On a recent the brain is mysterious (therefore the Church is true) post he wrote:
If Dawkins was a radical materialist, he would state, like his philosophical friend and ally Daniel Dennett, that conscious states are ‘nothing more than’ brain-states and brain-behaviour. Dennett wrote a book called Consciousness Explained, in which he defended this radical theory. Most competent philosophers were unconvinced, and privately referred to his book as ‘Consciousness Explained Away’.
Which is outright false. As an aside, he's about a century behind the times, still framing believer vs. atheist in terms of materialism vs. what, non-materialism?
Dennett is a radical anti-materialist. Of course, we don't really know what the author means by "radical", but Dennett expressly argues against brain states as conscious states (identity theory). Dennett is a "computationalist", meaning what's going on at the neural level explains nothing about a persons thoughts. His "radical theory" is in fact actually radical, and that's for "eliminating" the experiential aspect of consciousness altogether, or at least, and I'll admit I could never really understand what he meant, greatly confusing what we mean by "consciousness". The author could refer to the Churchlands or Smart/Lewis if he wants hard-core reductive materialism, in particular, brain = equal mind states. Dennett thinks that the "mind" runs as a virtual machine within the brain, which means, neurons aren't singularly fitted for "thinking" and that computers one day could in principle be every bit as "conscious" as a person. Thoughts are "computational states" not neural states. New Atheism has no place for reductive materialism for more important reasons, actually, their "mind modularity" theories don't really make sense in terms of reductive materialism - hardwiring for every custom etc.
Anyway, the author can now appreciate the punchline when he relates "competent philosophers" said "ha ha consciousness explained away", as referring to the fact that Dennett eliminates consciousness, so that he doesn't have to explain it. Ahhh -- get it now?
It's also worth mentioning that every work by every competent philosopher generally fails to convince other philosophers. That doesn't mean that all philosophy is of equal value. Dennett's book makes for a great target because it is in fact very good, and at a certain level very convincing. I think a lot of people believe, and for good reason, that one day it's going to be really hard to differentiate "real" intelligence from artificial intelligence, and that's the thrust of Dennett's book and he's really thorough about it.
I recall (years ago) a grad student on his blog bashing Dennett, but noting that Dennett is referenced 86 times in the SEP. While his work may be controversial, it makes for a great conversational point among "competent philosophers". No work by Nibley or Sorenson has had a similar impact in their respective fields.
Here: I don't have a problem throwing some traffic his way.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... TrxmxeF.99
