Comparative Hats
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Comparative Hats
Very illuminating. Thanks.

(29-08-2014 10:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
We must see human beings as pieces of walking computing capacity,
...

In your 96 pages of pain, didn't you criticise Dennett for being too (how to put it Consider ) computer oriented.

No matter. That's one of the reasons I like what he has to say.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2014 11:41 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Comparative Hats
(29-08-2014 10:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Very illuminating. Thanks.
You're welcome. I'm glad to use my hard-won therapy and podcast studies for more than personal purposes.

(29-08-2014 10:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  In your 96 pages of pain, didn't you criticise Dennett for being too (how to put it Consider ) computer oriented.

No matter. That's one of the reasons I like what he has to say.
I think I criticized Dennett for borrowing too many concepts and ideas from physics and especially biology, because they're very concrete, particular, earth-bound, so to speak. Natural sciences have great many nuances and few principles. But computer science is a great choice for philosophy (especially metaphysics) because it is abstract.

On the sea of reality and life, empirical nuances are islands we have to live from and not crash into, but abstract principles are our North star and Southern cross to give us directions and a goal.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...y-101.html
http://www.skepticmoney.com/scientific-r...-relevant/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: