Daniel Dennett's Physicalism and the Nature of the Mind

Daniel Dennett Analysis
Daniel Dennett Daniel Dennett thinks that we are our body and our brain and that is it. His response
to the mind body problem is Physicalism, because he believes that we are only made up of matter
and that there is no spiritual part like the soul, for example included. He thinks that "what you can't
see, isn't there and what isn't there, doesn't have to be explained. Correspondingly, Dennett has
another philosophy, which overall, states that our lives would be nothing if we didn't have a brain.
He explains how, if we didn't have a brain, we would not be able to feel emotions, or pain or be able
to classify something as beautiful or ugly. We would not be able to see, smell, taste or touch
anything as we need a brain to process everything. I
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and...
Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book,
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain
human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that
science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral
codes, religious and secular alike.
It all begins with Dennett's assertion that everything– everything– is a product of an algorithmic
process, which comes about as a result of random change. By definition these algorithmic processes,
evolution included, are "matter ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Consider it exaptation.
Can altruism– true altruism, not altruism among kin, not reciprocal altruism, but the fabled Good
Samaritan altruism, exist as a product of evolution? There is no clear evolutionary advantage to
helping those in the "out–group" that deals strictly with biology (which is not to say that there are
not brands of altruism for which there is an evolutionary advantage). Those who accept only matter–
first explanations of the world may be likely to argue that people do not, in fact, commit purely
selfless acts. Others, including Mayr, allow that Good Samaritan–style altruism exists, but only as a
product of culture. It would be hard to find an evolutionary advantage to many products of culture.
Take monogamous males for an example. Of course there are plenty of them out there, just as there
are plenty of people who commit acts of true altruism, but like altruism, monogamy is hardly the
rule. While the question of altruism is by all means an important question, it may not take us where
we want to go.
The question Dennett then asks is, if morals cannot be derived from the value–free natural world,
then from where? His answer is "...ethics must be somehow based on an appreciation of human
nature– a sense of what a human being is or might be, and on what a human being might want to
have or

Analysis Of Dennett 's ' Qualia '
memory has changed when comparing the two. Since qualia cannot be used to verify claims about
qualia, they are content–less and incoherent – or so Dennett's tale goes.
IV. Dennett contra 'Qualia ' Dennett is a man upset. A man upset about qualia – he seems appalled
that something could exist which cannot be tested or used in some way to verify something. In fact,
Dennett seems so upset about qualia he created his own idea of it, and argued against that instead of
a more charitably (or correctly) understood definition. How, then, to prove the qualia Dennett uses is
a strawman? Let's start by discussing his two examples –first, with pump 5/6 on neurosurgery.
Recall that Dennett believes the neurosurgeon showed that our qualia are less than private and
immediately apprehensible. The neurosurgeon knew our qualia better– we could not tell what was
changed between our memory of past qualia and our current qualia. Dennett thinks pump 5/6 does
particularly well in undermining the apprehensibility of qualia– after all, the qualia itself seems
useless is telling us just what has happened during the surgery. Except, qualia never could. The
neurosurgeon, if he or she changed our memory, would still change our qualia – our qualia of the
memory. Dennett didn't seem to understand the scope of qualia here – or that we produce it
automatically from intending our consciousness toward anything at all, including memory. We have
qualia of remembering, qualia of past states, real qualia

Skepticism In The Electric Ant, And The Matrix
Arguably, skepticism surrounds us everywhere. What really defines skepticism? Is it subjective?
Does skepticism exist? Generally speaking, it means to question knowledge and essentially
everything we know, in this socialized world. A skeptic is constantly begging the notion "everything
is doubtable, there is no knowledge" (Woodridge lecture). In the skeptic's viewpoint, how do human
beings know if anything is "right"? This essay will look to explain skeptics' objections within the
theory of knowledge. In order to better support these objections I will draw conclusions from The
Electric Ant by Philip K. Dick, where am I by Daniel Dennett, and the film The Matrix. Lastly, I
will discuss skepticism in the external world. I believe that skepticism undermines ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
He believes that he is an inanimate object mimicking an animate one, yet he feels alive (Dick 103).
Expanding deeper, Poole figures he must never really have run Tri–Plan; it was a delusion implanted
in him when he was made along with the delusion that he is human and alive (Dick 102). Poole is so
obsessed with validating his reality that the skeptic within his so–called "brain" drives him to not
only disrupt his reality supply construct, but also to cut his reality supply construct which ultimately
leads to Poole's robosuicide. Mr. Poole states that he wants to control his reality construct because if
he controls the construct then he controls his subjective reality that lies within his finger tips (Dick
105). Poole's death provides proof that the theory of knowledge is being undermined. Poole's suicide
undermines the theory of knowledge because even when he grasps his microsecond of outright
reality, his death erases the knowledge that he has acquired. The deleted information that passes
through Poole's fried circuits leads us back to square one–how do we know anything to be true about
our own reality? Poole's death leaves that question

Review Of ' Dennett And Picard '
Dennett and Picard
Zifei Li
Dennett suggests writing a program or designing a robot that feels pain to initiate a more detailed
pain experiment. The example of computer simulation of hurricane shows that to conduct a qualified
simulation program requires a definite theory of the conditions and behaviors of the object to be
simulated. First, we write a program according to the theory of pain, input the descriptions of
conditions in text, then the computer types the descriptions of results in text. But this time it only
gives an exterior behavior, so the program is modified to out the interior results including the
reactions of C–fiber and heart rate. After some trials, the program's feedback output has all the
descriptions of neurophysiology and mentalistic psychology. Now we have simulated the external
and internal causes and effects of pain, but not the pain itself. Then the program is rewritten to
output 'There is a pain ...'. After this move, the quality of the pain is also added to the descriptions of
results. However, we should aim the program to do, not to output descriptions, i.e. the challenge is
to make a machine that indeed feels the pain rather than describe the feeling of pain. In this case, the
describing system can be the control system for our new robot. Then the robot is attached to
different objects like flywheel and flashing lights that can move and there we have a robot that
technically reacts to a pain stimulation.
When distinguishing if artificial

The Mind : Paper Two
Phi of Mind: Paper Two
I. Introduction In this paper, four important features of qualia will be made explicit. From these, we
will examine two specific features of qualia (privacy and immediate apprehensibility) which
Dennett attempts to debunk in his article, Quining Qualia. His reasoning – in the form of intuition
pumps – will be critiqued, and a rejection formulated.
II. Qualities of Qualia Qualia are traditionally held to possess four characteristics that make them
unique. They are ineffable, intrinsic, private, and immediately apprehensible within consciousness.
Listing these attributes is all well and good, but what are they? Ineffability refers to the
incommunicability of qualia. Attempting to use language to capture qualia seems to miss part of the
experience, or to reduce and simplify the experience until it can be made to conform to what
language can communicate. Qualia seems so content–rich that moving it into public understanding
necessarily entails its simplification. Consider the jalapeño and habanero peppers. If I were to eat
both, I would experience two separate qualia – one for the jalapeno and one for the habanero. In
language, I could describe both as 'spicy'. More practically, I could describe the jalapeno as 'very
spicy' and the habanero as 'mutilatingly spicy '. I could be as creative or precise as possible to try to
relay the qualia of the peppers, and I could certainly give a listener an image of some sort of quale
one might have. Still, there

Descartes Mind And Body
The problem of interaction between substances.
Perhaps one of the most controversial issues in the Cartesian view of mind and body is how the two
substances interact. In the book The passion of the Soul Descartes returned to the problem; he
suggests that there is a gland in the middle of the brain in charge of the interaction; he maintains that
"from there it radiates through the rest of the body by means of the animal spirits") (Descartes,
1649/1984, p.341). But what does he mean? The pineal gland is itself physical; Gassendi pointed out
that "If it is a physical point, the difficulty still stands, since such a point does not wholly lack of
parts. If is a mathematical point, then such a point, as you are aware is, purely imaginary"
(Descartes, 1641/1985, p.236) To ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
and this quantity of motion is "the product of its speed and its size" (Descartes, 1644/2012, p.33),
but the conception of speed used by Descartes is an scalar rather than considered as a vector like
velocity (as modern development shows (Gerald Holton and Stephen G. Brush , 2001, p. 210)),
nonetheless Descartes suggests that "the mind does not directly move the external limbs, but simply
controls the animal spirits which flow from the heart via the brain into the muscles, and sets up
certain motions in them.." (Descartes, 1641/1985, p. 161), and this allow the interaction of
substances in Cartesian terms, in other words, according to Descartes, the soul only change the
direction of the body, but cannot add motion to the physical bodies; however, this is the problem of
the interaction in Cartesian terms: as Dennett explain "any change in the trajectory of any physical
entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy" (Dennett, 1991, p. 35), thus, the
Cartesian explanation should violate the laws of physics, in other words as Dennett asks "...where is
this energy to come from?" (Dennett, 1990, p.35), and this energy cannot come from a

Analysis Of Daniel Dennett 's ' Where Am I ' Essay
A body is just a body without a brain to command it and a brain can only do so much without a body
to yield. It's undeniable that the mind and body are completely dependent on the other to function,
but where do they join together to form a unique individual. To what extent do the mind and body
bridge together to form a unique individual? Is there even a bridge that connects them or are the
mind and body separate entities who solely rely on each other to function, but that's where all the
shared boundaries that create a person end.
Daniel Dennett tackles these mind and body questions in his essay, Where Am I. In Daniel
Dennett's, Where Am I, Dennett agrees to undergo an operation with would remove his brain from
his body and insert an antennae that would enable his brain to control his body remotely. When
Dennett wakes up, he finds that he doesn't know where he is, but not in that sense that he was
geographically lost. Dennett has woken up to find himself in his body without his brain, leaving him
with the question, where am I? Is Dennett still in his body, in his brain, or in some cross–section
between the two? First Dennett considers what it would mean if his identity, his "Dennettness" so to
speak, were attached to his body, whom he has dubbed Hamlet. Ostensibly it would make sense if he
himself were still in his body. When he first wakes up after the surgery, he is unable to put himself in
the vat with his brain, named Yorick. He can't shake the perception that he is

In Response to Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?" Essay
One potential worry that one might have upon reading Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?," is about the
complications that might arise from Dennett categorizing his brain, who he calls Yorick, and his
body, who he calls Hamlet, as two distinct entities. One may contend that the brain and the body are
in fact only one entity, connected much in the same way that other people's brains and bodies seem
to be connected—however that may be—with the exception of an unusually large temporal gap
between Dennett's brain and Dennett's body in this case. Unfortunately, however, this worry is
ultimately unclear and incoherent, but if expressed in different terms, it is possible to make sense of
the underlying idea . In this paper, I will describe this worry, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Now, where am I?'" It is here that one may believe that Dennett makes a mistake by categorizing his
brain and his body as two distinct entities. After all, he claims that his brain, after surgery, will be
"kept in a safe place where it could execute its normal control functions by elaborate radio links"
(ibid, 379). In other words, these radio links are intended to take the place of normal neurological
pathways such that "no information would be lost, all the connectivity would be preserved" (ibid,
379). Thus, after surgery, while there does exist a great temporal gap between his brain and his body,
the relevant connection between the two does not appear to be much different than the connection
between the brain and the body of someone with a "normal" temporal gap. And since the connection
is still, in essence, the same regardless of however peculiar Dennett's case may be, it could be
concluded that Dennett is no more entitled to name and categorize his body and his brain as distinct
entities than anyone else.
Thus, one may further conclude that the only difference between a "normal" individual and
Dennett's hypothetical case is the great temporal gap that exists between the brain and the body in
Dennett's case. A difference that one may believe does not have clear philosophical implications.
Therefore, it can be suggested that Dennett, in setting up his scenario in this way, does not
contribute much more insight into the ‘self'–phenomenon than many

How Does Dennetts Argument Make Sense?
How Neuroscience Has Made Me Content With Death
This has been part of my own journey of understanding myself while learning to transition from a
faith centered community to a scientific community, and dealing with the personal challenges. My
opinion on this topic may change and develop over time, but I wanted to chart my own process and
check my understanding of the topic.
100 billions neurons make up the complex machine known as the human brain. With the
connections these neurons make, we can experience the smells of fresh pine trees. We can think
about complex concepts, such as the grammar and syntax that make up this very sentence. We can
imagine the infinite, and imagine ourselves contemplating the infinite. Our brains are amazing in ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
How does Daniel Dennetts argument make sense? Understanding the biological components that
make up consciousness or our idea of consciousness is far from showing the complete picture, but it
did reveal to me a whole new world of understanding. Looking into the complexity of the forms and
the beauty of the connections neurons made me marvel at the cohesiveness of the self. The
indiscriminate "I am". The individual that can connect to the stimuli around us. Neuroscience is a
beauty in itself. Showing how we are the most complicated machines out there, and millions of
years of evolution and change has made each of us stand out as beings able to interact with our own
environment with understanding. Now, how does neuroscience make me content with death beyond
the field's indiscriminate beauty? A different foundation. My foundation is no longer mounted in the
future–that death is approaching, immanent and unavoidable. I look to the past, that our neural
connections took essentially billions of years to develop, and we are the most intricate beings that
we know of. Our circuits are wired just well enough for us to enjoy the time we have here on earth,
and I am grateful that my mind can sustain itself in its current intricate, sensitive state. When my
time comes, I am content with my neural connections subsiding and my impulses ceasing to be,
because I know it took billions of years to get here, and I better enjoy the hell out of this

Philosophical Analysis : ' The Consciousness Mind '
Kayla Southworth
Professor Rondel
PHIL 101–1001
December 2, 2015
Chalmers immaterial conscious Consciousness for many years has been a debatable topic between
people, where some take the materialist approach while others take the dualist approach.
Metaphysical materialism is the view that there is no such thing as spooky substances only matter.
This type of view goes on to say that phenomenon's such as the conscious is just byproducts of
material substances interacting with one another. Materialist's views for a long time were hard to
rebuke. However, in 1996 David Chalmers wrote The consciousness mind, which does rebuke
materialism's very view. In his piece, he has people imagine a world exactly like the one conscious
human beings ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Consciousness being immaterial is an successful argument made by Chalmers as he presents it in his
piece in the form of an zombie that is identical to an human being. He, however, presents the zombie
as an individual that does not contain an conscious, but can do everything an conscious person can
do without having the ability to make it an experience. This occurs in his piece when he states "...my
zombie twin. He is molecule for molecule identical to me...he will be awake, able to report contents
of his internal states... Its just that none of this functioning will be accompanied by any real
conscious experiment" (Rondel's notes). In stating this quote, Chalmers makes the point
consciousness is immaterial by making the zombie atom to atom identical to him making the zombie
material, but the only difference between the two is that the zombie cannot experience. This makes
Chalmers argument of consciousness being immaterial successful as it fulfills the criteria of
materialism by having the zombie resemble him, but also tests materialism by having them imagine
the zombie not having an conscious. However, materialists may look at Chalmers piece then argue
that the scenario doesn't make sense and that the zombie should in fact contain an conscious. They
would make this argument because if the zombie was atom for atom identical to an human being,
the zombie should have a

Objectivity In Autophenonmenology And Heterophenomenology.
Objectivity in Autophenonmenology and Heterophenomenology
In the journal "How to Study Human Consciousness Empirically," Daniel Dennett claims that
"people are often just wrong about what they are doing and how they are doing it." Rather than
having an objective and complete understanding of our own intentions and processes, we tend to use
assumptions as knowledge, alter facts to align with our beliefs, and theorize about causes and
effects. As a result, studies of traditional phenomenology (referred to in this situation as
autophenomenology) are often clouded by personal biases and misinterpretations. The evidence of
this confabulation is very similar to a curious child – it reveals itself through one repeated question:
why? For example, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This intrinsic subjectivity is important to keep in mind when studying consciousness from a
heterophenomenological perspective. The only true basis we have to determine the individual
experience of another person is what they communicate to us. If this communication is inherently
jumbled with misunderstandings and theories of one's qualia, the data on which
heterophenomenology is based is flawed and, consequently, so is heterophenomenology itself.
Rather than providing a scientific third–person view of consciousness, it creates more of a collective
fictional narrative that describes the average experiences of others. In analogous terms,
heterophenomenology aims to create a textbook, but can only produce a pop culture magazine. This
view may be debated by analyzing the validity of personal experience. The fact that an individual's
view of their own internal processes is flawed could be seen as irrelevant; in the end, what truly
matters to the study of consciousness is what one is experiencing. If what one believes differs from
the truth, does this incongruity not reveal key factors of consciousness? Furthermore, these
subjective claims can be cross–referenced with scientific facts to neutralize human error. This can be
seen in one of the examples above, in which an individual claims that they went to a restaurant
because they were hungry because they had not eaten in

Just How Free Is The Question Of Free Will For Many Millennia
Colby Brownell
Chad Brodbeck
ENC 1102
December 4th, 2016
Just How Free Are You Mankind has pondered on the question of free will for many millennia.
There are discussions of free will that pop up in religion, academia, politics, popular culture, and
day to day life. To most, it might seem that humans have free will. Humans strive to be independent
individuals, following precise schedules and strict regulations, always chasing after some dream of
what they want from life. Humans more and more seem to be in control of everything happening on
earth. However, a simple acceptance of the given reality is not enough. Our conception of free will
ties into all aspects of human endeavor. If we are not the ones calling the shots then what is? What
would change if we suddenly realized that we are not the ones choosing our actions, what would that
entail for our societies, principles, and systems of morality? Who will hold the unaccountable
accountable? Even if humans didn't have free will would it be beneficial to still believe they did?
Proving whether or not humans have free will is tricky business. Numerous philosophers grappled
with these questions for their whole lives, and more recently science has started to delve into the
unconscious nature of human choices. Mark Balaguer in his book on free will set out to evaluate the
arguments against humans having free will. The oldest argument for why humans can't have free
will stems from determinism. Determinism is the philosophical

How Does Daniel Dennett Exist
In Where am I?, Daniel Dennett goes through a series of operations and life changing experiences
that involves separating his brain and body, having his body buried alive, and then shares a body
between his brain and an 'identical' brain. The topic of the paper is the discussion of where and when
Dennett exists throughout the narrative. It is an interesting topic because it forces the reader to
consider the the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to exis. In this paper, I will argue
that Daniel Dennett exists as Yorick (brain by itself) or the combination of Yorick/Hamlet or
Yorick/Fortinbras. Dennett still existing as Yorick or as the combination of Yorick/Hamlet or
Yorick/Fortinbras is lockean theory. This means that having a body is neither a sufficient or
necessary condition for being a person.This is how Dennett is able to survive until the end of the
story. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Behaviorism is mental terms refer to dispositions to behave in various ways. Materialism is mental
terms refer to the causes of dispositions to behave in various ways. Numerical identity is the relation
everything bears to itself and nothing else. Two things can only be numerically identical if they are
actually one and the same thing. Qualitative identity is two numerically distinct things that are
indistinguishable in their surface properties. Multiple Realizability of the Mental shows that a single
kind of mental property can be realized by a variety of physical materials and processes. A necessary
condition is, that for X to be true, the conditions for X must be satisfied. A sufficient condition is, if
X is satisfied, guarantees that X is in the

Stance Dennett
1. The two views on "belief attribution that Dennett rejects is Realism and Interpretationism. 2. The
Physical Stance as stated in the reading, "... if you want to predict the behavior of a system,
determine its physical constitution (perhaps all the way down to the microphysical level) and the
physical nature of the impingements upon it, and use your knowledge of the laws of physics to
predict the outcome for any input." Let's take, for example, even though light switches aren't made
to shock people, we might know that if you were to touch the switch with your wet hand, you'll get
shocked. 3. The Design Stance as stated by Dennett, "... where one ignores the actual (possibly
messy) details of the physical constitution of an object, and, on the

What Is Dennett Predictive Strategy
Dennett argues first that to believe is to adopt a predictive strategy and second that the most
appropriate predictive strategy for human behavior is what he calls an "intentional stance." The
intentional stance is a presumption that people act "rationally," and this is argued to be the strongest
stance in relation to minds. Even presuming that his first position is accurate, the second one has
several flaws. The most immediate objection is that human beings do not appear to be rational
agents. To argue that human beings are rational agents requires first that one define what it means to
behave rationally, and second to prove that people act in this way. The best attempt at a theory
which would allow for mapping onto actual human behavior is

The Impact Of Consciousness On Modern Day Psychology
The study of consciousness in modern day psychology is becoming increasingly difficult to explain.
In the early days of consciousness studies it may have been explained as our experience or
awareness (Blackmore, 2010). However, over a number of years, there have been many
psychologists who have contributed many important theories towards the explanation of how
consciousness works, and its initial existence. As Chalmers states: "There is nothing that we know
more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing harder to explain" (Chalmers, 1995
p.200). Being one of the leading philosophers in consciousness, David Chalmers introduced the idea
of the Hard Problem in 1994. Chalmers defined the hard problem as: "The questions of how
physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience" (Chalmers, 1995 p.63). Chalmers
suggested that he found it difficult to understand how a small mass of grey matter such as the brain
could produce conscious experience. These ideas of a 'hard problem' in consciousness were rejected
by a number of theorists, which will be discussed later in the essay. Another idea which Chalmers
has put forward is the zombie. A zombie, according to Chalmers is a being identical to you and I,
speaks like you, acts like you, but is not conscious (Blackmore, 2010). A zombie contains no qualia
(a physical conscious experience). The idea of the zombie put forward by Chalmers is extremely
important in the explanation of consciousness and has been

Comparing Descartes Parfit And Dennett
Descartes, Parfit and Dennett all seem to raise the question about whether or not does "I" exist each
philosopher has their own perspective of whether does "I" which is "self" exist. Each explains a
different perspective of the ego theory Descartes arrive at an ego theory that neither Parfit nor
Dennett agree with.
Descartes known as a very bright mathematician and considered to be the founder of modern
philosophy didn't always start out as skeptic he believed that there was a point for everything that
we may know until he realized that we tend to be deceived by our own senses which makes them an
untrustworthy source. However some things that we perceive to be true are so evident that they must
be true Descartes eventually arrives at his concept ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Dennett belief is that he is separated from his own brain which conflicts with the physical view of
the mind giving that his thoughts are some place inside his own brain. One argument he makes is
that he is located in a place wherever his thoughts are he describes when a person is a mental
substance rather than a physical substance it make no sense what so ever to ask the question where
am I? because your mental doesn't have an exact location. Dennett second argument is whether
your're the brain instead of the body he makes an arguemnt about you are where your body is but
thats not exactly always true because of brain transplants basically if you were to tranfer your brain
into another human beings body your not where your body is instead you are in another person's
body. However you can be disconnected from your body also disconnected from your brain because
your memories is very crucial to who you are. Another argument he makes is that you are not always
your brain you are wherever your senses are your mind can be in one place but your senses are in
another. As Dennett describes his story he basically describes the separation of his mind and body
while he undergoes the experiment he realizes he is not where his mind is rather he is where his
body is which is in

Playing against a Computer or a Human Research
Background and significance Individuals participating in an interaction perceive one another as
rational agents who possess beliefs, desires and intentions that might be different than their own.
Assumptions made about these mental states are used to interpret and predict behavior. Conferring
such attributes to an agent (human, computer, whatever) has been described as adopting an
'intentional stance' (Dennet, 1996). Adopting an intentional stance is part of our broader ability to
mentalize which involves representing and attributing mental states to oneself and others. Research
concerned with understanding the neural system of mentalizing has indentified a network of regions
that minimally involve the temporoparietal region (TPJ) and the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC)
(Abu–Akel and Shamay–Tsoory, 2011). However, it is not completely clear the extent to which
humans readily mentalize (or adopt an intentional stance) with other humans or non–humans (e.g.,
computers). Thus an important goal of this study is to investigate how the neural network associated
with adopting an intentional stance is modulated under various interaction conditions in which the
interacting partner and the context are varied. Several studies employing various interactive games
have been conducted to uncover the neural basis involved in adopting an intentional stance. These
studies followed a similar script according to which participants were led to believe that they are
playing either against a

Analysis Of David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives...
The Canadian Department of Justice assumes that humans have the free will and consciousness to
choose between good and bad decisions, and may be prosecuted for the decision that they have
made (DoJ, 2016). Humans, along with their legal systems, believe that for one to be guilty of a
crime, one must have been proven to have committed the crime along with the malicious intent to go
forward with it. However, David Eagleman writes in his book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the
Brain that this line of justice poses a dilemma, due to its conflict with the biological (mainly
neurological) aspects of decision making. He discloses that the mechanisms within our brain can
cause us to commit felonies against our own free will and intentions, which creates ... Show more
He explains how neurologists have proven that all activity within the brain is conducted through the
interdependence of different parts of a large biological network (Eagleman, 2011). This means that
the brain has no area where it is not connected and influenced by this large network, suggesting that
the brain has no independence and, therefore, not free. Despite this growing disapproval for free
will, Eagleman chooses to continue to argue under the context that we do have free will because (1)
we simply "feel" like we're free, (2) legal systems assume we are practical reasoners who use
conscious deliberation when taking actions, and, most importantly, (3) automatism. Dr. Wayne
Renke, a professor of law, defines the term automatism as, "unconscious, involuntary behaviour"
and as a defence to a criminal that his actions must be proved to be voluntary, the product of choice
or will (Renke, 2007). Eagleman uses this concept to propose what he calls the "principle of
sufficient automatism". This principle states that free will may still exists, but it plays a very small
role in comparison to the biological processes within humans that are

Mary Dennett Excerpt Summary
In Dennett's Excerpt, he describes two possible reactions Mary could possibly have upon her release
and first experience of color. These two reaction have different outcomes in what people would
think in each scenario involving Mary's "all physical knowledge of the world." One reaction Mary
could have, is that she could simply exclaim, "so that is what that color looks like." This shows that
Mary having "all physical knowledge of the world," allows her to experience colors in a way that
she expected to based on her knowledge and understanding of how colors would be to her brain.
Also she probably has knowledge of specific objects being specific colors. Which brings up
Dennett's blue banana example. Dennett puts to the reader a scenario where

David Hume's Theory of Ethics Essay
David Hume is considered to be one of the big three British empiricists, along with Hobbes and
Locke, and lived near the end of the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church was losing its control over
science, politics and philosophy and the Aristotelian world view was being swallowed up by a more
mechanistic viewpoint. Galileo found the theory provided by Copernicus to be correct, that our earth
was not the center of everything, but the celestial bodies including the earth circled the sun.
Mathematicians abounded. Pascal developed the first mechanical calculator and Newtonian physics
was breaking new ground. Not even the arts were immune. Within the same era Mary Shelley
authored Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus. The main theme for this ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The latter being the kind that he uses as a naturalist.
David Hume's most famous quote is "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and
can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." To understand the implications
of this quote as a basis for an ethical theory you need to understand that every other ethical theory
attempts to derive how things ought to be from how things are. The jumps from matters of fact and
relations of ideas perceived by reason, to value judgments perceived by emotions, are made in
Hume's opinion with no logical reason. There is nothing contradictory in the statement the sun will
not rise in the morning, it is not unreasonable. We only feel that it "ought to" continue rising in the
morning. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to construct a hypothesis and Hume does
not contend that it should not be used. It has been useful thus far in making predictions and it is the
only tool that we have for understanding the world around us.
David Hume's ethical theory sits between philosophy and modern day psychology. He uses the
empirical method to study the natural tendencies of human beings to engage their emotions, and in
our emotions is where morality could be understood best. One must remember

A Comparison Of Determinism And Free Will Theory
Magd Al Harbi
A Comparison of Determinism & Free Will Theory
Kent State University
Introduction
One aspect of human existence that I think is particularly interesting is the extent of control of
which we have over the decisions we make. In life, there are many decisions to be made, from
simple ones that seem almost subconscious to complex decisions that can take days to ponder on.
There are decisions that we make that directly affect others, indirectly affect others, and decisions
that we believe do not affect others, or even ourselves, at all. There are decisions that we believe do
not matter and would have no impact on our existence. Two theories that shed some light on these
aspects are the theory of determinism from ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
By "pleasurable", Hume means a sensation that simply makes us feel good. An assertion such as this
brings forth the reason behind Hume's theory that humans are bound by determinism–firstly, we are
born to naturally make decisions based on the most pleasurable outcome, which is not something we
can control, therefore, it is a pre–determined characteristic of humans (Hume, 2006, p. 76).
Secondly, Hume argues that the feelings we receive regarding things are determined mostly by
elements out of our control. Therefore almost every sensation and feeling we incur is not made by
that of our own volition but by a combination of countless ideas and impressions that have occurred
in our life that we are not able to scrutinize or comprehend fully because there are far too many to
analyze.
Thirdly, Hume integrates the complexity of social norms into his theory as well. Depending on the
situation, gaining social approbation from the community can cause more pleasure for someone than
acting out of a selfish motive, due to the social disapproval making a decision could present (Hume,
2006, p. 10). For example, upon studying this theory, I found myself thinking about a time in which
I was working on a project with a group and felt like skipping one of our group meetings because I
was exhausted from work and

Daniel Dennett 's Where Am I?
In the essay Where am I?, Daniel Dennett's uses a fictional account of a series of brain and body
surgeries to illustrate various philosophical views of personal identity and the nature of
consciousness.
His tale begins by describing a top–secret government mission where he is tasked at retrieving a
device that emits a special kind of radiation that completely destroys brain tissue (and no other
bodily tissue). This device is stuck in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In an effort to preserve Dennett's brain
during the mission, scientists surgically remove it from his body and broadcast all of its outputs via
radio. Then they hook Dennett's body up to respond to the output signals and his nerve/ sensory
organs are set up to broadcast back to his brain (in a vat in Houston).
In his new life, he experiences minor signal lags and alcohol has lost its intoxicating effects, but
apart from that there's not much difference in experience. Though, once he settles in, a major
epistemological question dawns on him: "Where is he?" To answer this, he considers 3 different
views of the relationship between the mind and body.
The first view he considers is that one's body determines where the self is. This view seems to
correspond to Dennett's initial "force of mental habit" (1, p3) by identifying one's location to where
one is sensing and interacting with the world. (3) However, Dennett quickly rejects this notion in
support of brain transplant thought experiments where, "one wants to be the donor,

Mutations in Nature and Culture Essay
Mutations in Nature and Culture
Many other words, both positive and negative, spring to mind when one hears the word "mutation."
In a scientific sense, one might think of the random variations that lead to evolution in species. In a
sci–fi/ horror flick sense, one might think of a vicious monster that after contact with some
radioactive substance became terribly disfigured. But rarely do we associate mutations with ideas
pervasive to our culture. Daniel Dennett suggests that memes undergo a certain kind of mutation
that is inherent to the creative evolution of culture.
The most important distinction to be made between mutation as it applies to biological evolution,
and how it applies to creative evolution is the function of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
This may account for some of the messiness involved in trying to examine how mutations of
creative thought occur; they are constantly crossing over between cultures. There is no neat diagram
as with the branching of species to demonstrate the path that, for example, a thought may take on its
way to becoming a theory.
This begs the question, then, how much control can the individual hope to exert over the way that
ideas combine and affect one another within his or her own mind? Dennett writes that our ideas are
limited by our personal histories and experiences (450), but this limitation is not conscious on the
part of the thinker. Perhaps what are limited by our experiences are not the ideas we can possess at a
given moment in time, but the way in which these experiences lead us to organize our thoughts. If
we attribute creativity to a disorganized trading of memes in space, then how much can we credit an
artist with her own brilliant work? But if instead we regard the thinker as organizer of thoughts,
creative mutations occur as a result of a new method of organization based on what Dennett calls the
thinker's "style."
"Each particular creator, each novelist or composer or computer programmer, is sped along through
Design Space by a particular idiosyncratic set of habits known as style. It is style that both
constrains and enables us, giving a positive direction to our

Daniel Dennett Four Horsemen
Religion and science often contradict each other's arguments and explanations. Evidently, many
people believe religious claims over science, reasoning, and proven facts. The Four Horsemen, also
known as the New Atheists, refer to four atheist writers. Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have written several popular books on atheism, and their writings
call for new ways of thinking about religion and interpretations of religion through scientific fact
and logic rather than blind, unsupported beliefs. While the words and arguments of the Four
Horsemen seem logical in context, some people are not swayed by their call to question religion. As
seen in the debates during Dover and Scopes Trials regarding evolution ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Many people follow the teachings of the ancient texts of religions, such as the Bible and Quran,
which were written before the scientific eras of the new world. Many of these texts mention
miracles and beings that go against the laws of physics and nature. Harris describes religion is "the
only game in town" because people want to believe the texts as proven facts even though they
cannot be proven. Despite the lack of evidence for many unexplainable occurrences, people
continue to believe in their teachings, and refuse to accept criticism or scientific evidence. During
the trials, Harris's claim became very apparent when people who argued for Intelligent Design
became very hostile in the face of opposition to their beliefs. As discussed in lecture, in the face of
challenge, people defended their own worldviews with aggression, which is very evident during the
fight to teach evolution in classrooms in the Scopes Trial and the fight to include Intelligent design
in the classrooms in the Dover Trial (Ogilvie,

evolution v. creation Essay
Evolution
Should the stork theory appear in books on reproduction? How about astrological lore in expositions
on astronomy? It would be unreasonable to even consider those ridiculous concepts. This is why the
idea of creation should not be considered as the answer to how life began. Rather, the theory of
evolution accounts for the creation of life. Charles Darwin is credited with creating the theory of
evolution. Evolution assumes that all natural forms arose from their ancestors and adapted over time
to their environments, thus leading to variation. In evolution, there are many rules the environment
places upon the survival of a species. "There are many misconceptions that creationists have about
evolution. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. The fossil record is still spotty and always will
be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Prinze
continues, "Transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short
amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils
goes down." According to Prinze, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of
transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from
land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. "The misconception about the lack
of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When
people think about a category like 'dog' or 'ant,' they often subconsciously believe that there is a
well–defined boundary around the category" (Isaak). In truth, categories are man–made and
artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Another misconception is that the theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance. But there is probably no other statement which is a

Review Of ' Dennett 's ' Quining Qualia '
Paper 1 – Question 3: Dennett's "Quining Qualia"
Daniel Dennett looks to quine qualia, or completely disprove their existence, in "Quining Qualia."
He is successful in creating a theoretical framework by which many intuitive arguments for qualia
can be struck down. Because of his success, an argument from introspection is difficult to make;
Dennett seems to successfully refute many of the arguments given by intuition or folk psychology. I
will adopt Eugene Park's criticism in critiquing Dennett, showing that an argument from
introspection can provide some insight into how qualia might exist. Park argues that relying on
memory comparison is incomplete, and unfairly eliminates direct apprehensibility.
Introduction
In "Quining Qualia," ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This makes qualia inherently private. The fourth and last quality is direct apprehensibility to
consciousness. This describes the fact that we know everything about our own qualia, and we can
easily access all of its properties. Dennett explains that because qualia are "properties of my
experiences," they therefore must be accessible to one's conscious states (229).
The coffee–test case: Intuition pump 7 – Chase and Sanborn Dennett uses the seventh intuition
pump to explore the relationship between qualia and reactive attitudes to those qualia. The situation
involves two coffee tasters who work for Maxwell House, ensuring that each batch is of consistent
quality. After six years of tastings, both Chase and Sanborn declare that they used to like the taste of
the coffee, but that this is no longer the case. Chase says that he thinks that the coffee tastes the
same as it did six years ago, but that he has become a more "sophisticated" coffee drinker and his
more unfavorable reaction (or reactive attitude) towards the coffee has decreased his enjoyment of
it. Sanborn, however, does not like the coffee because he says his taste buds have changed, and now
the coffee tastes worse than before. Sanborn claims that his taste–qualia have changed, not his
reactive attitude towards the coffee. It is difficult, however, to discern whether Chase and Sanborn
are actually correct in

The Controversy Over Free Will And Determinism
Introduction
It has been debated over centuries whether us humans have control over our destiny, and if we are
really able to decide on our own. The controversy between free will and determinism has been
argued about for years. If we look into a dictionary, free will is define as the power given to human
beings to be able to make free choices that is unconstrained by external circumstances or a force
such as fate or divine intervention. Determinism is defined as a philosophical doctrine that every
event, act, and decision is the inescapable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the
human will. Determinism states that humans have no free will to choose what they wish. Due to this
fact, contemporary philosophers cannot agree whether free will does exist, let alone it be a divine
influence.
Three major Beliefs
There are three major arguments in the thought of free and they are libertarianism, compatibilism,
and fatalism. There are both a religious and secular position for this argument. The religious aspect
of free will is that it is an objective by God, while the secular position is subjective to causal
determinism and the effect of the physical and concrete things on the process of decision–making.
In an article by Alvin Plantinga he tackled a few types of compatibilism, and he believes that he has
found an objective to serve as a middle ground in the free will debate. Plantinga believes that God
had already began the process, with an abrupt cause, and since

Where Am I by Daniel Dennett Essay
In Daniel Dennett's piece of literature "Where Am I" tells the hypothetical scenario of Dennett who
is approached by the pentagon to undergo a dangerous mission where he is asked to retrieve a
radioactive warhead lodged deep underground. In order to retrieve the radioactive warhead, he must
undergo a brain operation to fully remove the brain as the waves from the warhead only affect the
brain.(Page 34) Along with the radioactivity affecting the brain, the pentagon wanted to monitor the
brains activity while underground, thus being another reason for the operation. As Dennett is
underground working on the warhead, his radio transmitters sending signals between his brain and
his body began to fail which causes him to lose control and ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The three responses to this longstanding issue in western philosophy include materialism, dualism
and idealism. Materialism can be defined simply as the only things there are all material or physical
things. Idealists believe that there are no material things; there are only minds, and thoughts and
experiences. While dualists think that the mental and physical are deeply different in kind: thus the
mental is at least not identical with the physical. Relating to Daniel Dennett's essay "Where am I" if
Yorrick (Dennett's brain) were to die would Dennett continue to exist through Hubert (the computer
program that functionally mirrors his brain)? Dennett would not be able to survive because even
though Hubert functions like Yorrick, Hubert isn't able to recall memories and thoughts that make up
a large part of Dennett. An example of this would be if you were to put your brain in a famous
singer's body and take their brain, would you be where they were or would you be in school right
now? If they were to get interviewed about their past, what would they say. Memories and our
feelings are vital to who we are. The celebrity might claim to be you and be able to tell personal
stories about you. So Even though Dennett continues to have basic function such as breathing and a
heart beat, his trust testament to himself, which included his personality, intelligence, and desires are
not shown through Hubert. If Hubert

Where Am I By Daniel Dennett Summary
Jeevan Jacob
Philosophy 100–04
Professor Bates
4/11/14
Word count: 462 Where is the Soul?
In "Where Am I," Daniel Dennett questions the meanings of identity and consciousness. He never
truly concludes his questions with an answer but I believe that the computer that is an exact copy of
his brain cannot have a consciousness because it is a computer, not a human being. Dennett makes a
complicated example when his body and his brain get separated, yet he can control his body through
technological means. After the old one is destroyed, Dennett receives a new one that is just as
capable as his old one. The story was further complicated when there is an exact copy of his brain in
a computer, who can access control over the new body. Dennett ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As long as the brain is intact and is living through artificial means, then it is possible to control a
different body externally. This is quite unlikely, because brain transplants and extractions have never
worked before. Maybe with time, but it is highly unlikely that it would not kill the soul of the
person. If the soul belongs within the body, then it is not possible for the brain to control another
person. Even if it stayed alive artificially, there would be nothing to force the brain to make
decisions. That is the reason why we are conscious beings. If one argued for instinct, human instinct
is weak. We are social beings who have forgotten our primal instinct and instead, learn through
socialization. This would invalidate any way that the brain could survive if the soul exists in the
body. We have no proof that the soul exists in the body or brain; we have no proof that the soul
exists at all. Maybe our consciousness is a pattern of thoughts and beliefs, with nothing actually
behind it. With the intelligence that humans have, it is much more feasible that there is something
behind our patterns of thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps it is something divine. But it is more likely that
the soul exists within our brain than not at all. The human brain is an incredibly intricate organ, a
computer is a series of ones and zeros. It is not possible for the computer to recreate an identical
consciousness because that is taking away the essence of the

The Conflict Between Religion And Science
Is there a conflict between religion and science, or are both items compatible? This question is
addressed in the debate that is written about in the book Science and Religion, Are they Compatible,
by Daniel C. Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Alvin Plantinga thoroughly debates the topic by covering
the compatibility of Christianity and science. He continues his argument by stating the issue of
naturalist and science harbor the conflict not the theism. Plantinga goes into detail how some
scientific theories without the help of theism has conflict and should be considered falsifiable
because of the contradictions they possess. While Alvin Plantinga does make a prominent effort to
illustrate how religion and science are compatible, there are also some flaws in his well–developed
debate between Daniel Dennett.
Alvin Plantinga begins his side of the debate by using Christianity to demonstrate the how science
and religion do not possess a problem together. The items that are used to illustrate the point that is
being made is the different doctrines used in the different types of Christianity, such as the Apostles
Creed. There is not a conflict between the scientific fields of chemistry, physics, or the religion
Christianity. He choose to use the theory of evolution to compare religion against because the theory
of evolution does not state whether it is a guided or unguided process of creation. Plantinga
creatively debates the comparison between the two by using different religious

Dennett Religion
Why is it important that language is much older than religion? Can I not argue that religion was
always apart of oral traditions? Dennett suggests it is possible that religion existed at the same time
language was formed, but there is no historical proof. In my opinion, based on anecdotal
observations, all societies have some had some framework of a religion. Humans are constantly
looking for ways to explain the unknown, and religion fills the void nicely.
Dennett criticizes the methodologies of social scientists, yet he is vague about his notion of who
should conduct the scientific inquiry. Why is this? Also, how does the study of agriculture and
animal disease correlate to the study of religion? Dennett is officially starting to annoy me.

Where Am I Daniel Dennett Summary
In "Where Am I?" Daniel Dennett pontificates upon the state of human existence specifically
personal identity in a humorous fashion. His writing ponders whether your spatial location is
tokened within the brain or body, should the two be separated. First, I will explain the basic
overview of the work. Then I will identify myself as Yorick or Hamlet, and give Dennett's
objections to such a statement. Finally an argument will be provided to defend my identification of
self against Dennett's objection.
Further elucidation is needed for complete comprehension of the work I will be referencing. In the
story Dennett undergoes a drastic science fiction surgery wherein his body and brain are separated
by scientists. This is done in order for his body ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Such habit stemmed from the social norm of your body's location being "where" you are. However,
I ultimately yoke my identity of self to Yorick.
Dennett expresses abject displeasure to this assertion. He indicates that sensory input that the brain
perceives must be provided by the body. He provides a logistic look at this perceived flaw. At this
point he says that should your brain order your body to rob a bank, by my identification of self being
Yorick, the law should imprison my brain. However, the body would still be allowed free roam of
the World and could very well be plopped merrily on a beach. Therefore the perception would be
that you are not being punished for the crime at all.
I contend that my sense of self is still anchored in Yorick as should my body be imprisoned I
contend that I could have my brain "hooked up" to a new body and would then perceive myself as
free. After being hooked to this new body, I would still possess all my same memories, beliefs, and
personality traits inherent to myself. I would also cease to perceive myself as being in confinement
in the jail. However, a new brain hooked into my incarcerated body would not identify as me nor
would it possess the same inherent traits. Thus it would seem I can be separate from my body while
it would be impossible to separate me from

An Analysis Of Daniel Dennett 's ' Consciousness
Introduction As our scientific paradigm has shifted towards a materialist account of the world, many
thinkers believe that appeals to the supernatural cannot provide truth. Consequently, beliefs that had
once been considered adequate must now be reworked if not torn down entirely to fit this new world
view. Daniel Dennett's book Consciousness Explained attempts to provide an account of our internal
experience (i.e. Consciousness) that is rooted in the materialist world view. Though he is not the first
to undertake this project, he takes issue with what he perceives to be the popular materialist account
of consciousness, and seeks promote his own theory. With this essay I aim to offer an informative
summary of the book followed by an evaluative dialogue of its central claims.
Dismissal of Dualism Before introducing his theory Dennett offers a brief dismissal of Dualism.
Dualism is the belief that there exists along with the body an immaterial soul. Depending on the
variation of Dualism, the soul either contributes to or produces what we perceive to be conscious
experience. Dennett takes issue with this view through inspection of the body's interaction with the
soul. He argues that the soul being an immaterial entity shouldn't have any causal relationship with
the material body. The aforementioned argument is grounded in empirical observation. As far as we
know there isn't any evidence of unobservable material thing having causal interaction with the
material world.

Essay on The Evolution of Religion
The Evolution of Religion
Near the end of his novel, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett questions religion and contends
that it was an evolutionary process to keep humans entertained. He says "they [religions] have kept
Homo Sapiens civilized enough, for long enough, for us to have learned how to reflect more
systematically and accurately on our position of the universe"(519). Dennett's position is a
controversial one, and it is difficult to argue because it is such an abstract subject. Religion is
associated with free will, and has been part of humans for thousands of years. Is religion as we know
it useless now, have we arrived at the point in evolution where it is no longer necessary?
Dennett never completely dismisses ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Armstrong and Dennett agree that religion will disappear altogether. Will beliefs that have survived
so many years and tribulations just cease to exist. The thought that they may evolve instead seems to
be is more comforting. Perhaps certain beliefs will merge together, or break off, some religions
might die out while others will gain strength and change direction. The change of religious
affiliations is becoming more evident. From 1980 to 1999 in the U.S. the percent of protestants,
catholics, and jews either remained the same or shrank, while the "other" percentage rose
significantly (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec01.pdf). This demonstrates, that even
though it may be subtle, religion is changing direction.
Religions have greatly benefitted the human population throughout history. According to Dennett,
"They [religions] have inspired many people to lead lives that have added immeasurably to the
wonders of our world, and they have inspired many more people to lead lives that were, given their
circumstances, more meaningful, less painful, than they otherwise could have been"(518). Does this
suggest that altruism is only in existence as a result of organized religion? Altruism and religion
both came with the emergence of free will, but not necessarily conjunction with each other.
Religions incorporated altruism into their belief systems, but it is

Daniel Dennett's Ideas and Presuppositions Essay
Daniel Dennett's Ideas and Presuppositions
In response to problems surrounding the ascription of beliefs, Daniel Dennett developed his essay
True Believers, where he outlined an intentionalist theory. My intent in this paper is to explain his
ideas and defend on of his presuppositions, namely, that most of what people believe is true. First I
will briefly explain intentionalism and point out why Dennett feels that his syst3em is so useful.
Then I will explain the necessary pretension that most beliefs ascribed are true and explain the
validity of that position in greater detail. With a more concise explanation it will then become clear
that Dennett's position is not as implausible as it may seem. With both Identity and ... Show more
Secondly, it must be assumed that our subject is what Dennett calls a 'rational agent'. Meaning,
simply that X will act upon some internal connection between its beliefs and desires. That faculty of
reason does not need be as developed as in the Vulcan sense, but must show some connection
between beliefs and desires along the lines of desires based on beliefs and action based on desires.
Moreover, one could not begin to try and predict the behaviour of an irrational being unless it is on
the basis of why it is acting irrationally or why it is broken. Through this stance Dennett can treat
almost any given subject as an intentional one, down to the beanbag chair, which has the desire to
mould itself to my body when I sit on it. However, it is the subject of another paper to distinguish
between subjects, which truly possess belief, and those that do not.
Previously I have described the necessary premise that most ascribed beliefs must be true, and now I
will attempt to defend the validity of that point. Dennett, makes his own argument in this case
immediately. Foremost, beliefs included in this statement include so many minute details which the
question of whether people believe them or not seems

Where Is Daniel Dennett (the Road)
Where is Daniel Dennett? Daniel Dennett was a special ops agent for the U.S. government who was
placed in a very unique situation. In order to complete a secret government mission presumably
during the cold war, he was required to have his brain removed. Dennett had to have his brain
removed in order to extract a warhead buried a mile beneath Tulsa, Oklahoma. With his brain
removed from his body, though still connected and in total control of his body through radio
transmitters, he asked one simple question. Where am I? Though at first most people would say,
Dennett is where he stands and his brain is now controlling him externally instead of internally. Sure
this makes sense, but then the question arises, then which thing is really ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
His personality was still the same and the only real differences he saw in himself were obviously
just physical, though with time these things became familiar too. Dennett then decided to visit his
brain and discovered that during his disembodied state, the scientists had also created a computer
that they called Hubert that mimicked his brain in every way. Dennett now came to a new realization
that he would have to live with. "If there were two bodies, one under the control of Hubert and the
other being controlled by Yorick, then which would the world recognize as the true Dennett? And
whatever the world decided, which one would be me?" If this actually did happen, another body
using either Yorick or Hubert. There would be no real way to differ the two to see which person
really is Dennett. This also brings to light another question, if this actually happened, which Dennett
would be the real Dennett? As Dennett pondered this question a new more riveting question arose in
Dennett's mind. "My strongest intuition was that in such an eventuality I would survive so long as
either brain–body couple remained intact, but I had mixed emotions about whether I should want
both to survive." Dennett came to the realization that as long as he had a body to brain connection
he could survive. This also meant that there would be a great possibility for two Dennett's to exist,
which for obvious reasons he did not like. The other Dennett would rival him in every aspect of life.
So

The Recipe for Nature
The Recipe for Nature
Missing Works Cited
Nature is a fluid coalescence of complex magnificence resulting from an algorithmic mastery of
simplicity. It is no doubt an awe–inspiring entity that invokes both great curiosity and bafflement in
those who attempt to account for its existence and splendor. It is often seen as overly reductionistic,
if not ¡§dangerous¡¨, to try to condense the (mindless?) brilliance of nature through any sort of
mechanistic or logical means. And here we are faced with what Daniel Dennett calls Darwin¡¦s
dangerous idea: ¡§that all the fruits of evolution can be explained as the products of an algorithmic
process¡¨ (Dennett, 1995 p.60). It is no surprise that this idea might present a problem for the
Homo–sapien ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, chance and randomness might disallow for the concept of ¡§survival of the fittest¡¨ and
instead allow for otherwise less–adept members of the species to have increased reproducibility and
thus an increased genetic impact on subsequent generations. The fact that events can alter or in part
determine which members of a species are more likely to survive and reproduce, leads to the fact
that the specific outcome (e.g., which particular genes will be passed onto the next generation) of an
algorithmic process is not fixed, just that the inherent nature of the causal procedure is. For instance,
the algorithmic process of natural selection does not provide a certain mold by which to predict the
most viable members of a species, only that it is guaranteed that the most well–adapted members of
a species will necessarily correspond to the most viable.
We now return to the question of how the complexity and intricacy of nature can be accounted for
by an algorithmic process constituted by an inundation of simple steps. William Paley¡¦s well–
known watchmaker analogy is particularly useful here, in that it illustrates the problem of
complexity of design (i.e., of a watch) independent of a purposeful designer (i.e., a watchmaker). If
a watch represents a complexity in design that could not have possible arisen out of purposeless
chance or randomness alone, it must therefore have required a significant amount of ¡§design work¡¨
(i.e., work done) (Dennett,

Daniel Dennett's Physicalism and the Nature of the Mind

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Robin Anderson

More from Robin Anderson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Daniel Dennett's Physicalism and the Nature of the Mind