Evidence that Faustus5 is Daniel C. Dennett

In a debate of scientism and 🧠⃤ Qualia.

This article is an appendix of an eBook of Daniel C. Dennett's defense of scientism and his rejection of Qualia in a public forum discussion.

Charles Darwin or Daniel Dennett?

In a popular philosophy forum discussion, a user named Faustus5 displays a pattern of behavior and emotional responses that indicate they are the renowned philosopher Daniel C. Dennett participating anonymously in a semi-open manner.

Early on in the discussion Faustus5 makes an extraordinary claim:

Well, I know Dennett's work more than any philosopher on earth, probably better than anyone you've ever met...

This claim goes beyond mere academic familiarity. The use of any philosopher on earth logically includes Dennett himself, making this statement true only if Faustus5 is Dennett.

Following this claim, Faustus5 repeatedly emphasizes the importance of intellectual honesty while defending the views of Dennett:

You can't find him doing this in his own words, which right away should ring alarm bells if you have any intellectual honesty and think accurately representing views you disagree with is essential to being a good scholar.

Being honest about what the folks you disagree with actually believe is a pretty important virtue if good scholarship is something you value.

I mean, common sense alone should dictate that if he squabbles with people who openly call themselves eliminativists over their eliminativism, it's kind of stupid to call him one.

This emphasis reinforces the earlier claim of unparalleled knowledge and creates a logical bind: either Faustus5 is Dennett, or they are violating their own ethical standards.

The discussion rapidly gained attention, reaching thousands of replies within days, with the first 40-50 pages focused on Dennett's views. Throughout this discussion, Faustus5 has:

• Claimed unparalleled knowledge of Dennett's work.

• Emphasized intellectual honesty and accurate representation of philosophical positions regarding Dennett's work.

• Seamlessly merged their identity with Dennett's.

Seamless Merging of Identity

Faustus5 consistently merges his identity with Dennett's:

What Dennett and I are saying is that qualia are not real, and that qualia are a bad theoretical flourish that is unnecessary, not that there are mental states that don't exist.

Basically, I agree with everything Dennett writes above 100%.

The perfect alignment and interchangeable use of Dennett and I strongly suggest a shared identity. Subsequently, Faustus5 demonstrates an insider's understanding of Dennett's philosophical stance:

No, Dennett just thinks experiences don't have all the qualities that believers in qualia insist they do. He's more of a deflationist than an eliminativist.

This nuanced distinction shows a deep understanding of Dennett's position that goes beyond what a typical scholar might articulate. Faustus5 also vigorously defends against misinterpretations, as cited earlier: You can't find him doing this in his own words….

Emotional Evidence

User Atla made the following observation:

Okay so we can sum up your position as:

• only idiotic philosophers would dismiss the existence of qualia (such as feels and tastes)

• only idiotic philosophers would believe in the existence of qualia (such as feels and tastes)

Dennett logic for the win..

In response to Atla's comment, Faustus5 reacts with intense emotion:

You love making up crap, don't you?

I get it; it's literally all you have left.

The emotional outburst reveals a level of personal investment in the discussion that goes far beyond what one would expect from someone merely defending Dennett's views.

The response suggests that Faustus5 perceives Atla's comment as a direct challenge to their own identity. However, Faustus5 effectively revealed his identity as Dennett early in the discussion with his claim of unparalleled knowledge of Dennett's work. In this context, Faustus5's emotional response to Atla's comment Dennett logic for the win.. takes on a different significance:

• The emotional outburst is not a reaction to being discovered, but a passionate defense of Dennett's ideas against what he perceives as misrepresentation or oversimplification.

• The emotional reaction reveals the personal stakes involved. Dennett is not just defending ideas, but his life's work and intellectual legacy in real-time, in front of a large audience of peers.

• The decision to respond emotionally, given the public nature of the forum, is a conscious choice. The emotional response, far from being inconsistent with Dennett's identity, actually reinforces it. It shows the real person behind the philosophical arguments, engaging genuinely and emotionally with critiques of his ideas.

Consistent Philosophical Stance

Faustus5's philosophical positions consistently align with Dennett's known views:

Babbling about ontology and metaphysics will only waste everyone's time and actually serves the interests of those for whom it is essential the rest of us stay alienated.

When those assumptions enable human beings to solve real problems and answer real question, tearing down those assumptions seems to me a pointless academic exercise that produces nothing of value. Exactly the kind of thing that rightfully gives philosophy a bad reputation.

These statements reflect Dennett's pragmatic approach to philosophy and his skepticism towards certain philosophical traditions. The dismissive attitude towards certain philosophers is also consistent with Dennett's public stance:

Dennett: Any kind of philosophical discussion that ventures into ill defined, vague territory without any hope of solving genuine, real problems for actual human beings means nothing to me, so science is foundation enough.

🐉 Hereandnow: No, no, no. There is a LOT out there. You are just dismissive because your education is philosophically, ontologically rudderless, and this is because you don't read beyond science into science's and experience's underpinnings. Read Kant, Kierkegaard, Hegel (of whom I know less than others), Husserl, Fink, Levinas, Blanchot, Henry, Nancy (the French are extraordinary) Heidegger, Husserl, even Derrida, and others. THIS is where philosophy gets interesting.

Dennett: I have no interest at all in any of those folks. None whatsoever.

Conclusion

The logically necessary conclusion is that Faustus5 is renowned philosophy professor Daniel C. Dennett, engaging in a form of philosophical discourse that blends the personal with the academic, the emotional with the logical, in a manner that is uniquely possible in anonymous online forums.

Dennett's Defense of Scientism

The philosophical discussion On the absurd hegemony of science in which Dennett participated, defending his scientistic views, is now available as a PDF, ePub and online eBook with an AI generated message index.

This resource offers philosophers and interested readers the opportunity to explore Dennett's arguments in depth, either by visiting the original public discussion on 💬 Online Philosophy Club or by downloading the free eBook.

The discussion, initiated by user Hereandnow, features an intense exchange between Hereandnow and Dennett, with hundreds of messages back and forth. The debate is characterized by its depth, rigor, and at times, fierce disagreement. For example:

Babbling about ontology and metaphysics will only waste everyone's time and actually serves the interests of those for whom it is essential the rest of us stay alienated.

Hereandnow: Grrrr. Meaningless babble is insulting. Philosophers don't care about meaningless babble. Here is what meaningless babble is: it is what is produced when opinion exceeds understanding.

Dennett's First Post

Dennett made his first post in forum discussion Consciousness without a 🧠 brain? that was started by the founder of 🦋 GMODebate.org (5th post in the topic).

Consciousness is an illusion" is a completely incoherent idea.

It is, especially when the author describing Dennett's position gets it completely wrong.

What Dennett means when he says consciousness is a user illusion is pretty much what would be meant by saying a file icon on your desktop's screen is an illusion. There isn't really a brown folder somehow in your computer. That icon is merely a representation of a startlingly complex series of processes and structures in your machine, which is the real folder.

Ongoing Discussion

Dennett passed away on April 19, 2024. An ongoing and active discussion about his views is Reading From Bacteria to Bach and Back - The Evolution of Minds - By Daniel C. Dennett.

It is hard for me to imagine what consciousness is, if it doesn't involve qualia. If Dennett is right, then what do we mean when we say something is conscious? If Dennett's view of consciousness is correct, how is a conscious animal different from a computer that we have programmed to act in a certain way? Or perhaps that is Dennett's point - if he's right, there is no difference.