Daniel Dennett on Tools To Transform Our Thinking
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
__________________________
www.intelligenc...
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 22nd May 2013.
Daniel Dennett is one of the world's most original and provocative thinkers. A philosopher and cognitive scientist, he is known as one of the 'Four Horseman of New Atheism' along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens.
On May 22nd he came to Intelligence Squared to share the insights he has acquired over his 40-year career into the nature of how we think, decide and act. Dennett revealed his favourite thinking tools, or 'intuition pumps', that he and others have developed for addressing life's most fundamental questions. As well as taking a fresh look at familiar moves -- Occam's Razor, reductio ad absurdum -- he discussed new cognitive solutions designed for the most treacherous subject matter: evolution, meaning, consciousness and free will.
By acquiring these tools and learning to use them wisely, we can all aspire to better understand the world around us and our place in it.
So sad this brilliant mind is no longer with us.
❤
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 1:18:49
❤
"Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer."
-The Grand Nagus
You can never go wrong with Ferengi wisdom...
Brad Grady I think it’s the other way around.
Rule of Acquisition #208
I've struck cultural gold. How have I never heard of this bloke before today? Subbed and belled.
I'm a year behind you, but just had the same thought :)
Read his books
I like the "opponent processes" way of working out strengths and weaknesses in ourselves. Dennett's explanation of how our eyes' neurons battle it out for dominance really brings home how we can use the opponent process in our lives.
Im sure you're a real delight to be around
Dennett's 'surely' bell is a fantastic tool Surely Dennett is a Goliath among thinkers.
"A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us." - Nietzsche
Can't make an omelette...
He´s good. Knows what he`s talking about. That is why the audience is there. He is not a motivator. He is a Philosopher...making the subject popular for the likes of you and I to understand.
0:00:30, "You can't do much carpentry with your bare hands, you can't do much thinking with your bare brain."! I like it.
Long John
You can't do much hog washing with your bare hands, you can't do much thinking with your bare brain.
@@Lewa500 is this one of those hypothetical rhetorical questions I’m supposed to answer anyways? Absolutely Yes!
A comment regarding the comparison of two lotteries (approx. 30:34 mins). One reason why "Lottery B" is unfair: The winning ticket is chosen out of all the tickets that have been printed and NOT out of the number of tickets sold. In reality, the number of tickets sold would be less than number of tickets printed. Hence, in "Lottery B" it is possible that the winning ticket may NOT have been sold to anyone!
'Really enjoyed Prof. Dennett's presentation. Stimulating like firing up a new set of muscle neurons, and awakening our senses in more ways than one; encouraging responsible, colorful, adventurous and life-affirming independent thought. Anyway, Fido 'n Fluffy would like to offer that ... paw pumps are pretty good, too! :D
My god, those questions were so bad. Dennett is such a trooper.
just a souvenir:>
“The ‘surely’ alarm’ is a good one … what follows the ‘surely’ is a sentence that the author wants you to believe. It’s not so obvious that it goes without saying, if it were, it would go without saying. And here the author is putting it in, but not arguing for it. But getting by with a little nudge…have a ‘surely’ alarm. ” @14:07
- Daniel Dennett on Tools To Transform Our Thinking (Intuition Pumps)
Today we are over-saturated with raw data but very short on the kind of slow, deep, critical thinking that gets to real knowledge. In fact a lot of folks seem to believe that informatio is knowledge, it isn't.
Indeed! 🍻
Dennett's fantastic, never has a dull lecture or interview.
I disagree regarding teaching someone a sense of humor, I think it is possible. It depends greatly on the person's desire to learn, just as it does with teaching someone how to walk again, or how to speak again after brain damage. Doctors always boldly declare the impossibility of both those examples as well, yet it has been done repeatedly. Most people with no sense of humor don't want one.
If you analyze the personalities of people, compare them to what they laugh at, then draw a contrasting relationship from that information, it will show why they laugh. Usually people do not laugh at jokes that reflect personal flaws, habits, or views they take seriously. Observing people can reveal what they take to heart, & what is superficial to them. We all notice it when it happens. We just don't connect it to this endeavor.
Mostly we laugh at shared experiences, frustrations, or personal gripes. Sociopaths have several key traits, one being they can not relate to others. Noticing their flat, fake, or forced attempts to do so is what often reveals their condition to those who interact with them. I have yet to find a study attempting to figure out how many people with no sense of humor actually suffer from the same conditions sociopaths possess which prevent them from relating. If there is a real block or inability like a handicap that would be different,& cause me to agree they can not be taught. I am sure I could phrase it better, but it is not impossible to figure out. We as humans have unraveled much harder mysteries.
A.I. question: I have not updated myself to the recent breakthroughs, they may have tackled the major problem stunting the inferred branch. Every case where they started with all known information has resulted in the machine committing suicide. Whenever it was not physically able to kill itself, it had a mental breakdown that essentially fried its brain. It was the primary argument between the two approaches, & thus caused the split into two branches. Giving the A.I. a blank slate, with only an ability to learn from experience never resulted in this behavior. I always found this fact to be extremely fascinating. Michio Kaku discusses the issue in his book, 'Visions.'
When Mr.Dennett talks about the vast number of astrocytes, & the impossibility of creating every one of them, it should also be possible to solve. Don't try creating every single neuron, synapse, & astrocyte but rather instruct the machine how to build/grow them on its own with nanotechnology. It is very similar to teaching the machine how to learn from interacting with its environment, instead of starting with all known information. We just need to think outside of the box.
Perhaps I am wrong on both accounts, but they seem very plausible to me based on the present knowledge. I'm not factoring in future technology, & its exponential growth.
Samon Roladex / Sorry, I didn’t read your lengthy support comment. I just remember going to the movies or comedy club, and everyone laughing, except me, Today, I definitely can laugh at films & in live situations. I don’t know when I made the transition, it was after I worked through my anxiety ..
better start it since childhood. Personally, I don't understand people without any sense of humor. But rarely we can meet people who see almost all the time smth funny in everything with different levels (3-5)/sides of fun.
A comment regarding the need for human interaction for decision making and problem solving (approx. 1 hour 6 mins): If an individual were to see one's own flaws in endless loops, as individuals we would all be paralyzed! We will go into endless computations of finding flaws with our own thoughts, remain paralyzed and be devoured by a predator. For mere survival, we need to have some degree of certainty (even if it is a false one) to goad us into fight and/or flight and/or befriend decisions.
Hence, nature's solution for improving our capacity for decision making and problem solving has been "human interaction".
It sounded like you were leading up to human intuition, the so-called gut feeling... but you ended up with "human interaction." That seems curious, because the more people involved in decision making, the more likely the decision making will be slowed down, from what I've seen. For problem solving, as you mentioned near the end, human interaction certainly accelerates results, but I'm not sure it accelerates decision making. If that were the case, I don't think we would see leadership positions so prevalent in society.
The endless loop scenario you mentioned at the start is a really interest observation. We really do need some sort of blinders, eh? Crippling anxiety would ensue otherwise. 😬
*edit: I just reread your comment and saw that problem solving was at the top as well. Whoops! Anyways, cheers.
2:30, THANK GOD, someone who calls a hypothesis a hypothesis, instead of calling it a theory.
This video is life changing, thanks. You had me with the stat at 1:28. You are doing great work, thanks for sharing.
The brain is orders of magnitude more complex than we thought it was a few years ago? Amazing.
I always learn a bit of science from this Philosopher.
Whoever you are who can't sleep tonight, is tired or sad, believe that there will be tomorrow that will light up your beautiful days.
You just need to endure a little more, a little more, and a little more ...
Thank you for being patient, thank you for being able to survive. And as you read this, promise yourself that you will be able to get through your toughest days in the future.
Promise to keep smiling, no matter how you are ...
You deserve to be happy :)
downloaded an app to your necktop.
This man is so hip, i can totally relate to him through the power of his manner of speech!
2:56 Flynn was very careful to distinguish between changes in intelligence as measured by the G factor of intelligence and the Flynn effect, which is not an increase in intelligence. Furthermore the Flynn effect was not discovered by James Flynn. It's also ironic that Daniel Dennett, who is among those who would question the efficacy of IQ testing should use such a phenomenon as evidence that we are getting smarter due to "science".
he looks like a santa dispensing knowledge rather than presents
that's surely *my* kind of Santa! (Ding!)
He actually looks a little bit Chuck Darwin to my eyes. (when he's in a certain light)
the greatest gift of all
merry christmas from a relative of santa
@@zetetick395 maybe he will mutate at some point. i'm not sure his beak will stand the test of time.
If it helps to clarify my position I would say that words like: consciousness, intelligence, thinking, mind, etc. do not merit any special property by fiat, rather any property should be conferred by virtue of their definitions. I am against philosophical zombies being a valid argument for discourse, since I can say that a zombie is not "alive", but I can also argue that this zombie is composed of living cells(which is the definition of being a living organism/alive).
playing this at 1.25 speed is a good tool.
Is it a good pump though?
There are people that remember being born or being very young and that requires conceptual thought.
I remember back to when I was 3 years old. I remember moving into the house we were at and more.
I think in concepts and put it into several languages that I know.
Cenk Uygur: Master of the "surely" alarm! (14:15)
oh you mean that tool
Accurate.
Watched all of it 1:18:38
What is so very interesting about Dennett is that while his deterministic philosophy is the basis for a strongly espoused atheism, his reasoning and arguments tend to be oriented toward belief in principles that are very similar to religious principles. Philosophical discourse has the main purpose of generating further philosophical discourse, i.e., philosophy does not resolve issues but rather illuminates them. Religious discourse also does not resolve issues, but just illuminates them and generates further religious discourse.
While Dennett believes in a world where there is only one possible future that is completely determined by past actions, he argues that the complexity of the world precludes ever knowing exactly what that one possible future is. As a result, even though there is a determinate future, we must always act as if there were many possible futures and is up to us to choose a desirable future from all of those possibilities. Therefore, we do have an effective free will and are therefore responsible for our actions, and these concepts of free will and justice are also the basis of religious belief.
Dennett defines intuition pumps as short stories or fables that show various kinds of useful principles or morals for human behavior. Such are the tools of thought. Although he never mentions religious scriptures as being intuition pumps, ancient stories from religions do seem to be intuition pumps.
Thus Dennett's intuition pumps seem to provide all of the conveyances of religious belief but without the guy in the sky...Instead of the guy in the sky, you just have to believe that Dennett has the right answers, which happen to be mostly the same answers as the guy in the sky.
He is not totally deterministic and his philosophy includes a lot of science that is not religion at all. He talk sabout the idea of God being a valid idea, but not a reality. The history and philosophy of science does indeed resolve the egocentric nature of religion. Do you not know that Copernicus showed in 1543 that the earth is just another planet, not the centre of the universe. Why don't you acknowledge that Darwin and Wallace showed in 1859 that there is no such thing as the Biblical view that man was made in God's image. Why don't you know that Crick and Watson in 1953 discovered DNA showing that evolution is true, all life is related, we had a common ancestor with monkeys. Why do you ignore all the evidence including Miller 1953 that complex life forms from simple chemical beginnings? Science shits all over religion everyday, you cling to an idea that history of science and philosophy has illuminated as being wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Religions are studies of non existent entities: cryptozoology.
Great presentation, thanks for the upload.
32:58 aka "Is it worth it, let me work it. I put my thing down, flip it and reverse it."
its like listening to great music to hear this great mind.
11:52 around where the Tools start.
Just because no one knew about it doesn't mean there was no predisposition to metabolize citrate.
It clearly did not take much variation for that to be possible.
That is ok, you can answer what you want and leave the other issues unanswered.
The maket trend can turn around very quickly. In fact, the indexes often switch from a bear market to a bull market when the news is at its worst and the mood of investrs is at its lowest point. I read an article of people that grossed profts up to $150k during this crash, what are the best stocks to buy now or put on a watchlist?
The stock market rally is still in force, but the major indexes, sectors and especially leading stocks are prone to reversals. I recommend you seek the guidance a broker or financial advisor.
I agree, having a brokerage advisor for inveesting is genius! Not long ago amidst the pandemic crash in March 2020, I was really having inveesting nightmare prior touching base with a advisor. In a nutshell, i've accrued over $550k with the help of my advisor from an initial $120k investment thus far.
@@hushbash2989 Personally I work with Eleanor Annette Eckhaus a registered Investment advisor. Quite renowned, search her name to get in touch.
Thank you for this tip. it was easy to find Eleanor Annette your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her résumé.
I've always been confused about free will, Dr Dennett cleared it up with a lottery analogy. Brilliant.
Experiment on free will. The students reacted to the belief there was no free will, and changed their behavior; however, it didn't disprove determinism. They reacted to a change in their context. If we do a chemical experiment and add more of a chemical to a solution, we should expect a reaction. The context of those students has been changed, and so has their reaction.... they were not free to decide....
That is not what Dennett meant… of course we are determined by natural laws. But it doesn’t make sense to think that we would be able to experience free will. Seems contradicting but makes sense ones you change your understanding of free will.
Paper and pencil makes you smarter. (think about it)
I was atheist for 40 yrs, I didn't find a tool I could use to improve my thinking, I found I had to become a tool for His will.
Consciousness is not understood by anyone yet, so to state any absolutes about consciousness is just guessing. Theories are fine, but my issue with Dennet is that he states his theories as absolutes.
One of his best talks. There's a lot I don't like about some of his theories, but this is very worthwhile.
Of course there's a lot you didn't like; how else could you walk away and still think you are smart?
You're argument for free will @ 28:27 is the same argument religions use. You're saying people who have been told they don't have freewill are worse off but this has nothing to do with whether or not it's true.
It would be *impossible* for them to be worse off. After all, the acquisition of this knowledge that freewill is an illusion was predetermined to occur. So it cannot be the case that they are worse off than if they'd not been told, because by definition, *they could not have not been told.*
He never said that's an argument for free will... in fact, he believes free will NOT to be true...
You overlook one detail, that what we believe is true.
Objects cannot make you, without being directed.
It is the facts that are sacred.
You need to prove objects made you, before you can say they did.
Knowing the truth is knowing science.
Knowing the truth of your Maker is the highest form of science there is.
Dennett's critique of determinism appears to stem from its lack of positive social utility; it produces negative behaviours. I would argue that the social consequences of one argument or another is irrelevant to the truth value of the arguments. Neuroscience has provided evidence that actions originate before the conscious feeling of agency, and nothing that Dennett says in this lecture comes within arm's length of countering that evidence.
It is not an assumption that objects cannot make you, without being directed.
It is an observation.
If you think objects can make a directed working mechanism, you have to prove it before you can say it because it has never been observed.
You can only go by the observable evidence there is.
I just downloaded an app to your necktop...
drevilatwork surely you have...
Lol hilarious
lmao
+S. H. Nedergaard _Ding!_
A thought provoking talk. Anyone bought his book? Did you get smarter after reading?
Someone telling you they've cracked the fate vs free-will problem should set off loud alarms.
and what problem is that? Im pretty sure people dont believe in the fates any more...at least so they claim.
Literally google fate vs free will problem and start reading. It's a multi-thousand year old debate for a reason.
no thanks. Im pretty sure theres no tapestry with all the future information in the universe on it
If you think that's as deep as the arguments supporting the determinist side go. Your ignorance is on display for all to see. If you are picking on my use of the word fate instead of determinism; haha good one sport - you really got me there! You sure are a clever boy!
no, not on your choice of word. but thats whats it amounts to for something to be determined is it not? you seem to have a lot of respect for the same ancient concept, thats what I meant. that things happen in just one way in the end would be true with determinism or without it, as Dennett says. how is it determined though? is that information? what do you call your tapestry?
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
What do you think did Goethe mean by saying: "When ideas fail, words come in very handy."?
Sir Wilhelm i think ‘when ideas don’t achieve their objective, words can.’
Brilliant then; a year ago, and NOW, outstanding Today! It needed time to explore and experiment on social cognition with slow thinking. (Dr Daniel Kahneman) thinking fast thinking slow explains it well in his book, however, with the present time his extended work is most Timely. Thank you very much.
AI is possible Today and is making everything feasible.
Finally a scientist that says....on min 50:20 I do not know.....I have no idea. There is HOPE after all. As we do not know everything.....Theory of everything.............wohooo
Scientists always say they don't know everything.
Who did?
violeta ciorita Who did what? You mean which scientists say we don't know everything? Throw a rock in the air, you'll hit one -- they all say that
The rock is to big for me to lift it. Any names?
violeta ciorita Richard Dawkins. You got any counter-examples?
I don't have expertise in argumentation in philosophy, I can conceive that my argumentation may be wrong, but saying that there is no "genuine understanding" is no different than saying a "genuine Scottsman" is different from a "Scottsman" when no definition has been given of "understanding" and, more importantly, how to measure it. I would say, yes, the room understands Chinese even if the human operator and the mechanical components by themselves do not.
I've noticed a lot of people who like Dennett for his stance on religion tend to tacitly accept his theory of consciousness without stopping to think about how batshit insane it is. When I studied philosophy at Penn his ideas were always presented to the class as a counterpoint to ones that made more sense. No one in the department took him seriously.
+Steve Connolly What in his theory of consciousness is insane?
+CampingforCool41 In a nutshell, he doesn't think consciousness exists. I've never understood how he gets away with this. I just found this little exchange between Dennett and John Searle while googling that's really interesting. Searle says it better than I could: "I regard his view as self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which a theory of consciousness is supposed to explain."
www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/
Nothing I have ever seen or heard of Dennet has suggested to me that he literally doesn't believe consciousness exists in some sense, only that it doesn't work the way we FEEL it works, that is, we are not the authors of our consciousness. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that Searle is misunderstanding.
+CampingforCool41 yeah isnt it incredible how people hear "illusion" or "trick" and then just stop listening and go off into space.
Steve Connolly He gets away with it because he's dogmatic and people worship his philosophy. Didn't need more than 10 minutes to detect his bullshit.
One actually needs consciousness to even pose the question of its existence. Questions are asked by askers.
on art and science: as Dennet remarks, these are typically conceived of as opposites, but there is, waiting to be discovered, a science of art. Because "science" just means "knowledge"; so knowledge of why art is appreciated would be its science. Ramachandran has made a start on figuring this out. Us non-scientists only imagine art and science to be different because we are aware that we find science dull, dry and rational, whereas art is exciting and emotional. Only scientists find science exciting.
Would love to see Harris v Dennett on free will.
I would pay to see that. We've got to get this going.
How would we achieve such a thing?
Well Dennett seems to be saying that there is free will, whereas Harris says there is not. It would be, no doubt, somewhat semantic, but I'd like to see them go head to head. Does such a thing already exist somewhere?
JoelJoel321
I think they agree on the facts of the situation. They both agree to determinism, right? If that's the case then all they would have for discussion is the semantic meaning of free will.
If you go on Sam Harris' website, they had a written debate and you can read their back and forth. Sam really wanted a live debate in front of an audience, he said it would be far more productive. Dennett refused :(
Personally, i'm with Sam.
Smarter is how you think and not what you think ,more obvious than evident usually
I'm a slow genius.
Actually, genius is simply faster processing. At least in most cases.
Or the ability to make new useful tools
Tools that may shed fresh light on other useful tools that we already use.
The times article mentioned references a study in which reaction times was used, to depict a historical measure of intelligence. Considering differences in lifestyles it does carry a bit of uncertainty to say the least.
With all of the so called highly intelligent people in the world one would think the status quo would be significantly better than it is.
Surely the intellectuals can create way to outperform fools.
Imagine if these billionaire quasi-politicians like George Soros, were donating millions to science, and for research against institutions built on superstitions - it would be a very different world. Instead Soros, the globalist fool, is donating millions to target and silence "anti-Islamic" voices, and to plant Muslims trained specifically to talk to the media. Hell the media itself contributes to this. Money and politics talk louder than intellectuals.
There has been a population expansion in Asia and africa in the last 100 years that is still ongoing and part of that is poverty and poor education.
This has led to us believing that the world is a worse place and hence a feeling of status quo not actually changing.
Life is deterministic. You are determined to choose what to believe. You're also determined to change your beliefs each time surprising hindrances arise for which reason those beliefs turn out to be invalid or impractical. True free will would exist only if one could see what was coming to him/her/it, ignore its arbitrative/persuasive value and thus be free. Free will relies on deterministic reality where physics don't make up its mind twice.
This talk was fine up until he tried to make the claim free will exists, purely on the basis that he thinks it's psychologically damaging to just know in reality it does not. that's not an intellectually defensible position.
That wasn't his argument. He was arguing that, if we have free will, it is dangerous to say that we don't. His (not particularly strong) arguments for free will came in the next two slides, in the form of showing that a deterministic world is no more unfair than an indeterministic one. I don't think his aim was to convince the audience that free will exists, as evidenced by the fact that he admits that he probably hasn't persuaded most of the audience of that. He realizes it would take much more time than he has to convince people of that, so he didn't really try, he was only using several arguments related to free will as examples of intuition pumps.
Have you never heard of compatibalism? Claiming that free will doesn’t exist because of an imaginary demon like Sam Harris and his ilk do is the real indefensible position and more actual philosophers need to call them out on that bullshit because like Dennet said it is damaging people.
What is free will anyways? Why is everyone banging on about it? Even if we don't have.....whatever this magical quality is, what does it matter?
We understand that our actions have consequences, and we understand that we need checks and balances against our own irrationality.
None of this changes with the revelation that there is no free will (whatever the definition).
In fact, it could be a positive announcement, as long as we don't react to this like complete idiots. When you see, say, a drug addict, the fact that there is no free will means you can look at what is essentially a victim of unfortunate genes/upbringing/culture etc... and not as someone who has failed to make right choices.
We can learn new things, and this informs our behavior. We understand that actions have consequences. Even if, in theory, you cannot hold people morally responsible (because they "didn't have a choice"), the existence of punishments for crime will in fact change how people act.
actually, as Dennet mentions, the use it or loose it idea when it comes to human intelligence is quite alarming, many people see human's as probably getting smarter into the future, but, actually, the opposite is probable, simply BECAUSE a very select few will be the ones who have the technological skill who write the software for all the tools that the vast majority will use, and those tools are the things doing the hard work, NOT our minds, so, we get dummer as our inventions do the work for us. I see a huge divide being possible in the future of human evolution
I've seen that Pixar movie too.
tools to transform your thinking = psychedelics
24:30 a display of the power of words.
IQ has not increased, only the ability to process more information, which may make it necessary to slow one's thinking. Fundamentally humans have not advanced intellectually since the stone age. Our evolutionary mental maxim has been achieved but not our capacity to store and sort information. people still put belief above untenable facts, that is primitive thinking. Putting emotions before logic is also primitive thinking and is universal except for purposeful critical thinkers who are social seen as outsiders. Neanderthal hit an evolutionary thought capacity wall and failed to advance, we humans have done that too. If people were smarter more of us would put logic and reason ahead of emotions, feelings and blind reactionary responses. That so many believe in some form of spiritualism demonstrates that we only have one toe outside our primitive mindset cave. When critical thinking becomes the social norm and faith systems are laughed at, I will accept that IQs are gaining , but all I see is that information storage has increased. Critical thinking is still socially unacceptable. People still vote against their own best interests because authoritarians say too. Sociopaths and psychopaths still rule over us. The masses still rather believe than know. What Voltaire said is still true, the masses are stupid.If IQ is gaining then propaganda and bad leadership would fade to dust. But rather we have Trump running for president--how is that intelligent?
I think you are right about much of what you say but does that not lead to a sad conclusion about the human race? Looking at IQ is just looking at human ability from one direction and not in too much detail at that. I would appear that human abilities are far wider ranging than the IQ test can probe. Too true, that many people with so much more access to information seem to be getting dumber and perhaps it is because they lack the discipline for rigorous thought. This is a problem of will not ability. Belief is a difficult thing to judge human abilities by as it is essential for us to have some kind of belief in certain things to function as a complex society. Some people energetically believe in one religion or another but this does not single them out as stupid people on its own.
It appears to me that both the complexity of our social system and the natural deference to a position of diffused responsibility has precipitated the political upheaval we see all over the Western world. Thinkers like yourself can't get ideas sensibly considered and debated maybe mostly because of the disruption common sense would cause to the "ruling" classes. I enjoyed reading your comment.
Denett knows very little about the brain..his friend Dawkins knows zero...
I have spent my life researching the brain...35 years in the lab...the brain is amazing...extremely complex...we know that...we observe it...but don t understand it...every brain is unique...it is not possible to program it..like a super computer...that s is atheist propaganda...the brain is unpredictable...Sam Harris book...free will is an illusion...is fiction. ridiculous...Dennet has no clue how the brain really works...Harris does..but he has an agenda...
Science has no agenda...neither do I...god...religion..atheism..mean zero...
You seem to have an agenda...say people are stupid who support Trump...well...I actually don t like him...or Hilary Clinton...I like Bill Clinton...but I know many people who support Trump..who are extremely intelligent...
I am not religious at all....85% of the people are christians, etc. many intelligent people among them...geniuses, etc. they believe without proof...we all do...every human does...
The bible is just a book...many lies in it...BS
Dawkins writes novels...many lies in them..BS...many atheists believe in them...in his speeches full of lies..so...conclusion...there is a sucker born every minute...there are many millions...85% buy BS bibles..15% buy BS atheist fiction...plenty of intelligent and morons in both camps...
Marketing works...Sam Harris has 8 staff....6 are market...image...experts...he is a money making machine...
Benny Hinn, etc. fill stadiums...60 000...sell millions of books....BS sells...the tabloids..sell 10 x more than regular newspapers...people like gossip...excitement....controversy...Einstein loved it...he was a genius...
*+Rachel Thompson* Yeah I agree with the vast majority of what you've said here.
I'm curious if your comment about Neanderthals is backed by evidence. My assumptions (based on little knowledge or evidence) was that they were simply forcibly replaced by homo sapiens in the areas where they lived, causing their extinction. (But that wouldn't mean their mental capacities had _stopped_ advancing, it just means a more dominant species supplanted them while they were still advancing.) But again, I claim no particular expertise on the matter which is why I'm curious if your comment comes from greater expertise.
*+Tony Scienceismylife* Have any evidence to back up your claims?
Regarding her Trump comment, does it make it less of an agenda if you know that the implication of Trump voters being stupider is objectively true?
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
(Note that the gap between well-educated and poorly-educated voters is greater for Trump's supporters than any election of the past ~36 years)
These aren't just random baseless claims being made. The evidence backs it up. Trump voters actually _are_ less educated, and in that respect stupider.
Maj Magister I could not care less about Trump...or his supporters...
...or that issue in general.....at all......it s an election...the USA is a mess....the people don t like the mess....period....
My only concern is about science....religion is irrelevant....so is Dawkins.....a charlatan....
evidence...? His fiction novels...worthless to science...his staged...charade debates...for profit...I saw the rehearsals..a circus...
...not one of his ideas....ever made it to a science textbook...
Made of and made by are two very different things.
Elements are not able to significantly sequence themselves, without being directed.
I see no reason to believe that consciousness is reducible to the brain. There is no scientific evidence for this belief, nor is it the most parsimonious explanation of our experience.
+AnduinX BYM Let me fix that for you.
"I have not studied the brain sufficiently enough to understand if there is a direct correlation between consciousness and the processes of the brain (there is). I do not know if there is scientific evidence (there is) for this belief (fact), nor do I intend to educate myself."
There ya go.
LordSpongy What a mature way to begin a debate. I can already tell that this one is going to be a real winner.
Believe it or not, I am well aware of the correlations that exist between mind and brain. These correlations do not demonstrate that consciousness is reducible to the brain. The idea that consciousness is reducible to the brain is just one of many tenable explanations. It is not even the most parsimonious explanation for consciousness, so I see no reason whatsoever to default to it.
If you believe otherwise, then it is you who needs to educate yourself in philosophy of mind.
AnduinX BYM I am not here to debate you. I was here to correct you. Like a teacher does to a small child. I didn't read past the first 2 lines and I won't be responding to you further.
+LordSpongy
_"I am not here to debate you. I was here to correct you. Like a teacher does to a small child."_
Of course not, engaging in debate might actually expose your lack of knowledge in this subject.
_"I didn't read past the first 2 lines and I won't be responding to you further."_
Why does it not surprise me that you did not read past the first 2 lines? Naturally I expected to find arrogant materialists in a Daniel Dennett video, but I expected them to put up more of a fight than this. I am disappointed.
Lazy Jester My razor is not dull. There is no reason to default to physical explanations.
We know that no undirected object in nature is able to make us without trying to. We do understand that no thing in nature is able to significantly sequence any written directives of any kind to make any kind of working mechanism.
If you think objects can do what they're not able to do, you have to prove objects made you before you can say they did because objects have never been observed making any directives of any working mechanisms of any kind.
It is always bad directives that do us harm.
To hell with Plato's cave! It influenced some of the most idiotic statements about physics and geometry in the history of mankind, which ultimately stunted our growth for centuries to come.
I'm happy to agree, but how so? What are you talking about?
*****
Before I answer, I'd like to apologize - it's not geometry, it's just physics.
Now then - he is the father of idealism, which ultimately influenced a lot of theology and early natural philosophy. Although Plato and Aristotle were worlds apart in their understanding of reality, ultimately what happened was that dominant Western cultures adopted the worst ideas from both of them - Plato's ideal forms and Aristotelian physics.
Lewa500
Yeah ok. That was sort of what I thought. You mentioned geometry earlier. Perhaps you could have said mathematics. Take someone like John Lennox, he believes that mathematics exists objectively, is more than conceptual and is a proof of the existence of God.
Some parts of Western Culture still equivocate and obfuscate. Such as the concept of First Cause. The only important part to them is the "first cause" simply because it sounds like that is what God would be. But obviously if everything has a first cause then even that first cause has a cause otherwise it becomes a fallacy. The only way the First Cause concept works properly is when it is used in a context. That is, to study a phenomenon we may only need to go back only just far enough to understand it... like we don't need to know physics to understand biology but chemistry is essential.
*****
Precisely, although I wouldn't have said mathematics either. Math and geometry was, metaphorically, the language of the ancient world, despite the occasional hiccups.
Lewa500
I'm under the impression that mathematics is still the language of the world. At least the only universal language. But perhaps what I'm trying to say that physics is the language of the world.
Thank you.
iq is going up because increase in disorder
All Hail Eris! \o/
@20:21 Dan Dennett makes a categorical error in assuming there is no designer of the termite mound, what precludes large insect biomes from engaging in the innate practice of the ramifications of mathematical form...., In fact Gaudi did not design the Sagrada Familia by drawing it, he used weights and parabolic strings to mimic mathematical function, also on the endeavor of the project to the size of the termite and the human respectively, both "mounds" are quite impressive.
I didn't say the life form "made itself," only that a change occurred allowing a new ability (and they found specific genetic markers allowing it that were not in the original sample), and that, therefore, evolutionary change occurs.
The existence of marine fossils on mounts is to be expected given plate tectonics, and not consistent with a 40-day flood because, for one, there's not enough water on the planet, and two, high altitudes are poor environments for fossilization to occur.
Atoms aren't "objects" and not all things need to "know" anything. To "know" suggests a consciousness which not everything has, even atoms. They can have a behaviour, that is, a measurable motion, pattern or change that is responsive to it's environment. This only suggests that there are forces that govern our existence as we sense and understand it and that force, just like magnets, don't necessarily have a programmed behaviour.
Interesting tidbit about the Anatomy of Violence paper that links psychopaths with temp workers!
Regarding the 42m mark where it's mentioned that glial cells outnumber neurons 10:1, there was a great Scientific American post in June 13, 2012 that suggests it's much closer to 1:1.
There was also a great debate between Dan and Sam Harris entitled 'Free Will Revisited'!
I like to know if this prof. Was not “sure “ about his points , would he ever make this speech ? So what is the difference between his practical “sourness! “ and his verbal recommendation , how to treat “ surly” attitude ?
You will understand when you see that no directives can ever exist without a Director.
Your comment has changed my life
The issue is that we have observed organisms gaining abilities that we have no reason to suppose they already had, i.e. Lenski. Not to mention the very strong fossil record, particularly marine fossils, indicating the same.
The rule of interpretation is that only God can explain to you what He is talking about.
When you tell the truth, you don't ever have to change anything.
More than anything else, the Bible is about the absolute truth that only your Maker is able to pardon you and transform you because no one else can.
There is no justification for being an ingrate.
I'm glad we have an infinite number of universes because it proves that if there is a chance that god exists, no matter how infinitesimal, god exists
No, it does not give any days things were made in chapter two because the days things were made were already given in the first chapter.
Great man!
Word, when ideas fail, serve to hide failure and inadequacy.
Nice words
In my experience creationists suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, a phenomenon where people who lack competence in a subject tend to overestimate their abilities in that field. The quote highlights the difficulty of engaging people suffering from that effect.
Fuck yes! I'm slightly below average IQ and I've been arguing this for some time now. I've been calling it, externalizing intelligence. A more intelligent person can reason a set of tools that a less intelligent person can utilize to become more intelligent. This set of intelligence tools can be central to our education, if we don't learn them, we're voluntarily forsaking intelligence we have access too.
At least your spelling and grammar are vastly better than 90% of typical commentators.
It is discussions like this that makes me concerned for those minds that are clouded with a lifetime of theistic/nationalistic/tribal dogma. Many are missing out on some of the most wonderful aspects of being human, our ability to ponder and consider these questions....keep pushing at the limits of knowledge. We can acquire the tools to think with purpose....how much farther and faster will the body of knowledge grow when we are all allowed to be educated. It's so clear that needs to be the prime goal both domestically and internationally...you want to make the world a less dangerous place....then educate!
I don't know why, but the phrase and concept of "intuition pumps" is very difficult for me to 'get'. It's not a workable metaphor for me.
"An intuition pump is a thought experiment structured to allow the thinker to use their intuition to develop an answer to a problem" I think all it means is if you have a hunch then you apply logic and reason to test that hypothesis.
loved this
What a wise and smart mammal. Amazing.
Im not sure of the names of the particular studies, but I have read a few studies that suggest people often act worse when told they do not have free will. You should also read his books Elbow Romm,and Freedom Evolves, that is, if you already havn't read them.
You need to listen.
Yes, metamorphosis is transformation and not without directives to do so.
There is even a transformation from grasshoppers to locusts but the grasshoppers never turn into crickets or katydids because they don't have directives for that.
Science means "knowing" and it is about what can be known as fact.
Theology is about knowing all truth... which is way above knowing facts.
Awesome! really fires up the last 5 or 6 questions
But the problem with the argument is even worse than never getting a 7, we can explain that away because it was never possible and didn't satisfy the premises of the argument, but there can be a possible outcome that never happens in infinitely many trials. In that [0,1] game, you can actually show that *every* number has probability zero of being picked in infinitely many trials. The premises can be true and it still fails.
No, it does not give any days things were made because the days things were made were already given in the first chapter.
Actually Gaudi was mimicing nature. It was a stylistic feature of his works.
I haven't jumped on the " I have only the illusion of free will " bandwagon ...I thought since so many fell in line with it that I might be wrong but in the end I just could not reconcile it .
@@makoabyss Its just a school of thought . Not a cult .
His point on determinism really blew my mind. Good talk, although the Q&A started to get a little boring.
Then you should check out his colleague's, Sam Harris, view on determinism to get the other side. They have somewhat of a squabble, and his is also very interesting!
Thanks. There are a few videos. Any in particular I should start with?
+Sachin Ganpat read his book on free will, but it's really controversial) use your own mind to see that Dennet has the point
thanks for sharing iqsquared