Nick_Tarleton comments on In defense of the outside view - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
Hence Eliezer_2009's refusal to make quantitative predictions.
If you're not going to look at Dennett's arguments and you're not going to take into account others' claims that Dennett is interesting, how will your opinion ever change?
I will update if/when I see a short convincing explanation of his solution or a substantial number of other people acknowledge that it's correct. My little experience with Dennett's writing hasn't yet turned up anything interesting, much less anything novel+correct.
Really? Reading a new Dennet book or paper is always a joy for me.
If you'd like to get more Dennett in short bits, this page has a nice archive.
There's a lot of links on that page; that's a joy to a Dennett fan such as myself (I upvoted!), but for someone not previously interested, pointing out a couple particularly enjoyable ones might be helpful.
Edit: I like Explaining the 'Magic' of Consciousness - it, too, is relevant to the recent remarks on consciousness, and it follows Dennett's analytical style quite closely.
I'd recommend clicking on links with interesting titles, but some ones to check out:
[http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/intentio.htm] - on intentionality, one of Dennett's strong areas.
[http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm] - on qulia, haven't read this one in a while, but fits in with recent LW discussion
[http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html] - perhaps Dennett's best work, recommended reading for all atheists.
[http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/chmess.pdf] - on how philosophy can degenerate into useless trivia
I find the intentional stance interesting. Although we won't get much further at AI unless we can switch to the design stance of an intelligence.