>le consciousness don't real man

materialism was a mistake

>>1410544
I've heard if often claimed that he claims you don't have subjective experience, but I'd really like a citation on that. So far as I've read, he just claims that consciousness makes it seem as though it's more significant than it actually is, making it seem as though there's a non-physical basis to its function.

>>1410544
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"

>>1410544
I am really curious. I read one of his books, the inuition pump one, and found Dennet to be a bore. So I want to know: does he actually say anything profound?

I do see Daniel Dennet from time to time in other books, but rarely I find it profound. One notable was talk of Dennet calling everything the library of [x], such as the library of Mendel for genes I think.

>>1411653
I came across a book on philosophy of evolution and he stated that Dawkins selfish gene was really influential to the point that it set evolutionary biology back.

Also I find memetics to be funny because it is the biggest meme field itself. Of course sir Dennet backs memetics.