Yeah yeah, semantics. Snore.
How about an objective argument that isn't dependent on assuming its own conclusions and sneaky, poorly defined and impossible thought experiments?
It's like arguing with a religious person about the existence of god.
How about an objective argument that isn't dependent on assuming its own conclusions and sneaky, poorly defined and impossible thought experiments?
It's like arguing with a religious person about the existence of god.
Stop pretending the hard problem being a problem is some cut and dry thing. It simply is not.
And I'll generally side with the philosopher who understands more about how actual brains work, which is clearly Dennett.
Mary's room, The Chinese Room and friends seem designed around fundamental misunderstandings of how the brain, psychology and computation actually work.
They're designed to evoke a sort of visceral reaction. "Of course Mary won't understand what it's like to see red". But once you dig into the details of it, the logic breaks down.