[Serious Phil] Dennett Denies Experience

[Peter D]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
>  
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "truthhunter55" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "truthhunter55" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok to keep it short I am still not sure whether you think that the the fact that consciousness is produced is "extra" to the fact there is matter and it moves. Can you just answer that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think that there is no reason at this juncture to think that anything more is needed but descriptions in terms of classical physics to explain the occurrence of consciousness. (In what I take to be your terms, I would say that that means nothing "extra" is required.)
> > > > 
> > > > I am still unclear as to your position. 
> > > > 
> > > > I asked whether you think that the fact that consciousness is produced is "extra" to the fact that there is matter and it moves. 
> > > > 
> > > > You answered that there is "no reason at this juncture to think that anything more is needed.... to explain the occurrence of consciousness"
> > > >
> > > 
> > > All right, I'll try again.
> > > 
> > > I DO NOT think that anything more than physics is required to explain the presence of consciousness in the universe. (No "extra ingredients" at some basic level of explanation a la Chalmers.)
> > > 
> > > I DO think that we don't get to make the foregoing claim, absent additional (as in "extra") INFORMATION about the universe that goes beyond the KNOWLEDGE that there IS matter/motion (the stuff of physics)
> > 
> > Please give examples of this kind of knowledge that is not
> > found in physics.
> 
> 
> Economic "laws". Linguistic practices. Descriptions of motivations. And so on.


Please explain what we inferred such knowledge from, in that case.
Is it all pure apriori?

Please state whether any such knowledge is needed to make
a reduction of mind to brain.


> > Note that the widely accepted reducibility
> > of biology, chemistry etc, physics means that all scientific 
> > information is IN PRICNIPLE derivable from sufficiently
> > detailed physical information and sufficiently accurate
> > physical laws. Note also that on is saying that consc.
> > can be inferred from the undetailed claim "there is matter in motion".
> > 
> > > in the universe (which, of course, we don't have unless there is also consciousness -- what it takes to know anything at all -- in the universe, as well).
> > > 
> > > Thus, a distinction: No to "extra ingredients" at the level of explaining what underlies the universe but, yes, to "extra" levels of knowledge (in this case knowledge of the presence of consciousness and about how some physical phenomena, e.g., brains, work -- neityher of which are strictly derivable in a logical sense from the idea of physics alone since consciousness has the appearance of being an add-on, i.e., it's not present in all places and at all times with the phenomena of physics).
> > > 
> > > Hope this clarifies it this time.
> > > 
> > > SWM
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Philscimind mailing list
> > Philscimind@
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Philscimind mailing list
> Philscimind at ...
>