82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
<center>***</center> | <center>***</center> | ||
This abstraction between data and language puts a back on the table a distinction between the “self” and “the brain that generates it” which Dennett has been very keen to banish. Isn’t this [[dualism]]? It might seem like it but, to co-opt another of Dennett’s coinages, it’s not ''greedy'' dualism. It doesn’t impose a supernatural creator or any other kind of sky-hook. It just observes something special is going on: if you want to go from binary code to rice pudding and income tax, you’ve got a bit more explaining to do. | This abstraction between data and language puts a back on the table a distinction between the “self” and “the brain that generates it” which Dennett has been very keen to banish. Isn’t this [[dualism]]? It might seem like it but, to co-opt another of Dennett’s coinages, it’s not ''greedy'' dualism. It doesn’t impose a supernatural creator or any other kind of sky-hook. It just observes something special is going on: if you want to go from binary code to [[rice pudding and income tax]], you’ve got a bit more explaining to do. | ||
Dennett barely mentions language or [[metaphor]]. He spends a great deal of time talking about words and memes (in their technical sense: gene-like replicating units of cultural transmission, and not cat videos on YouTube). | Dennett barely mentions language or [[metaphor]]. He spends a great deal of time talking about words and memes (in their technical sense: gene-like replicating units of cultural transmission, and not cat videos on YouTube). |