He'll be happy to hear it, I'm guessing

Relatively speaking perhaps.

Yea when you think about it Chomsky is 23 years older than him 🤯

Chomsky looks 120+

aaah, give him a break -- he's 91. Some dry-eye is expected 🙂

@@bmillerbiop He's 91 and he doesn't sleep.

Dennett's book isn't one of the best books about consciousness.

@@1booyakasha What is your main problem with it? Is it too naturalistic? What is your favorite book on consciousness? My concern: Dennett's pointless crusade against religion makes his writings less appealing to certain groups, which is a shame. However, his best ideas are just about debunking some very misleading suppositions about consciousness. Anyway, to illustrate that "Consciousness Explained" is not my Bible, my top twenty of books on consciousness would also include: "Time and Free Will", "Matter and Memory" (Bergson) "Being and Time" (Heidegger) "Action in Perception" (Noë) "The Concept of Mind" (Ryle) "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" (Rorty) "Philosophical Investigations" (Wittgenstein) "Process and Reality" (Whitehead) "Being and Nothingness" (Sartre) "Realism with a Human Face" (Putnam) "The Structure of Behavior" (Merleau-Ponty)

@@hansheymans2894 No PhOS?

@@moviereviews1446 Can you give me the full name of what you are referring to? The PhOS is not with me...

@@hansheymans2894 Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

You're missing the point, here. Dennett and his ilk operate on a very reductive assumption that the thing itself and the label we assign to the thing are one and the same. This ignores the fact that language has itself an illusory quality to it, in which we describe real phenomena we observe and conceptualize it in multiple ways--and many of those ways that are most useful are often in the abstract. But that abstract summation of the thing is not the thing itself. It's just our best shot at understanding it. Depending on what you're attempting to understand, the more abstract delineation might very well be the most relevant and useful. Other times, we need as literal a description of a natural process as possible. Chomsky is pointing out, rightly, that what we even perceive as "consciousness" is not the thing itself--it's something we have collectively determined for ourselves in the abstract to best describe our awareness of ourselves, each other, and the world around us. But as Chomsky points out, that isn't matter. The physical matter of the brain isn't consciousness. It's where this process of awareness we call consciousness comes from, but it is not consciousness itself. And therefore, trying to define consciousness in the same literal, physical, reductionist way that one would attempt to define the process of electricity passing through schema is completely missing the point, and looking at the wrong thing. What people like Dennett, Dawkins, and others in that crowd are practicing in these sorts of instances is not science. It's scientism. And there is a big difference between the two. Chomsky understands that. We might be able to scientifically measure the physical process of thoughts passing through a brain, but that isn't the same thing as understanding something as abstract and philosophical as consciousness. You can't reduce something like that to precise measurements and algorithms. And presuming that you can is how you stunt your imagination and start doing, ironically, bad science.

@@Progger11 Nobody who has spent some time in science and philosophy would make the basic mistake you describe. Believing in the method of science and letting science guide philosophy is not equivalent to the mistake you describe. If you want consciousness to be an elaborate philosophical exploration, then you can have it that way. There are many, however, who think that the best objective description of consciousness (yes, objective) is to be had and can be had through a scientific materialist approach, and this approach is not the product of the error you are describign (at least in Dennett's case, idk about Dawkins and the others).

​​@@johnhausmann2391Can you physically measure "consciousness?" Or can you only physically measure the electrical impulses of the organ that produces a state of mind we tend to label as "consciousness?" Edit: I'm not trying to be difficult or argue, here. I'm genuinely wishing to learn more about how you're looking at this so that I might also learn more.

@@Progger11 It's not about measuring consciousness or pointing at something that is objectively detected as consciousness and labelling it. Dennett uses an interesting analogy to suggest how consciousness would be explained scientifically. He tells the story of vitalism and how this commonly held idea eventually disappeared from thought (for the most part) in the 20th century as science became more and more adept at describing hte biological processes that give rise to living things. He thinks that a similar fate awaits the idea of consciousness. As the physical processes and the capacities of the brain they give rise to (e.g., memory, external perception, internal reflection) come to be better described biochemically, people will feel more comfortable with leaving a more 'magical/subjective/' concept of consciousness behind. People will eventually just give up on trying to define some thing or group of things that constitutes the commonly held notion of consciousness. It can be argued, of course, that vitalism is alive and well in teh 21st century, so his argument has that problem at least. On the other hand, there are many scientists who are now happy to dispense with any hint of vitalism. Others are discovering a kind of vitalism again in complex systems and the idea of emergent phenomena, where ontological arguments start to get very complicated (i.e., what is an emergent property, anyway?). See Dennett's paper 'Real Patterns' from 1991 -- He goes way back with this. I'm kind of rambling, but I'm justifying why I don't see how the naming mistake that you are talking about relates to the question of understanding consciousness. The epistemological framework of language, objects, and how language points at them is not really helpful here, I think . Or I may have misunderstood your point.

Perfect summary of Dennett and his friends.

Christianity is the true metaphysic. Consciousness is the form of the body.

@@aisthpaoitht What flavour of Christianity would that be?

@@samrowbotham8914 Catholicism

@@robertwarner-ev7wp Everyone claims their flavour is the right flavour and they cannot all be right. In fact, I reject orthodoxy its clear that the Church Fathers manipulated people crushed dissent and lied. Jesus mentioned something about lies and the father of lies. The NT Jesus and OT god are incompatible.

Is this something you think should be enforced? It kinda sounds like you do.

@@PluckySmurf Let me analyze your question: "Is that..." I don't know what you mean by "that." "Should be enforced." What do you mean by that? Do you think I want everyone or a group to do something? I'm just engaging in communication. Maybe that will change someone's thinking and my own. I think it's about communication between separate conscious beings and self-development together with others. However, there is no need for communication without separation. And there is no need for communication with complete separation. Do you see my point?

Im a huge admirer of Chomsky but had the same feeling when reading his response to both Kripke and Quine on meaning indeterminacy. I got the sense that Chomsky deals with philosophy with a very light touch. He doesnt engage deeply with the arguments but tries to short cut all tbe philosophising with a kind of lateral approach which doesnt really come off. Oxford Philosopher Michael Dummett wrote a review in London Review of Books in which he said that there are two persuasive ways of doing philosophy, embodied by Frege and Wittgestein. Frege: refute with a simple knock down, devastating blow. Wittgenstein- give a deep and sympthetic account of the view you criticise, but go on to criticise it nonetheless. Dummett says Chomsky never does either A powerful mind and a moral hero, however.

@@edwardjones2202 ​@edwardjones2202 wow thanks for the great insights. Ill research the people you posted amd reply soon. But without much reflection, what you wrote resonates and gives me a greater perspective to comsider Chomsky and philosphy in general through. Much thanks 💪

Not to mention bats considered as birds, Earth created before the Sun and PI = 3.00000.

@@sprytnychomik Water is older than the sun. Google it.

@@bnelso2833 Where did I mentioned water?

@@sprytnychomiktomato is a fruit. Google it 😂