Yes, I linked to that passage in my previous post (DANIEL DENNETT AND 9/11), to support my comment about Dennett profiting personally from 9/11. I am not claiming that Dennett was "revealing" anything to the public through his lecture but the timing at only two months after 9/11 suggests he is "in the know".simonshack wrote:Well, here's a piece by Daniel Dennett concerning 9/11 (on Iwise.com - the "wisdom-on-demand" website...).pdgalles wrote: Edit: This is quite an interesting find Honestlynow, as Dennett delivered these lectures 7th Nov. 2001.
Basically, Daniel feels it was a fortunate thing that the Statue of Liberty wasn't targeted on 9/11 ...
*Off topic: I fear I may have been tagged as a defender of such people after my DeLillo posts but I am as suspicious as everyone else of all people who live their lives "in the public eye" (ie. through the media). I would not stake my life on any of the ideas that I post here. I abandoned the DeLillo thread as it felt like it had the potential to cause trouble here, which is not at all what I want.
I believe you have misinterpreted Dennett's point - he was saying you could pull off a trick by airing 'ultrarealistic' computer renderings on TV. People would buy it (hence the line "even though millions of people had been thereby convinced...").simonshack wrote:I also find particularly telling this passage from Dennett's book "Sweet Dreams":
Basically, what Dennett is saying is:
"You just can't pull off a trick by airing 'ultrarealistic' computer renderings on TV. People wouldn't buy it."
He was referring specifically to the method of video fakery as not being an acceptable performance of the Indian rope trick in order to collect the prize money he had talked about earlier in the chapter.
Re-read from the start of the chapter that I linked to if not convinced.
One more excerpt, just for fun: