Talk:Daniel Dennett

	This Philosophy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Is he really this naieve?

Not about our article, but about his actual writings, he states that religion will change beyond recognition in ten years. Oh for heaven's sake. While I'd love that to happen, 10 years is not enough time for us to figure out how to do things like get Gay Marriage fully legal in this country. Yes, "in time' i agree with him that the dogmatic powerhouses of religion will disappear (vatican, govt run religion in the middle east - or would that be religion run govt in the middle east...) but not for 50 years or more. They will keep bleeding away their membership as more and more people find science, question things like "birth control is an issue for you - seriously?" and "so being a child abuser is fine as long as you hide it". but religion is too pervasive to die easily or soon. I also suspect what you will find is that religion and xinaity/muslim/hinduism will last, but they will become small, independent churches, that are far more humanitarian (like UUC) than now. Just reacting to what he said in an article, sorry. )--Godot 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If he said 100, I'd be more credulous. If he said 1000 I'd tell him to stop stating the obvious. ^narchist 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Is religion declining among dark skinned ethnic minority communities the way it is in the white mainstream culture of the UK and the US? Will religion decline in places like Iran where they have a firewall to prevent people accessing the case against Islam on the Internet? In Iran and you can be executed for reading atheistic material on the Internet or for opposing Islam in other ways? I agree Dennett is oversimplifying. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dark skinned ethnic minority communities? are you serious? Iran and the internet - see arab spring. And I'm not sure it's declining in so-called white mainstream culture as much as it is changing. Yes, there are a few more atheists, and tons more "diests" for want of a better word, but it's an oversimplification in and of itself to say "religion is declining" without looking at people's beliefs, actions, and ideas. a hard thing to do in a study, but possible.--Godot 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ietsism is a much better term for what much of, atleast europeans and im going to actually go with a good segment of Americans as well, believe, even if its not english.il'Dictator Mikal 17:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

More like a modern-day Auguste Comte, but at least he hasn't founded his own religion...yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

biography

Ok, you want to get into this? Let's do. 1) we are not wiki, we don't need to put biography of things that aren't relevant to his position as atheist, philosophier decoder of religions, etc. 2) focus on things that matter, like his writing about his NDE. 3) it's poor as shit writing, and I'd rather remove it, since "one and two". --Godot 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

--Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"...something secular society had been loath to do until the last century"

What about the poor laws? Sure, it wasn't equivalent to the 20th century welfare state, but it wasn't nothing. /Nitpick. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, take it up with dennett. many (most?) native north american cultures without "religion" per say, didn't have a problem with it either. maybe it comes along with actual "money" and rich getting richer. hehGodot 01:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So wait, poor laws, if i'm reading this right, by and large said "if you are poor, get a damn job". Good law! --Godot 01:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

Can anyone rewrite the section below in plain English? It’s here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Heterophenomenology

"Heterophenomenology," or the "phenomenology of another not oneself," is Dennett's term for his theory of consciousness. Dennett argues that a full theory of consciousness requires a third-person methodology. In addition to reports of first-person experience, a scientific investigation of consciousness should also include an account of the person's brain activity and surrounding environment. Where the latter two do not match with the first-person report, the first-person experience is not a true experience at all, but an illusory belief about experience. In other words, "You are not authoritative about what is happening in you, but only about what seems to be happening in you, and we are giving you total, dictatorial authority over the account of how it seems to you, about what it is like to be you." Some of Dennett's critics assert that heterophenomenology suffers from some of the same flaws as classical behaviorism, or that it is internally inconsistent in that taking its assumptions to their logical conclusion leads to the denial of consciousness, but Dennett does not deny consciousness.

Footnotes

Godot If you don't like this you can explain why. Don't just take it out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cause it's unnecessary and makes it hard to follow the conversation about the topic at hand. References on a talk page?

That said, as i asked, what is wrong with teh paragraph? It's rather clear.GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 15:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Cartesian Theatre"

- Dennett didn't coin this, Gilbert Ryle had it in his 'Concept of Mind'. Ryle was Dennett's teacher.

In fact, he didn't coin 'Intuition pump', or 'Intentional stance' either. Both were in use before he came onto the scene. The word 'coinage' should probably be replaced with 'use'.

"popularise"? - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)