>Ridley claims that "Professor Daniel Dennet has had more influence on
>scientists than any other philosopher since Sir Karl Popper". The
>link with your post is consciousness. According to Ridley, "His last
>book dethroned the mystery of consciousness - there is none".
>Thought you might like to know that. You are studying an area where
>feelings run high! (the book had the title: "Consciousness explained).
>
>But Ridley's interest is more in what Dennett has to say in his
>latest book: "His new one, 'Darwin's dangerous idea' does the same
>for the meaning of life - there is none. ... once
>you consider the possibility that everything can evolve an appearance
>of purpose and design without an intelligent designer, nothing is
>sacred. .... Evolution is therefore, a mindless, necessary,
>unavoidable, "algorithmic" process that, without ever having a goal,
>produced the human brain and the software it so potently carries:
>conscious intelligence."
>
...
>Is this guy really as influential as Ridley suggests? What is our
>response? For me, I am happy with Phil Johnson's analysis. I am
>particularly interested in how the TEs react: are you going to repeat
>the kind of arguments you have been using in the past, or is there a
>need to develp your position to address the challenges thrown out by
>people like Dennett?
>
While I don't consider myself qualified to call myself a TE, I would have
to ask Francis Schaeffer's question (paraphrased): Does professor Dennet
_live_ as though his conclusion (that there is no meaning to life) is
correct?
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)