, it's not enough to point at dennett's non-realism and laugh - they need to critique it on his own grounds and all, but i feel completely justified in reasoning as follows: 1. Beliefs literally exist. 2. Daniel Dennett's theory means that beliefs don't literally exist. 3. Therefore, Daniel Dennett's theory is false. (commence in laughing at Daniel Dennett).
@legodesi I was 18, and taking philosophy of mind which I got an A in. Sealed the deal for my love of philosophy and sent me on my way into atheism. I spent the next 4 years out of college and all over the country, wasted some time on a film degree I never got, and right now I am just about to finish my senior year as an old man and move on as quickly as possible to grad school. I took the Søren Kierkegaard approach to finishing college haha. Now you can write my biography =P
dang, philosophy led you to atheism? that saddens me somehow. i'm gonna make it a goal on youtube to persuade you out of at least reductive phsyicalism.
@legodesi What theory would I replace it with? Panpsychism? Jaegwon Kim and his essays on causal closure has limited my possibilities greatly. I am open minded, but I the debate thus far hasn't left me with many options.
I'd love to see a "Daniel Dennett is not a..." series from you.
Go for it!
I doubt you'll see the kind of reaction that Theo gets out of his "WLC is not a..." series which is kind of the whole point of the series. Namely that WLC "apologists" will react blindly in defense of WLC without ever seriously considering the criticisms that are being leveled.
Anyway, nice summary of Dennetts intentional stance. I'm not sure it amounts to nihilism. We should talk.
sam! i was actually apprehensively waiting for a scathing criticism from you, i'm glad that you didn't. i'm glad that, unlike WLC apologists, you do seriously consider the criticism leveled against dennett.
yeahhh, it's not nihilistic, since according to his own view it's not that only one mind in the world exists, it's that no mind exists to begin with. (i'm being over-the-top critical, ignore that abrasiveness). we should! next time i'm free on gchat.
@southmcl Ehh, just appending my last comment. WLC is only comparable to Harris in popularity. The comparison does not speak to strength of their arguments or how honest they are about them.
yeah, i wanted to use dennett instead of harris because i think he's an equipped philosopher who is harder to pick a fight with than harris. harris is a good speaker and articulater, but most of his ideas are merely derivative. dennett is a creative guy. yettttt, i'm hesitant of making a video to claim he's not a philosopher. if i did, it would only be to parody theowarner's videos.
With that said: Do you have any problems with or arguments against Dennett's view, or were you merely summarizing it? I have a nagging suspicion you probably object to it, otherwise I don't think you'd have put "nihilism" and "stupid" in the video tags. Haha.
loll, yeah i do have objections to it. if X's belief is an interpretation that Y makes, is Y's interpretation itself a belief that is in turn interpreted by Z? at some point we have to realize that absolutely everything is meaningless, or that our mental states are really intentional. also, how could dennett think beliefs have a causal role (as he does in his evolutionary account of intentionality, i think..), if they don't actually exist?
I'm just curious, have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I'm reading it at the moment. Great book. I get the impression you'd be big into it if you were/had read it.
@legodesi I'm still reading it, about a third of the way through it. It goes into a lot of stuff, philosophically speaking in a very unique way, that is for damn sure. It has a lot to do with rationality, scientific method, philosophy strangely enough by means of motorcycle maintenance.
I've had it on a "to read" list for years but only found it in a bookstore near me recently.
I might read his book(s) later on, but so far I think Dennett is probably one of the worst NA's out there when it comes to arguments. There's even one video where he basically restates the familiar fundie argument that "everyone really believes in God," but simply reverses it (he got applause for that as well). In the same video, he just rips arguments from old Atheists work (religion will die in X amount of years, et al.), but in a less sophisticated manner. :P
what is NA? (sorry, dumb question). yeahh, when dennett talks about religion, i can understand why he's on par with dawkins and harris, because he reveals an utter lack of understanding of anything religious beyond what the westboro baptist church preaches. yet, i should add that i love reading dennett's philosophy of mind - he's a quite engaging, if confused, thinker.
i miss your vids :(
manutdfan4321 10 months ago
can i eat you?
pulelovesme 1 year ago
I have stated myself that belief is merely perception. What you perceive is what you believe. Although, Dennett means that no synaptic connections nor neurological arrangement can be shown as evidence for what we call belief. Personally I suspect he is looking for the belief instead of the neurological arrangement and physiological chemistry that results in the belief. He is sort of looking for the musical notes that can be stimulated into existence in the person's memory via an electric probe.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings
well, beliefs may be the commonalities shared among many of your perceptions, but perceptions change much quicker than some beliefs. perhaps you're saying that he's looking for the "content" of the belief. right. he is, but he only admits of answers that can be provided in terms of physiological explanations, and so he's painted himself into a corner where the hypothesis of beliefs is a gap-filler.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi, visual perception can be changed rather easily by showing the subject, for example, the design of the room and the people inside so that he can become aware that his brain is misinterpreting what he is seeing. I'm not talking about perception as determined by eye brain interaction, but rather perception as a formation of a concepts in the brain as a result of personal experiences. This latter perception is usually fixated with emotion & survival mechanisms, and is difficult to change.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Now as far is the super-advanced alien race finding this thing called belief in the brain: I suspect he is saying in other words what I have said in the past. When a religious person holds a particular perception based on his life's experiences, we call the perception "belief." Yet, "belief" is a bias term for describing development of particular perception. See, when a scientist or atheist holds a particular perception based on his life's experiences we call it scientifically or logically based
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I think you have a misconception of what belief is. Belief is a state of mind where you hold a proposition to be true. Thus, if hold the proposition that the Earth revolves around the Sun to be true. I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is empirically based, but it still classifies as a belief
npa992 10 months ago
@npa992, to believe something is not true is still a belief, even if it happens to be empirically based. If experience causes me to develop the perception that the sun is round, I will likely believe the sun is round based on that perception. That is the reason I have stated, "What one perceives, one believes." However, I realize we all have cognitive biases. And that awareness helps me deny the belief bubbling up from the cognitive biases of perception. Thus, we TEND to believe what we perceive
unseenstrings 10 months ago
lego, I find it amusing that so many comments simply don't understand what you're explaining of what Dennett believes... er, "postulates." You should probably have included a short explanation of eliminative materialism. I think your video here was excellent; merely explaining Dennett's position suffices to refute it, if you believe as I do?
hxrtotally 1 year ago
@hxrtotally
yeahh, i probably should have extended the video to explain more carefully what dennett says. i mean, i thought the quote at the end was clear enough! dennett says, strictly speaking, ontologically speaking, beliefs don't exist, but they are practically indispensable (until, of course, we want to explain "actual, empirical" behavior, at which point beliefs are dispensable.
legodesi 1 year ago
@hxrtotally
exactly, i think pointing out that Dennett's theory of mind excludes beliefs/desires is enough to show what is wrong with it.
legodesi 1 year ago
what's the problem of him not believing? he is a secularist and a supporter of Charles Darwin, afterall.
emperorkang 1 year ago
There is no such thing, as only the person experiencing the idea can tell you that it is happening. The thing is is that the person who is thinking cannot tell if another is, therefore it is strictly personal. So, it is more or less not there, as we don't know if the others around us can think or not. We can make the assumption that they do think, but it may not be the cause.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@FlyingSpahghettiMan
this is not what dennett is saying. dennett is saying much more than this. he's not merely saying we don't know what beliefs other people have - he says that what a belief precisely is is merely a postulation to aid one in predicting behavior. if you'd like, read jerry fodor's paper. it clarifies the argument i'm making.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi Really? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Perhaps he needs to clarify the idea further. I can understand that actions in animals can sometimes be wrong, like with the faith in animals experiment. Maybe he is trying to make a connotation to that.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@Legodesi.
So to be clear: are you claiming that Dennett cannot really believe that beliefs are not real, because to do so would be self refuting?
leawardseif 1 year ago
@leawardseif
sorry i only got to this question now. to answer your question, no, i'm not saying that dennett cannot really believe that beliefs are not real. i haven't argued that it's self-refuting.
legodesi 1 year ago
I see what you did thar.
SirContraMundum 1 year ago
I am going to make a video called "Legodes is NOT an Eliminative Materialist."
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
He's not saying 'we cannot know that a thing has beliefs by looking at it's physical properties' , I don't know how you concluded this, maybe you assume there's only one way to know if things have beliefs, i.e. two ways can't both be usable at the same time, ? This is clearly a false-dichotomy, so could you explain how one follows necessarily from the other?
I don't think you know what ontologically means... there are no forests or countries either, ontologically.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment
he does say that. here's what he says of the physical stance: "determine its physical constitution (perhaps all the way down to the microphysical level)..." and he says that intentional states cannot be discerned by the physical stance, which means they cannot be discerned by determining the micro-physical/macro-physical properties of a thing.
let's assume i don't know what it means. what do you mean by "strictly speaking, ontologically speaking"?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi Yes, but you are using it as "we can't know, now or at any point in the future" which I'm sure is not what he meant. He simply meant it is beyond our ability 'at present' (especially without any tools whatsoever which I think is his context since he's talking about the general human experience).
I know it doesn't mean that they don't exist at all on any perspective and entirely without consequence.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment
watch my video again, and listen carefully when i convey dennett's own thought experiment. in that thought experiment, dennett says that a laplacean scientist who has thorough and complete physical knowledge of me does not know that i have beliefs.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi If you think that the truth of dennett's statement necessitates the truth of your statement (there is no information in the physical body that could allow the extraction of a belief) then you'll have to show why. I believe this is erroneous.
Having complete knowledge of all the pieces in a chess game will not tell you who the winner will be, but that doesn't necessitate that it is not enough for a more advanced player.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment
please read the essay. dennett states the intentional stance is the ONLY stance from which one can discern beliefs. he says beliefs don't strictly exist. he says to explain behavior most accurately, beliefs should not be invoked. if you don't believe this, i can't help you.
it won't tell you what the winner is, but this analogy is flawed. if someone were to know exactly all the properties of a brainstate, and if a belief were a brain state, he'd discern the belief.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi ONLY if the person had the /science theory to understand what beliefs look like.. (which of course no one does right now..)
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment
we're going in circles. read the paper.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I did, you have deduced something that does not follow. Sorry.
newexperiment 1 year ago
@newexperiment
dennett's thought experiment was about a scientist with a complete science - a complete knowledge of how our brains work. he says the scientist does not know we have beliefs. then you tell me it's because we don't know enough - obviously, you haven't read it.
legodesi 1 year ago
atta boy kid,,,that guy looks like a skinny santa clause
tgeorge95 1 year ago
@tgeorge95
hahahaha a skinny santa clause, you mean dennett? you should totally make a video of him now.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi hmmmm...yeah youll see one up
tgeorge95 1 year ago
atta boy kid..that dude likes a skinny santa clause
tgeorge95 1 year ago
And enable rating so I can thumbs up the video!
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
I wrote a paper on this very topic in my very first philosophy class, 10 years ago haha. I agree with Lenny here, what is your objection to the position, besides that it is perhaps counter-intuitive (and obviously physicalist)?
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
@WayOfTheBastard
ten years ago? how old were you then, like 12? anddd, i replied to lenny. among philosophers, it's not enough to point at dennett's non-realism and laugh - they need to critique it on his own grounds and all, but i feel completely justified in reasoning as follows: 1. Beliefs literally exist. 2. Daniel Dennett's theory means that beliefs don't literally exist. 3. Therefore, Daniel Dennett's theory is false. (commence in laughing at Daniel Dennett).
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I was 18, and taking philosophy of mind which I got an A in. Sealed the deal for my love of philosophy and sent me on my way into atheism. I spent the next 4 years out of college and all over the country, wasted some time on a film degree I never got, and right now I am just about to finish my senior year as an old man and move on as quickly as possible to grad school. I took the Søren Kierkegaard approach to finishing college haha. Now you can write my biography =P
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
@WayOfTheBastard
dang, philosophy led you to atheism? that saddens me somehow. i'm gonna make it a goal on youtube to persuade you out of at least reductive phsyicalism.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi What theory would I replace it with? Panpsychism? Jaegwon Kim and his essays on causal closure has limited my possibilities greatly. I am open minded, but I the debate thus far hasn't left me with many options.
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
Finney,
I'd love to see a "Daniel Dennett is not a..." series from you.
Go for it!
I doubt you'll see the kind of reaction that Theo gets out of his "WLC is not a..." series which is kind of the whole point of the series. Namely that WLC "apologists" will react blindly in defense of WLC without ever seriously considering the criticisms that are being leveled.
Anyway, nice summary of Dennetts intentional stance. I'm not sure it amounts to nihilism. We should talk.
sammcalpine 1 year ago
@sammcalpine
sam! i was actually apprehensively waiting for a scathing criticism from you, i'm glad that you didn't. i'm glad that, unlike WLC apologists, you do seriously consider the criticism leveled against dennett.
yeahhh, it's not nihilistic, since according to his own view it's not that only one mind in the world exists, it's that no mind exists to begin with. (i'm being over-the-top critical, ignore that abrasiveness). we should! next time i'm free on gchat.
legodesi 1 year ago
I'm much more interested in your "Daniel Dennett is not a philosopher" video. Personally I think Sam Harris would have been more comparable to WLC.
southmcl 1 year ago
@southmcl Ehh, just appending my last comment. WLC is only comparable to Harris in popularity. The comparison does not speak to strength of their arguments or how honest they are about them.
southmcl 1 year ago
@southmcl
yeah, i wanted to use dennett instead of harris because i think he's an equipped philosopher who is harder to pick a fight with than harris. harris is a good speaker and articulater, but most of his ideas are merely derivative. dennett is a creative guy. yettttt, i'm hesitant of making a video to claim he's not a philosopher. if i did, it would only be to parody theowarner's videos.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
If you did, it would demonstrate that you didn't understand the thing your were parodying.
theowarner 1 year ago
That didn't take long. Might a new video be forthcoming..?
Legodesi is Not Without Comprehension Issues.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37
Of course not.
theowarner 1 year ago
@Theologica37
wait, was that a joke on me
legodesi 1 year ago
@theowarner
yes, i did quite understand it, thanks.
legodesi 1 year ago
Haha, great video. :-)
With that said: Do you have any problems with or arguments against Dennett's view, or were you merely summarizing it? I have a nagging suspicion you probably object to it, otherwise I don't think you'd have put "nihilism" and "stupid" in the video tags. Haha.
LennyBound 1 year ago
@LennyBound Isn't Dennett one of your professors Lenny?
WayOfTheBastard 1 year ago
@WayOfTheBastard He will be starting next semester. :-)
LennyBound 1 year ago
@LennyBound
loll, yeah i do have objections to it. if X's belief is an interpretation that Y makes, is Y's interpretation itself a belief that is in turn interpreted by Z? at some point we have to realize that absolutely everything is meaningless, or that our mental states are really intentional. also, how could dennett think beliefs have a causal role (as he does in his evolutionary account of intentionality, i think..), if they don't actually exist?
legodesi 1 year ago
I'm just curious, have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I'm reading it at the moment. Great book. I get the impression you'd be big into it if you were/had read it.
Pushtrak 1 year ago
@Pushtrak
hm, i haven't, but i think i've seen that at an airport bookstore somewhere. heh, what's it about?
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I'm still reading it, about a third of the way through it. It goes into a lot of stuff, philosophically speaking in a very unique way, that is for damn sure. It has a lot to do with rationality, scientific method, philosophy strangely enough by means of motorcycle maintenance.
I've had it on a "to read" list for years but only found it in a bookstore near me recently.
Pushtrak 1 year ago
I might read his book(s) later on, but so far I think Dennett is probably one of the worst NA's out there when it comes to arguments. There's even one video where he basically restates the familiar fundie argument that "everyone really believes in God," but simply reverses it (he got applause for that as well). In the same video, he just rips arguments from old Atheists work (religion will die in X amount of years, et al.), but in a less sophisticated manner. :P
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18
what is NA? (sorry, dumb question). yeahh, when dennett talks about religion, i can understand why he's on par with dawkins and harris, because he reveals an utter lack of understanding of anything religious beyond what the westboro baptist church preaches. yet, i should add that i love reading dennett's philosophy of mind - he's a quite engaging, if confused, thinker.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi
NA = New Atheist. ;)
Np, I probably shoulda clarified that.
jcrebel18 1 year ago