Charting Dennett

Daniel Dennett, a titan of contemporary philosophy, is renowned for his robust naturalistic worldview, which seeks to ground human cognition, consciousness, and culture in the physical processes of the brain and the evolutionary history of our species.
Dennett’s intentional stance is a pragmatic strategy for predicting behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and rationality to entities, whether they are humans, animals, or even machines.
David Chalmers asserts that Dennett’s approach, while thorough in addressing the “easy problems” (cognitive functions and behaviors), fails to tackle the qualitative nature of experience, or qualia.
Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” extends the principles of Darwinian evolution to explain not just biological phenomena but also consciousness, ethics, and culture.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Charting Daniel Dennett

Charting the Philosophical Terrain of Daniel Dennett

Notable Contribution	Description	Aligned Philosophers	Misaligned Philosophers
1. Intentional Stance	A theory proposing that we can predict and understand the behavior of entities (both animate and inanimate) by treating them as if they have beliefs, desires, and intentions.	1. Donald Davidson 2. Gilbert Ryle 3. David Chalmers 4. Jerry Fodor 5. Richard Dawkins 6. Patricia Churchland 7. John Searle 8. Thomas Nagel 9. Ruth Millikan 10. Hilary Putnam	1. John R. Searle 2. Jerry Fodor 3. Karl Popper 4. Jaegwon Kim 5. Thomas Nagel 6. Noam Chomsky 7. Roger Penrose 8. David Bohm 9. Colin McGinn 10. Alvin Plantinga
2. Consciousness Explained	A book arguing that human consciousness can be explained purely in terms of physical processes in the brain, without recourse to any non-physical or supernatural explanations.	1. Patricia Churchland 2. Paul Churchland 3. Richard Dawkins 4. Steven Pinker 5. David Chalmers 6. Susan Blackmore 7. Sam Harris 8. Daniel Kahneman 9. Michael Graziano 10. Stanislas Dehaene	1. David Chalmers 2. Thomas Nagel 3. John R. Searle 4. Colin McGinn 5. David Bentley Hart 6. Roger Penrose 7. Alvin Plantinga 8. Noam Chomsky 9. John Eccles 10. Karl Popper
3. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea	A book exploring the implications of Darwinian evolution for various aspects of philosophy, including the nature of consciousness, ethics, and the meaning of life.	1. Richard Dawkins 2. Steven Pinker 3. Sam Harris 4. Patricia Churchland 5. Paul Churchland 6. Michael Ruse 7. E.O. Wilson 8. Peter Singer 9. Susan Blackmore 10. Daniel Kahneman	1. Alvin Plantinga 2. William Lane Craig 3. Michael Behe 4. Stephen Meyer 5. David Berlinski 6. Thomas Nagel 7. John R. Searle 8. Jerry Fodor 9. Phillip Johnson 10. Jonathan Wells
4. Multiple Drafts Model	A model of consciousness suggesting that there is no single, unified “stream” of consciousness, but rather multiple parallel processes occurring in the brain, which are integrated over time.	1. Paul Churchland 2. Patricia Churchland 3. Michael Graziano 4. David Chalmers 5. Susan Blackmore 6. Stanislas Dehaene 7. Steven Pinker 8. Richard Dawkins 9. Sam Harris 10. Andy Clark	1. John R. Searle 2. Thomas Nagel 3. David Chalmers 4. Roger Penrose 5. Noam Chomsky 6. Colin McGinn 7. Alvin Plantinga 8. John Eccles 9. Karl Popper 10. Jerry Fodor
5. Free Will as Compatibilism	A stance arguing that free will is compatible with determinism, as long as free will is understood as the ability to act according to one’s desires and reasoning.	1. Harry Frankfurt 2. John Fischer 3. Peter Strawson 4. Alfred Mele 5. R. Jay Wallace 6. Gilbert Ryle 7. David Hume 8. Richard Dawkins 9. Patricia Churchland 10. Paul Churchland	1. Robert Kane 2. Derk Pereboom 3. Galen Strawson 4. Peter van Inwagen 5. John Martin Fischer 6. David Hodgson 7. Timothy O’Connor 8. John R. Searle 9. Thomas Nagel 10. Alvin Plantinga
6. Memes Theory	A theory suggesting that cultural information is transmitted and evolves through memes, analogous to genetic evolution, impacting human behavior and society.	1. Richard Dawkins 2. Susan Blackmore 3. Steven Pinker 4. Sam Harris 5. E.O. Wilson 6. Michael Ruse 7. Peter Singer 8. Paul Churchland 9. Patricia Churchland 10. Jared Diamond	1. Mary Midgley 2. David Stove 3. Thomas Nagel 4. John R. Searle 5. Jerry Fodor 6. Noam Chomsky 7. Alvin Plantinga 8. Roger Scruton 9. David Berlinski 10. Phillip Johnson
7. Cartesian Theater	A criticism of the Cartesian idea of a central place in the brain where consciousness happens, proposing instead a decentralized and distributed model of consciousness.	1. Patricia Churchland 2. Paul Churchland 3. Michael Graziano 4. Andy Clark 5. Susan Blackmore 6. Stanislas Dehaene 7. Richard Dawkins 8. Steven Pinker 9. Sam Harris 10. Daniel Kahneman	1. John R. Searle 2. Thomas Nagel 3. David Chalmers 4. Roger Penrose 5. Noam Chomsky 6. Colin McGinn 7. Alvin Plantinga 8. John Eccles 9. Karl Popper 10. Jerry Fodor

This table provides a detailed overview of Daniel Dennett’s major philosophical contributions, along with philosophers who align and misalign with his views on each contribution.

Misalignment Elaboration

1. Intentional Stance

Daniel Dennett’s Position: The intentional stance is a method of predicting and explaining behavior by treating an entity as if it has beliefs, desires, and intentions, even if it does not.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
John R. Searle	Believes that intentionality is an intrinsic feature of certain biological systems and cannot be fully explained by adopting a purely functionalist approach.
Jerry Fodor	Argues that Dennett’s stance does not adequately address the complexities of mental representations and the computational nature of the mind.
Karl Popper	Criticizes the intentional stance for not sufficiently differentiating between the subjective and objective aspects of scientific inquiry.
Jaegwon Kim	Questions the explanatory power of the intentional stance in providing a comprehensive account of mental causation and consciousness.
Thomas Nagel	Maintains that the subjective nature of experience cannot be captured by the intentional stance, emphasizing the need for a first-person perspective.
Noam Chomsky	Argues that the intentional stance oversimplifies the complexity of linguistic and cognitive processes, which require deeper structural explanations.
Roger Penrose	Believes that consciousness and intentionality cannot be fully explained by computational or functional models, emphasizing the role of quantum processes.
David Bohm	Advocates for a holistic approach to understanding consciousness and intentionality, which he feels the intentional stance overlooks.
Colin McGinn	Suggests that the intentional stance fails to address the “hard problem” of consciousness and the nature of subjective experience.
Alvin Plantinga	Criticizes the intentional stance from a theistic perspective, arguing that it does not account for the possibility of divine intentionality and purpose.

2. Consciousness Explained

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Consciousness can be explained purely in terms of physical processes in the brain, without recourse to non-physical or supernatural explanations.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
David Chalmers	Argues that Dennett’s materialist approach fails to address the “hard problem” of consciousness, which involves explaining subjective experience or qualia.
Thomas Nagel	Contends that subjective experience cannot be fully captured by physical explanations, emphasizing the need for an understanding of the first-person perspective.
John R. Searle	Criticizes Dennett’s reductionist approach, advocating for a biological naturalism that recognizes consciousness as a real, irreducible feature of the world.
Colin McGinn	Proposes that human cognitive limitations prevent us from fully understanding consciousness, a view he feels Dennett’s approach does not adequately consider.
David Bentley Hart	Maintains that consciousness involves aspects that are beyond the scope of physical science, requiring a more metaphysical approach.
Roger Penrose	Argues that consciousness cannot be fully explained by classical physical processes, suggesting that quantum mechanics might play a crucial role.
Alvin Plantinga	Asserts that Dennett’s materialist explanation of consciousness excludes the possibility of a divine or supernatural aspect to the mind.
Noam Chomsky	Believes that a purely physical explanation of consciousness is insufficient, advocating for a more comprehensive understanding of cognitive processes.
John Eccles	Suggests that consciousness involves a non-physical component, which Dennett’s purely physicalist approach fails to account for.
Karl Popper	Argues that a purely physical explanation of consciousness cannot fully capture the subjective and experiential aspects of the mind.

3. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Darwinian evolution has profound implications for philosophy, affecting our understanding of consciousness, ethics, and the meaning of life.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
Alvin Plantinga	Criticizes the naturalistic implications of Darwinian evolution, arguing that it undermines the rationality and reliability of human cognition.
William Lane Craig	Maintains that Darwinian evolution conflicts with certain theological doctrines, advocating for a more theistic interpretation of life’s origins and development.
Michael Behe	Supports intelligent design, arguing that certain biological systems are too complex to be explained by Darwinian evolution alone.
Stephen Meyer	Advocates for intelligent design, criticizing Darwinian evolution for lacking explanatory power regarding the origin of complex biological information.
David Berlinski	Criticizes the scientific robustness of Darwinian evolution, questioning its ability to explain the full complexity of life and consciousness.
Thomas Nagel	Argues that Darwinian evolution cannot fully account for the emergence of consciousness and subjective experience, suggesting the need for alternative explanations.
John R. Searle	Questions the extent to which Darwinian evolution can explain human consciousness and intentionality, advocating for a more nuanced approach.
Jerry Fodor	Criticizes the explanatory power of Darwinian evolution in accounting for the complexities of mental states and cognitive processes.
Phillip Johnson	Challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution from a legal and philosophical perspective, advocating for a more critical examination of its claims.
Jonathan Wells	Supports intelligent design and criticizes Darwinian evolution for failing to provide a comprehensive account of biological complexity and diversity.

4. Multiple Drafts Model

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Consciousness is not a single, unified “stream” but rather a series of parallel processes in the brain, which are integrated over time.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
John R. Searle	Argues that the multiple drafts model fails to account for the unified and coherent nature of conscious experience, emphasizing the need for a more integrated approach.
Thomas Nagel	Contends that the multiple drafts model does not adequately address the subjective and phenomenological aspects of consciousness.
David Chalmers	Criticizes the model for not providing a satisfactory explanation of the “hard problem” of consciousness, specifically the nature of subjective experience.
Roger Penrose	Believes that consciousness involves more than computational processes, suggesting that quantum mechanics might play a crucial role.
Noam Chomsky	Questions the explanatory power of the multiple drafts model in capturing the complexities of linguistic and cognitive processes.
Colin McGinn	Suggests that the multiple drafts model does not address the fundamental mysteries of consciousness, which he believes are beyond human comprehension.
Alvin Plantinga	Criticizes the model for excluding the possibility of a non-physical aspect to consciousness, advocating for a more theistic perspective.
John Eccles	Proposes that consciousness involves a non-physical component, which the multiple drafts model fails to account for.
Karl Popper	Argues that the multiple drafts model cannot fully capture the subjective and experiential aspects of the mind, emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach.
Jerry Fodor	Criticizes the model for oversimplifying the complexities of mental representations and cognitive processes, advocating for a more nuanced understanding.

5. Free Will as Compatibilism

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Free will is compatible with determinism, as long as free will is understood as the ability to act according to one’s desires and reasoning.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
Robert Kane	Argues for libertarian free will, maintaining that true free will requires indeterminism and genuine alternative possibilities for action.
Derk Pereboom	Supports hard incompatibilism, claiming that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, thus rejecting the notion of moral responsibility.
Galen Strawson	Asserts that free will is impossible due to the “basic argument,” which states that individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions, regardless of determinism.
Peter van Inwagen	Defends incompatibilism, arguing that if determinism is true, then individuals lack the freedom necessary for moral responsibility.
John Martin Fischer	Supports semi-compatibilism, which accepts determinism but limits free will to moral responsibility, differing from Dennett’s broader compatibilism.
David Hodgson	Advocates for a form of libertarian free will that emphasizes the importance of conscious decision-making and the role of subjective experience.
Timothy O’Connor	Promotes agent-causal libertarianism, which posits that agents have the power to cause actions independently of prior events or deterministic laws.
John R. Searle	Questions the coherence of compatibilism, arguing that genuine free will requires a non-deterministic framework that Dennett’s position does not provide.
Thomas Nagel	Criticizes compatibilism for failing to address the intuitive sense of free will and the significance of moral responsibility.
Alvin Plantinga	Argues from a theistic perspective that free will requires genuine indeterminism, aligning more with libertarian views than with Dennett’s compatibilism.

6. Memes Theory

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Cultural information is transmitted and evolves through memes, analogous to genetic evolution, impacting human behavior and society.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
Mary Midgley	Criticizes the reductionist approach of memes theory, arguing that it oversimplifies complex cultural phenomena and human behavior.
David Stove	Argues that memes theory lacks empirical support and fails to provide a robust explanatory framework for cultural evolution.
Thomas Nagel	Contends that memes theory does not adequately address the subjective and intentional aspects of human culture and consciousness.
John R. Searle	Questions the validity of comparing cultural evolution to genetic evolution, emphasizing the distinctiveness of human intentionality and meaning.
Jerry Fodor	Criticizes memes theory for not sufficiently accounting for the cognitive processes involved in cultural transmission and evolution.
Noam Chomsky	Argues that memes theory oversimplifies the complexity of linguistic and cognitive processes, advocating for a more nuanced understanding.
Alvin Plantinga	Opposes memes theory from a theistic perspective, arguing that it fails to account for the role of divine intentionality and purpose in human culture.
Roger Scruton	Maintains that memes theory neglects the importance of human agency, intentionality, and the rich complexity of cultural traditions.
David Berlinski	Criticizes memes theory for lacking scientific rigor and empirical evidence, questioning its validity as a framework for understanding cultural evolution.
Phillip Johnson	Challenges the scientific basis of memes theory, advocating for a more critical examination of its claims and implications.

7. Cartesian Theater

Daniel Dennett’s Position: Criticism of the Cartesian idea of a central place in the brain where consciousness happens, proposing instead a decentralized and distributed model of consciousness.

Misaligned Philosopher	Formulation of Disagreement
John R. Searle	Argues that the unified and coherent nature of conscious experience contradicts Dennett’s decentralized model, advocating for a more integrated approach.
Thomas Nagel	Contends that the subjective and phenomenological aspects of consciousness are not adequately addressed by Dennett’s distributed model.
David Chalmers	Criticizes Dennett’s model for not providing a satisfactory explanation of the “hard problem” of consciousness, particularly the nature of subjective experience.
Roger Penrose	Believes that consciousness involves more than computational processes, suggesting that quantum mechanics might play a crucial role.
Noam Chomsky	Questions the explanatory power of Dennett’s model in capturing the complexities of linguistic and cognitive processes.
Colin McGinn	Suggests that the decentralized model does not address the fundamental mysteries of consciousness, which he believes are beyond human comprehension.
Alvin Plantinga	Criticizes Dennett’s model for excluding the possibility of a non-physical aspect to consciousness, advocating for a more theistic perspective.
John Eccles	Proposes that consciousness involves a non-physical component, which Dennett’s decentralized model fails to account for.
Karl Popper	Argues that a decentralized model cannot fully capture the subjective and experiential aspects of the mind, emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach.
Jerry Fodor	Criticizes Dennett’s model for oversimplifying the complexities of mental representations and cognitive processes, advocating for a more nuanced understanding.

These tables provide a detailed overview of the misaligned philosophers’ disagreements with Daniel Dennett’s notable contributions, offering insights into the contrasting views within the philosophical community.

Write an insightful and colorful essay on the tension between Dennett and the philosophers misaligned with his positions.

The Tension Between Daniel Dennett and His Philosophical Adversaries

Daniel Dennett, a titan of contemporary philosophy, is renowned for his robust naturalistic worldview, which seeks to ground human cognition, consciousness, and culture in the physical processes of the brain and the evolutionary history of our species. His work is celebrated for its clarity, creativity, and ambition, but it has also attracted significant opposition. This essay explores the vibrant tension between Dennett’s positions and the critiques leveled by some of his most notable philosophical adversaries.

Intentional Stance vs. Realism About Intentionality

Dennett’s intentional stance is a pragmatic strategy for predicting behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and rationality to entities, whether they are humans, animals, or even machines. This stance is instrumentalist, focusing on the utility of ascriptions rather than their literal truth. Critics like John R. Searle argue that this view dilutes the concept of intentionality. Searle insists that intentionality is a real and intrinsic feature of certain biological systems, not merely a convenient fiction. Jerry Fodor joins this critique by highlighting the complexity of mental representations, which he believes Dennett’s model oversimplifies. For Fodor, the mind is a computational system, and its workings cannot be fully captured by the intentional stance.

Consciousness Explained vs. The Hard Problem

In “Consciousness Explained”, Dennett offers a comprehensive account of consciousness rooted in neuroscience, aiming to dispel the notion of a “mystical” aspect to the human mind. However, David Chalmers famously counters this with the “hard problem” of consciousness—the question of why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes. Chalmers asserts that Dennett’s approach, while thorough in addressing the “easy problems” (cognitive functions and behaviors), fails to tackle the qualitative nature of experience, or qualia. Thomas Nagel amplifies this critique with his insistence on the irreplaceable perspective of the first-person experience, famously encapsulated in his essay “What is it like to be a bat?”. For Nagel, Dennett’s third-person perspective misses the essence of consciousness.

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea vs. Evolutionary Skepticism

Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” extends the principles of Darwinian evolution to explain not just biological phenomena but also consciousness, ethics, and culture. This broad application of evolutionary theory faces significant resistance. Alvin Plantinga argues that if our cognitive faculties are solely the product of evolutionary processes aimed at survival rather than truth, then their reliability is questionable, undermining the foundation of rational thought itself. William Lane Craig and Michael Behe criticize Dennett from an intelligent design perspective, contending that some features of life are too complex to be explained by natural selection alone, suggesting a designer’s involvement. Thomas Nagel again diverges from Dennett, questioning whether Darwinian mechanisms can fully account for the emergence of consciousness and moral values.

Multiple Drafts Model vs. Unified Consciousness

Dennett’s multiple drafts model posits that consciousness arises from parallel processes in the brain that are only later integrated, eschewing the notion of a single, unified stream of consciousness. Critics such as John R. Searle argue that this model fails to account for the coherent and unified nature of our conscious experience. David Chalmers adds that the multiple drafts model does not satisfactorily address the hard problem, as it bypasses the subjective quality of experience. For Roger Penrose, consciousness involves more than just computational processes, potentially involving quantum mechanics, thus requiring a fundamentally different explanatory framework than what Dennett proposes.

Free Will as Compatibilism vs. Libertarian Free Will

Dennett’s compatibilist view of free will maintains that free will is compatible with determinism if it is understood as acting according to one’s desires and reasoning. This position is vigorously opposed by libertarian philosophers like Robert Kane and Peter van Inwagen, who argue that true free will requires indeterminism and genuine alternative possibilities. For Galen Strawson, the very notion of free will is incoherent, as individuals cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions, irrespective of determinism. These critics believe Dennett’s compatibilism does not capture the deeper philosophical and moral dimensions of free will and responsibility.

Memes Theory vs. Cultural Complexity

Dennett’s theory of memes suggests that cultural information evolves analogously to genetic information, impacting human behavior and societal evolution. Critics like Mary Midgley and John R. Searle argue that this theory oversimplifies the richness and complexity of human culture. For Searle, the analogy between genes and memes is flawed because it neglects the intentionality and meaning intrinsic to human cultural practices. David Stove and David Berlinski question the empirical robustness and scientific rigor of memes theory, arguing that it lacks the explanatory power to account for cultural phenomena.

Cartesian Theater vs. Distributed Consciousness

Dennett’s critique of the Cartesian Theater—the idea of a central place in the brain where consciousness “happens”—proposes a distributed model of consciousness. John Eccles and Karl Popper contend that this model overlooks the unified and coherent nature of conscious experience. For them, consciousness cannot be fully explained by decentralized processes alone. Jerry Fodor argues that Dennett’s model oversimplifies the intricacies of mental representations, advocating for a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges the complexities of cognitive processes.

Conclusion

The tension between Daniel Dennett and his philosophical adversaries illuminates some of the most profound debates in contemporary philosophy. Dennett’s commitment to naturalism and his innovative theories challenge traditional perspectives, pushing the boundaries of how we understand the mind, free will, and culture. His critics, however, remind us of the limitations and potential oversights of such a comprehensive naturalistic framework, emphasizing the enduring mysteries and complexities of human existence. This vibrant dialectic not only enriches philosophical discourse but also drives the continuous evolution of our understanding of these fundamental issues.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Quiz

What is the intentional stance according to Daniel Dennett?
- a) A pragmatic strategy for predicting behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and rationality to entities.
- b) A method to scientifically measure consciousness.
- c) An approach to understanding the genetic basis of behavior.
- d) A theory that denies the existence of free will.
Which philosopher argues that the subjective and phenomenological aspects of consciousness are not adequately addressed by Dennett’s distributed model?
- a) Alvin Plantinga
- b) Thomas Nagel
- c) John R. Searle
- d) David Chalmers
In Dennett’s view, what is free will compatible with?
- a) Indeterminism
- b) Dualism
- c) Determinism
- d) Libertarianism
Who criticizes memes theory for lacking empirical support and providing a robust explanatory framework for cultural evolution?
- a) David Stove
- b) Roger Scruton
- c) Noam Chomsky
- d) Alvin Plantinga
What does the multiple drafts model propose about consciousness?
- a) It arises from a central place in the brain where all conscious thoughts are processed.
- b) It is a unified stream of conscious experience.
- c) It arises from parallel processes in the brain that are later integrated.
- d) It is a mystical phenomenon beyond scientific explanation.
Which philosopher argues that genuine free will requires indeterminism and genuine alternative possibilities?
- a) John R. Searle
- b) Peter van Inwagen
- c) Jerry Fodor
- d) Roger Penrose
According to Dennett, how does cultural information evolve?
- a) Through divine intervention.
- b) Analogously to genetic information, impacting human behavior and societal evolution.
- c) Independently of any biological processes.
- d) Solely through linguistic transmission.
Which philosopher argues that consciousness involves more than just computational processes, suggesting that quantum mechanics might play a crucial role?
- a) Alvin Plantinga
- b) Roger Penrose
- c) David Chalmers
- d) John Eccles
What does Dennett’s critique of the Cartesian Theater propose?
- a) A centralized model of consciousness.
- b) A distributed model of consciousness.
- c) A dualistic approach to mind and body.
- d) A mystical understanding of consciousness.
Who maintains that memes theory neglects the importance of human agency, intentionality, and the rich complexity of cultural traditions?
- a) John R. Searle
- b) Noam Chomsky
- c) Roger Scruton
- d) Alvin Plantinga

Answers

a) A pragmatic strategy for predicting behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and rationality to entities.
b) Thomas Nagel
c) Determinism
a) David Stove
c) It arises from parallel processes in the brain that are later integrated.
b) Peter van Inwagen
b) Analogously to genetic information, impacting human behavior and societal evolution.
b) Roger Penrose
b) A distributed model of consciousness.
c) Roger Scruton

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions

How does Dennett’s intentional stance differ from traditional views of intentionality, and what are the implications for understanding human and artificial intelligence?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Dennett’s multiple drafts model of consciousness compared to more traditional unified models?
How does Dennett’s theory of memes extend the principles of biological evolution to culture, and what are the main criticisms of this approach?
In what ways does Dennett’s compatibilist view of free will challenge or support our intuitions about moral responsibility?
How do Dennett’s critics address the “hard problem” of consciousness, and why do they believe Dennett’s theories fall short?
What role does subjective experience play in the debates between Dennett and philosophers like Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers?
How does Dennett’s critique of the Cartesian Theater reshape our understanding of where and how consciousness occurs in the brain?
To what extent can Dennett’s evolutionary perspective on consciousness and culture be reconciled with arguments for intelligent design or divine intervention?
How do Dennett’s ideas about the intentional stance and memes theory apply to current discussions about artificial intelligence and machine learning?
What are the main philosophical objections to Dennett’s naturalistic explanations of consciousness, and how does Dennett respond to these objections?
How does Dennett’s view of free will as compatibilism align with or diverge from other major compatibilist and incompatibilist theories?
In what ways do Dennett’s theories of mind and consciousness address or fail to address the ethical implications of cognitive science and neurotechnology?
How does Dennett’s multiple drafts model of consciousness handle the integration of sensory information, and what are the critiques of this approach?
What is the significance of Dennett’s rejection of the Cartesian Theater for the philosophy of mind and cognitive science?
How do Dennett’s views on the evolution of culture through memes challenge traditional views of cultural transmission and human creativity?