Curious about why you people think the homonculus is still there.
-
-
(Awake briefly at 2:30am, will follow up later) (Speaking only for myself): It’s not there; it’s that cognitivist explanations of subjectivity, and of intentionality, can’t work without it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay and
So, the question is, how do you get mental things in a materialist metaphysics, i.e. one without spooks (such as a homunculus). Dennett is unusual in seemingly taking an “eliminationist” approach, i.e. simply denying that the mental phenomena (qualia, intentionality) exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay and
(“Seemingly” because when I last read his stuff, which was like 30 years ago, he waffled a bit. He may have clarified or changed his position since, but I haven’t heard so.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay and
Been awhile since I read Dennett but I don't think he's really an eliminationist. He has a "useful fictions" approach to mental realism that I find pretty tolerable: https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/FP2012/FP2012_readings/Dennett_RealPatterns.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Mmm, well, maybe what I called “waffle” is better described as “motte and bailey.” Is this paper worth reading for specific insight? Or mostly an example of his retreating to the reasonable bailey temporarily when attacked?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay and
I just skimmed it so can't really say. Impression: charitably, he's trying to find alternate interpretations for mental concepts that make sense (rather than throwing them out as eliminativists do). Uncharitably, it's waffling, and YMMV.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I kind of remember thinking he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Eliminativism is logically tidy, but seems obviously false, so it’s tempting to try to get the satisfying solution without the absurdity.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay and
I am a big fan of the move that tries to transcend questions like "is x real?" by blowing up tidy notions of "real". That is, anything we can talk about is real in some sense and the question is, in what sense?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtraven @Meaningness and
If this be waffling, bring on the maple syrup.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
lol!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.