incorrigable private evidence

[_barrelomonkeys]

That is the way I see you too Tarski.

Which way? (There are two posts above)

The one I replied directly under. The consciousness-expanding, psychedelic one.

[_Tarski]

I picture you as a Mandelbrot set.

Since you showed your picture I will do something similar.
This is an oil painting of me by my brother. He makes my mostly blond hair look gray and exaggerates the facial wrinkles since he likes to show his skill at detail so I end up looking a bit older in this picture. On the other hand, he also paints me in a somewhat flattering way compared to how ugly I really am.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Why are there so many good looking people on this website? This is not my experience with the net in general.

Tarski, great painting. I don't think you look old at all.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I picture you as a Mandelbrot set.

Since you showed your picture I will do something similar.
This is an oil painting of me by my brother. He makes my mostly blond hair look gray and exaggerates the facial wrinkles since he likes to show his skill at detail so I end up looking a bit older in this picture. On the other hand, he also paints me in a somewhat flattering way compared to how ugly I really am.

<snip pic>

I imagine you were quite the Adonis in your youth (probably made more than a few ladies have to break out the Strength of the Youth pamphlet…). You’re a good looking hombre -- I hope I age so well. I don't know why, but I thought you were a bit younger (i.e. 30's).

PS.
You’re brother is wicked talented.

[_Tarski]

I picture you as a Mandelbrot set.

Since you showed your picture I will do something similar.
This is an oil painting of me by my brother. He makes my mostly blond hair look gray and exaggerates the facial wrinkles since he likes to show his skill at detail so I end up looking a bit older in this picture. On the other hand, he also paints me in a somewhat flattering way compared to how ugly I really am.

<snip pic>

I imagine you were quite the Adonis in your youth (probably made more than a few ladies have to break out the Strength of the Youth pamphlet…). You’re a good looking hombre -- I hope I age so well. I don't know why, but I thought you were a bit younger (I.e. 30's)..

I'm 50

[Guest]

First, Gad, you ask if Dennett needs my advice on being a philosopher. Would you similarly ask if, say, a scholar of Near Eastern antiquities or early Mormon history might need your advice? Have you offered advice to or criticism of such persons? If so, then you apparently don't believe in the very sort of appeal to authority you're making here, however convenient it might be to use it in this case.

Such as Hugh Nibley? Yes, I have, but with far more reservations a qualifications than you have dismissed Dennett and under much different conditions. First of all, I had read Hugh Nibley in a fair amount of depth, it don't count for everything but it does count for something. Second of all, I offered my own opinions after admitting I could change my mind if there were evidence that Nibley was taken more seriously than he seems to be within his own field - or rather the fields he seemed to make his own in many circumstances. And finally, I gave the man's obvious brilliance it's due recognition. Oh, and really finally, I've never defined the scope of work Near Eastern scholars should be working on.

Don, we're all friends here, and I'll bet you have been in the position before when someone jumps in on a thread and makes fairly grand pronouncements trivializing the work being done on a subject you find difficult and fascinating without so much as having read a single current article on the matter. I realize Tarski dropped this one like a bomb - though that's often how we all introduce skepticism to TBMs - but still.

Dan Dennett, though he may be controversial, he is not Hugh Nibley, he's one of the most noted and important contributors to phil mind. There might be a comparison to Hugh Nibley when Dan Dennett writes books on religion, and dismissing him on that subject without due consideration would be understandable.

If I take pot shots at Bill Hamblin or someone like that, it's different because that's all part of intra board contention.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Here is the way KimberlyAnn and Don picture Tarski

No way, Tarski! I never pictured you as a robot. I pictured you as a sexy man-beast:



Looking at your brother's painting, it seems I wasn't too far off! I don't think you look old; you look attractive.

KA

[_Gadianton]

me.

[_Tarski]

I realize Tarski dropped this one like a bomb - though that's often how we introduce skepticism to TBMs - but still.

Maybe I shouldn't have questioned consciousness period but sometimes you have to state things in a shocking way in order to get people worked up enough to see that there are some interesting things being said after all.
Denying consciousness is not like denying trees since we all know what we are talking about in the case of trees but consciousness is isn't so definite a concept. One has various more or less controversial things to consider and perhaps I should have tried harder to specify what Dennett is doubting,

awareness of objects (there is a functional formulation of this)
awareness of objects of the mind-seemings etc.
mind (ontologically distinct from matter or information bearing structures of matter??)
self awareness
self (an issue for Buddhism since long ago)
qualia (as epiphenomenon or....)
robot consciousness
animal consciousness
myth of the given
incorrigability, apodicticity, unmediated direct awareness, "real seemings" etc.
...
etc.


Actually, a better reason that maybe I shouldn't have even brought this up is that Dennett's arguments in CE are not fresh in my mind since the last time I read it was several years ago. So, I might misrepresent him.

[_DonBradley]

Gad,

It still doesn't follow that if Dennett does something as a philosopher, he's working within the proper boundaries of philosophy. And to state that a philosopher's job is not to deny reality as everyone knows it even prior to reflection, but to clarify it, should be sufficiently close to self-evident as to be quite uncontroversial.

Don