Who's this cunt

should I read him?

Attached: Daniel_dennett_Oct2008.jpg (775x550, 28K)

Read this: tonight Butterfly will masturbate to me while she posts :3

this cunt's a nigger

hes a science mouthpiece for liberals who cant be arsed to understan neurobiology, and cognitive science.
he also reinforces the divide between stem and liberal arts.

anyone who really understood what they were talking about would see hes got a bit better understanding than sam harris, but is more of a fool stroking the egos of brain scientists than a "respected intellectual"

cool, thank you. that is what i expected. dropped.

got any recs for an alternative to him?

Sounds like you’re describing Anonymous

patterns are overrated

>brain = mind

Why do people even believe this shit?!?

the mind is more just the result of reactions that take place in the brain and, while not the brain itself, is certainly dependent upon it for its existence.

>the mind depends on the brain
look how the secularists massacred my boy

there is only ONE upon which existence is contingent

Attached: christ_ifyouonlyknew.jpg (1569x1092, 413K)

Have fun trying to reduce the infinity that is spirit to brain states

so I know a few things about you as a result of your post

1) you never study any STEM field in an academic setting
2) you know nothing about neuroscience, philosophy of mind, or just plain basic contemporary philosophy
3) you don't have any coherent position of your own let alone a rationally defensible theory of what consciousness truly is which is why you resort to meme-larping and posting old paintings to make up the content of your reply. no one who has any real.understanding of the topic of consciousness would drag up 2000 year old meme-cults as a legitimate explanation

lmao. just l m a o

>no one who has any real.understanding of the topic of consciousness would drag up 2000 year old meme-cults as a legitimate explanation

Intelectually speaking you're still a baby.

Attached: 1553837668479.png (608x3344, 2.26M)

so I know a few things about you as a result of your post

1) you're a pseud
2) you don't know shit about philosophy
3) despite your hubris you still can't explain consciousness

Nah. All you need to know is his notion of the intentional stance, then otherwise he's peddling neo-behaviorism and neo-pragmatism. Just read Ryle (Dennett would want you to anyway) for the former, and any of the other neo-pragmatists for the latter. The right thing to do is to read Searle, Nagel, Jackson, Levine, Block, Chalmers, and take consciousness seriously. According to Dennett, thermostats hold beliefs. Even then, IF you are going to read Dennett at all, stick to his philosophy of mind. His new atheism stuff is boring. There are better atheists like Russell or Hume you could be reading.

How would a thermostat acquire a belief? Was it manufactured with one? Thanks for the useful reading list, user. I do take consciousness very seriously.

when you casually insult people you don't know, you lower yourself.

who's insulted? who are you accusing of insult? cunt is a term of endearment.

you shame yourself, user.

thats Santa Clause

You are pathetic.