There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Daniel Dennett/Archive1
Improve[edit]
Feel free to improve it. I'll be back!Crookedmouth 03:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
- Like the Terminator?
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:29, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yeh. People say I look like Arnie. Crookedmouth 05:13, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
- Heh, I'm sure they do.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:14, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
- Heh, I'm sure they do.
- Yeh. People say I look like Arnie. Crookedmouth 05:13, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
Can anyone find a piccie of him? I also wondered about mentioning his links with Dawkins but couldn't think of a way to write it. I also also wanted to add him to some categories: probably mostly the same as Dawkins but also Philosophers, if there is such a category. Crookedmouth 06:26, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
- We do have a Category:Philosophers.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:55, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
human robot humans[edit]
This line "Dennett believes that computers may develop consciousness in the future because in his opinion we are a type of robot and we are conscious". is just *wrong*. As written, it sounds trite and childish -- "he thinks we are robots so computers will be like humans", but his ideas on this are deep and complex - and in no way suggesting we are a type of robot. I don't know Denette, but skimmed this paper, and if we want to say *anything* about this, we need to do a better job. [1] --Godot 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- As usual, you can blame Proxima Centauri for that oversimplification.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Blue (pester) 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"selected books" or "books etc.,"[edit]
not both. I'll let the mob decide which is more our style or more relevant to our mission. (Again, I've not read him, so I don't know how his books outside of Philo of Mind have been received).--Godot 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Who cares? ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 17:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a list of books that were in earlier versions of the article:-
- The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul, with D. R. Hofstadter (Bantam 1985)
- The Intentional Stance (MIT Press 1989)
- Consciousness Explained (Back Bay Books 1992)
- Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (Simon & Schuster 1996)
- Freedom Evolves (Viking Press 2003).
- Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin Group 2006)
Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)