Submitted by Maicon Juliano Schmidt (maicons) on 2015-04-28T18:50:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Márcio Francisco Rodrigues Filho.pdf: 2008728 bytes, checksum: 55f666836e537fcdf2341ba136ee8f80 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-28T18:50:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Márcio Francisco Rodrigues Filho.pdf: 2008728 bytes, checksum: 55f666836e537fcdf2341ba136ee8f80 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-01-31 / Nenhuma / Esta dissertação é um estudo analítico de duas concepções muito influentes sobre a consciência na filosofia contemporânea da mente. O foco principal desta pesquisa é duplo. Primeiro, ela pretende descrever da forma mais detalhada possível as abordagens de John Searle e de Daniel Dennet sobre a consciência. Além disso, pretende apresentar as críticas de Searle à abordagem funcionalista da Dannett. Ambas as abordagens serão descritas e avaliadas e as diferenças mais relevantes entre esses dois autores serão postas em contraste. Por não fornecer um conceito que inclua a característica qualitativa da consciência, será argumentado que o funcionalismo de Dennett não é capaz de explicar a consciência humana. Sua filosofia da mente também não resolve o problema das outras mentes, uma vez que o conceito de consciência exposto por Dennett não diferencia seres humanos conscientes de zumbis inconscientes. / This dissertation is an analytical study of two very influential conceptions of consciousness in contemporary philosophy of mind. The main focus of this research is twofold. First, it intends to describe both John Searle's and Daniel Dennett approach on consciousness, and, second, to expose Searle's criticism to Dannett's functionalist approach. Both approaches will be described and evaluated, and the relevant differences between these two authors will be put in contrast. In not providing a concept that includes the qualitative characteristic of consciousness, it will be argued that Dennett's functionalism cannot explain human conscious experiences. His philosophy of mind also cannot solve the problem of other minds, since the concept of consciousness exposed by Dennett does not differentiate conscious human beings from unconscious zombies.

Pregnancy, a human phenomenon experienced throughout the world and throughout history, has been largely ignored by the philosophical community. A preference for the abnormal and the extraordinary has left this common yet challenging process on the sidelines of philosophical discussion. Pregnancy stands as a significant challenge to many of our intuitions about the self, particularly those concerning the boundaries, plurality and diachronic identity of the self. Because of this, pregnancy necessitates a theory of the self which does not merely uphold our usual assumptions about the self. Daniel Dennett presents a theory of the self which meets this criterion. He argues that the self is a centre of narrative gravity: an abstract, theoretical entity which is useful for the explanation and prediction of an individual’s behaviour. Dennett’s theory, though provocative, lacks a basis in typical human experience. He relies primarily on thought experiments and extraordinary conditions to support his theory. To demonstrate the applicability and generality of this theory, it must be tested against a common, natural human occurrence like pregnancy. In this paper we explore the application of Daniel Dennett’s theory of the narrative self to the experience of pregnancy. This application yields a double result. Dennett’s theory is bolstered by a demonstration of its generality and applicability, and the experience of pregnancy is placed into a context in which it can be validated and understood.

Pregnancy, a human phenomenon experienced throughout the world and throughout history, has been largely ignored by the philosophical community. A preference for the abnormal and the extraordinary has left this common yet challenging process on the sidelines of philosophical discussion. Pregnancy stands as a significant challenge to many of our intuitions about the self, particularly those concerning the boundaries, plurality and diachronic identity of the self. Because of this, pregnancy necessitates a theory of the self which does not merely uphold our usual assumptions about the self. Daniel Dennett presents a theory of the self which meets this criterion. He argues that the self is a centre of narrative gravity: an abstract, theoretical entity which is useful for the explanation and prediction of an individual’s behaviour. Dennett’s theory, though provocative, lacks a basis in typical human experience. He relies primarily on thought experiments and extraordinary conditions to support his theory. To demonstrate the applicability and generality of this theory, it must be tested against a common, natural human occurrence like pregnancy. In this paper we explore the application of Daniel Dennett’s theory of the narrative self to the experience of pregnancy. This application yields a double result. Dennett’s theory is bolstered by a demonstration of its generality and applicability, and the experience of pregnancy is placed into a context in which it can be validated and understood.

Zugl.: Innsbruck, Univ., Diplomarbeit, 2004

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1994. / Permission to use letters at end of volume 2. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 462-595). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1994. / Permission to use letters at end of volume 2. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 462-595). Also available on the Internet.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:25:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2013-02-18Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:53:22Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 leite_scb_me_mar.pdf: 681572 bytes, checksum: 998e82036cf8727d4c73328be2481656 (MD5) / Este trabalho tem como objetivo geral realizar um contraste entre duas teorias cognitivas da consciência, a Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global de Bernard Baars (1988) e o Modelo de Esboços Múltiplos de Daniel Dennett (1991). Apesar de Dennett demonstrar apreciação pela Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global, sua teoria não aparenta ser muito compatível com a mesma. O objetivo específico deste trabalho é de verificar esta compatibilidade perguntando se as criticas de Dennett ao Teatro Cartesiano atingem a Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global. O primeiro capítulo expõe a visão de Dennett sobre como a consciência evoluiu, em contraste com a visão baseada na Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global. Para a primeira, a cultura e a linguagem possuem um papel central na origem da consciência, para a segunda a consciência tem principalmente uma origem biológica. No segundo capítulo, ambas as teorias da consciência são expostas, comentadas e criticadas. O terceiro capítulo realiza um contraste entre as duas teorias e analisa as implicações do conceito de Teatro Cartesiano para a Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global. Argumentamos que o conceito do Teatro Cartesiano é vago, e através de uma análise cautelosa encontramos 10 requisitos para uma teoria não se enquadrar em um Teatro Cartesiano, através das palavras de Dennett. Verificamos que a Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global preenche alguns desses requisitos. Por fim, através de uma exploração das análises de Todd (2009), concluímos que as críticas principais de Dennett a alguns aspectos do Teatro Cartesiano são fracas. Dessa forma, as críticas ao Teatro Cartesiano não são uma ameaça para a Teoria do Espaço de Trabalho Global / This work has as its main goal a contrast of two renowned cognitive theories of consciousness, Bernard Baars’ (1988) Global Workspace Theory and Daniel Dennett’s (1991) Multiple Drafts. Although Dennett shows some appreciation to the Global Workspace Theory, his own Multiple Drafts Model does not seem very compatible with it. The specific goal of this work is to verify such compatibility by asking if the Global Workspace Theory suffers from Daniel Dennett´s criticism of the Cartesian Theater. The first chapter exposes Dennett´s perspective on the evolution of consciousness, in contrast to the view based on The Global Workspace Theory. The former understands that language and culture play a central role in the origin of consciousness; the latter understands consciousness has mainly a biological origin. In the second chapter, both theories of consciousness are exposed and reviewed. The third chapter focuses on a contrast of the two theories and some implications of the Cartesian Theater. Also, we noted that the concept of a Cartesian Theater is vague, and through a rigorous analysis, 10 requisites for a theory to evade the Cartesian Theater, following Dennett’s words, were identified. The Global Workspace Theory was shown to meet a few of these requisites. Finally, making use of Todd´s (2009) analyses, we concluded that Dennett´s main critics to some aspects of the Cartesian Theater are weak. So it follows that the criticism to the Cartesian Theater does not pose serious problems for the Global Workspace Theory

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:25:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2012-04-10Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:33:07Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 paulo_gv_me_mar.pdf: 754923 bytes, checksum: 93352ef571f6b574816c31264db6c3e8 (MD5) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / O objetivo desta dissertação é propor um estudo comparativo envolvendo duas diferentes perspectivas teóricas para o estudo da consciência situadas no contexto da Filosofia Contemporânea da Mente e das Ciências Cognitivas. Analisaremos criticamente seus pressupostos, suas divergências e o alcance de suas propostas considerando os filósofos da mente John R. Searle e Daniel C. Dennett como paradigmas representantes de cada uma das duas perspectivas. A filosofia da mente de John Searle caracteriza-se por levar em consideração os aspectos subjetivos dos estados conscientes em uma perspectiva que nunca permite dispensar ou desconsiderar os dados de primeira pessoa no estudo da consciência. Estes dados geralmente dizem respeito às experiências conscientes e às peculiares impressões e sensações internas tais como os qualia. Por outro lado, Daniel Dennett adota a perspectiva de terceira pessoa no estudo da consciência, buscando critérios científicos para o desenvolvimento deste estudo sustentado por dados publicamente observáveis e intersubjetivamente definíveis. Estes dados levam em conta as evidências comportamentais, informacionais ou neurofisiológicas que remetem a aspectos mentais, tentando assim estabelecer uma relação explicativa destes com o que se entende por consciência. No atual campo de pesquisas da Filosofia da Mente junto às Ciências Cognitivas não há consenso sobre o método mais adequado para o estudo da consciência sendo, ao contrário disso, composto por várias divergências. Por este motivo, consideramos relevante uma confrontação entre as principais perspectivas utilizadas no estudo do assunto. Buscaremos realizar esta tarefa analisando as contribuições das teorias estudadas para a elucidação da relação subjetividade/objetividade dos estados conscientes / This research is a comparative study of two different theoretical perspectives on the study of the consciousness, in the context of the contemporary philosophy of mind and the cognitive sciences. We analyze their presuppositions, their differences, and the reach of the two proposals, considering the philosophers of mind John R. Searle and Daniel C. Dennett as paradigmatic representatives of each of the two perspectives. The philosophy of mind of John Searle is characterized by the taking into consideration of the subjective aspects of conscious states, in a perspective that never allows the discarding or ignoring of first person data. These data generally have to do with conscious experiences and with specific impressions and internal sensations such as qualia. Daniel Dennett, on the other hand, adopts the third person perspective in the study of the consciousness, seeking scientific criteria that are supported by publicly observable and intersubjectively definable data. These data take into account behavioral, informational, or neurophysiological evidence that refers to mental aspects, thus attempting to establish an explanatory relation between these aspects and what is understood as consciousness. In the current field of research in philosophy of the mind, as well as in the Cognitive Sciences, there is no consensus on the most adequate method for the study of the conscience, and in fact various tendencies exist within the field. For this reason, we consider it relevant to compare the two main perspectives in the study of the subject. We attempt to carry out this task by analyzing the contributions of the theories under consideration, in order to elucidate the subjectivity/objectivity relationship in conscious states

In dieser Arbeit geht es darum, dass drei wichtige Intentionalitätstheorien, nämlich die von Dennett, Searle und Chisholm miteinander verglichen werden. Im Vordergrund dieses Vergleichs steht die Frage ob Intentionalität unter Berücksichtigung des semantic ascent als Erklärung für Wahrnehmung und Handlung taugt und wie sich die drei Intentionalitätskonzeptionen dazu verhalten. Dennett ist zwar Eliminativist, d.h. faktisch gibt es für ihn keine Intentionalität. Dennoch möchte er nicht auf das mentale Vokabular von Geist bis Intentionalität verzichten. Er bedient sich des ganzen Begriffsinventars der, wie er abschätzig meint folk psychology, um Handlungen zu beschreiben, betont aber dabei immer, dass der Gebrauch rein metaphorisch bleibt. Die Frage ist, was Dennett nun mit Intentionalität bezeichnet. Nach Dennett interpretieren wir alle möglichen Vorgänge und Systeme als intentional. Mit intentionalen Systemen meint Dennett nicht nur Menschen sondern z.B. auch Bienen, Schachcomputer oder sogar Barometer; Systeme die seiner Meinung nach vorhersagbares Verhalten kennzeichnet. Im Grunde hat Dennett einen sehr technischen Begriff von Intentionalität, der nichts spezifisch Geistiges beschreibt, und der sich wunderbar durch behavioristische Sprechweisen ersetzen lässt. Dies resultiert vor allem daraus, dass Intentionalität für ihn letztlich nur eine Funktion innerhalb eines Biologismus darstellt. Intentionalität dient dazu seine biologischen Bedürfnisse sinnvoll in seinen biographischen Kontext einzubinden und sie dadurch salonfähig zu machen. Bei Wahrnehmungs und Handlungserklärung kann Dennett also nicht auf Intentionalität verzichten, aber um seinem eliminativen Ansatz treu bleiben zu können, instrumentarisiert er Intentionalität auf unzulässige Weise. Searle hingegen möchte Intentionalität und Geist in der Philosophie als eigene Kategorie rehabilitieren, obgleich er andererseits bestrebt ist, Intentionalität und Geist zu naturalisieren. Diese Ambivalenz durchwurzelt Searles ganzes Werk. Das Ergebnis ist eine internalistische Intentionalitätstheorie, die im philosophischen Agnostizismus verbleibt, weil sie nicht über einen Phänomenalismus hinausgelangen kann. Der Grund hierfür liegt in dem Part den Searle innerhalb seiner Intentionalitätskonzeption der Welt zugedacht hat. Das intentionale Erlebnis hat für Searle eine intensionale wie auch extensionale Ausrichtung. Zunächst schreibt er in Bezug auf intentionale Erlebnisse der Welt eine scheinbar kausal verursachende Rolle zu. "Kausal" definiert Searle in letzter Instanz jedoch als intensional verursacht. Infolgedessen fallen intensionaler Inhalt und extensionales Objekt im intentionalen Erlebnis zusammen. Gemeint werden kann also immer nur eine Proposition, aber niemals die Welt. Searles Intentionalitätstheorie widerspricht damit der basalen Erwartung die Intentionalität zu erfüllen hat, sprich, die Fähigkeit zu besitzen, wirkliche Dinge in der wirklichen Welt meinen zu können. Chisholms Intentionalitätstheorie hat Dennetts wie auch Searles gegenüber einen Vorzug. Sie muss nicht jeweils der Dritte-Person-Perspektive oder der Erste-Person-Perspektive entbehren. Einerseits erkennt Chisholm Intentionalität an und andererseits bleibt er gleichzeitig analytisch. Dies glückt Chisholm, indem er von einem intentional verfassten Selbstbewusstsein ausgeht. Mit diesem Selbst als – mit Kims Worten – Nullpunkt des intentionalen Systems ist es Chisholm möglich, auf sich selbst wie auch auf Dinge außerhalb seiner selbst Bezug zu nehmen. In Chisholms Attributionstheorie bin immer ich der Zuschreibende. Was attribuiert wird ist in jedem Fall eine Eigenschaft von mir. Intentionales Objekt ist demzufolge immer der Zuschreibende selbst. Jeder Fall von Referenz ist in diese direkte Atrribution eingebettet. Die Referenz gelingt deswegen, weil die Eigenschaft, die zugeschrieben wird, dann darin besteht, in identifizierender Relation zu einem bestimmten Ding zu stehen. Chisholm hat damit einen tauglichen Intentionalitätsbegriff entwickelt, der Bezugnahme auf wirkliche Dinge in der wirklichen Welt sinnvoll beschreibt. / In this survey three important conceptions of Intentionality from Dennett Searle and Chisholm get compared. The main question of this comparison is, if, on respect to the semantic ascent, Intentionality is a suitable explication for perception and acting, and how the three conceptions conduct on that. Indeed, Dennett is an eliminativist, this means there is no Intentionality for him. But he does not like do without the mental vocabulary from Mind to Intentionality. To explicate actions he is using the whole equipment of the - disparaging called – Folk psychology, yet he always emphasizes the use is only metaphorical. The question is, what does Intentionality mean for Dennett? In Dennetts way we read many different processes and systems as intentional. For Dennett, intentional systems are not only human beings but also bees, chesscomputer or even thermostates; Systems, whose are in his opinion signed by predictable behavior. Strictly spoken Dennett has a very technical idea of Intentionality, which does not describe any specific mental and which is wonderful replaceable by a behavioristic manner of speaking. In the main, this results from an Intentionality just seen as a biological function. Intentionality in this way serves making biological needs sensible according to the biographical context, to get them fit for good society. In the end, according to explication of perception and acting, Dennett is not able to relinquisch Intentionality, but to remain true to his eliminative attitude, he is instrumentarizing Intentionality in a forbidden way. Not so Searle, he wants to rehabilitate Intentionality and Mind as own kategory. On the other hand he endeavours to naturalize Intentionality and Mind. This ambivalence persists in Searles complete work. The result is an internalistic Intentionality conception, which remains in philosophical agnosticism, because she cannot get out off a phaenomenalism. The cause therefore lies in the part which Searle intended for the world inside his Intentonality conception. The intentional perception for Searle has an intensional and extensional alignment. First Searle grants an apparantly causal role to the world. "Causal" is by Searle at last defined as intensional caused. Consequently, in an intentional act, intensional content and extensional object coincide. Thus you are only able to mean a proposition but never the world. At this point Searles Concept of Intentionality contradicts the basal expectation, which Intentionality has to fullfill, namly the ability to catch real things in the real world. Chisholms theory of Intentionality has, in according to Dennett's and Searle's, a preference. She has not to disclaim the third-person-perspective or the first-person-perspective. On the one hand Chisholm accepts Intentionality and on the other he remains at the same time analytical. Chisholm is managing this by taking selfawarenes as intentional draftet. From this self as – in Kims words – the zero point of the intentional system, Chisholms gets the possibility to refer on himself and to refer on things beside himself. In Chisholms theory of attribution, it' s always me, who attributes. The attribution's object is always a property of myself. Therefore the intentional object is always the speaker himself. Every kind of reference is embed in this socalled direct Attribution. The reference succeeds, because, the attributed property subsits in having an identifying relation to a special thing. So Chisholm has developed a usefull concept of Intentionality, which describes taking reference on real things in the real world.

This essay intends to examine the atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray's arguments against religion, based on the themes of religion, atheism and the perception.of their present worldview. In addition, the research aims to find out whether it is suitable to talk about a new atheism. And, if so, whether such newatheism correspond with the definition represented by the Christian critics. The essay intends to contribute to a very limited research on the so-called new atheism without applying pro-religious arguments. Previous research and theory highlight the problem of defining the terms atheism, religion and secularism a concern that is reflected by the five critics troughout their arguments. What really united the critics were the idea about religion taking too much place in society, and the opinion that atheistic morality is at least as good as religious morality. In addition, the authors agree that religion is not needed to maintain good morale, on the contrary, religion affect the morale negatively. They also assumed that religion restricts people and and that moderate religion more or less leads to, or is responsible for, fundamentalism. Also, the value of truth and contempt against relativism brought the authors together, although they were sometimes justified by very different arguments. Crucially, however, are the differences in their definitions of religion, both concerning their focus on substantive and functional definitions, the relationship between absolute, relative-, and private religion and their political focus. To regard these authors' arguments as a new atheism is thus hard to justify. The results conclude that both the Christian critics and the five critics of religion generalize their opponents view of atheism or religion, and also fail to define themselves in order to be able to unite as a group against the other.