Dennett en Sacks (1993) ' een schitterend ongeluk' ,

buy the video; bol. nl. check > een schitterend ongeluk

It is part of a series that was aired in the Netherlands 10 years ago "een schitterend ongeluk" .

i think when philosophers resort to talk of logical possiblity theyre usally employing fuzzy semantics in order to side step a fundamental problem in their own position. Even if you do take the concept seriously (i dont) i think youd struggle and have to do alot of rationalising in order to make it fit within a methodology based solely upon scientific evidence and quantifiable phenomena.

I dont think Sheldrake is faultless either btw, i just think he's a better all-round philosopher.

And you obviously don't understand what it means for something to be logically possible or as Dennett says about creating artificial brains right off the bat in this clip that it's possible "in principle", not, as you try to make it sound that he's claiming that it's possible in practice.

the rest of them are members of a cult called capitalism. thumbs up thankyou.

You know what else Sheldrake is? A member of a cult called Christianity. What a brilliant, empirical thinker.

it sounds like youre just repeating a bunch of ad homs you learnt off skeptic's dictionary. Forget about morphic resonance, Sheldrake is a brilliant philosopher (probably the best sitting at that table) and has an exhaustive knowledge of everything from micro-biology, to shamanism, to turn of the century german philosophy.

I didn't say he didn't know anything, I'm saying that his interpretations of data are bullshit when it comes to his big pet projects like "the sense of being stared at" (laughably bad science there), and, no, morphic resonance is garbage and I won't "forget it" as it's part of his legacy of crap science. And he's not a philosopher. Studying some philosophy in college doesn't make one a philosopher. There are plenty of detailed refutations of his work out there if one cares to read them.

Ive always found Dennett's world view extraordinarily muddled. He's first and foremost a naturalist/empiricist, and yet he believes all sorts of things like - if i gradually replace the neurons in my brain one-by-one with microchips eventually the machine im left with will be functionally indistinguishable from the thing i started out with. Something in other words, that has no empirical evidence going for it whatsoever. It really doesnt make sense for an empiricist to claim anything like this.