Big Thinkers - Daniel Dennett [Philosopher]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Big Thinkers is a former ZDTV (later TechTV) television program. It featured a half-hour interview with a "big thinker" in science, technology, and other fields. Interviews were filmed in a 16:9 format and intercut with public domain material from the Prelinger Archives. This archival footage (mostly film clips from the 1940's and 50's) was used to create visual metaphors highlighting the speaker's points.
This episode features Daniel Dennett. He is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.
(Text from Wikipedia)
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Big Thinkers - Alvin Toffler [Futurist]](/img/1.gif)
Philosophy is about the big picture, it doesn't judge or condemn, just plainly observing how things work together. The mind is just but one component of the universe and it likes to study itself. How odd is that? Guys like Daniel D. are a gift to humanity, he has reverence for life and it shows. I like that he doesn't preach and is so candid. Thanks for posting this!
No title is more befitting of Dennett than "big thinker."
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've 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 days in his memory 21:23
If this was the sort of thing that was the norm on television, instead of the countless "reality" shows that are on, people would be a lot wiser overall.
Right, that's what I admire about it. Sometimes documentaries or short programs like this one on intellectuals will only focus on their more austere qualities. That lessens the ability to relate to them which is a sad thing to do. One of my favorite parts of watching any interview with Carl Sagan or an episode of "Cosmos" is that he has such a pure smile on his face ninety percent of the time.
Bravo bravo bravo, standing ovation, brilliant lecture and an amazing video
This video is essentially a quick summary to Dennett's book Consciousness Explained. If you thought this video was interesting, I would recommend that you read the book.
I took a philosophy of mind course for my philosophy minor and Dennett's ideas really resonated with me too. For more of a biological approach, I'd read A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination by Gerald Edelman & Giulio Tolini, which gives a more biologically oriented approach based in neuroscience, which is a nice addition to the more theoretical, conceptual, approach of Dennett.
The meaning of life is:
1. survival...this is easy to achieve in our day and time so what's next?
2. achieving happiness (not a feeling a state of being)
I thought about this for 1 week straight and this was my final answer
Perhaps duty and responsibility as well
I'm one of the people that is ~1000% in agreement with his views. This speaks to me like no other philosophy. no sarcasm
Dude thanks for uploading this! I watched it back in the day when techTV was in it's prime. I miss it big time.
Dan has been extremely generous in allowing me to study for my doctorate for a year at his Tufts departent. Thanks Dan! On the philosophical issue, though, I still can't understand how he turns the material water into conscious wine. It doesn't make sense.
Thank you
Thanks for the upload. This is one of the best Dennett videos I've seen.
Well, that is not the point. I did not claim to be an important thinker. I only claim to be a good enough thinker to see that Dennett has not solved any problems. Most people would agree. It's just that some people like his opinions. I respect his communication skills greatly, but let's not confuse articulateness with philosophical competence. He has not made progress on any important issue, just added more footnotes to Plato and made a lot of noise about it.
I was just watching a documentary about creationists and now I see this. My God, the difference...
It's wild isn't it? Growing up and being taught creationism, I find this quite stimulating. I feel like knowing both is healthy for being balanced
"Philosophy (at 15:30) is what you do when you aren't sure what the right questions are yet". Okay - here are two questions. 1) Professor Dennett, what is it you think you are doing when you tell us that nobody is really doing anything? 2) If Plato saw the problem alluded to in "1", and posited the Form of the Good as the solution, why do you think Plato was so much less smart than you?
"It's just not there"--a summary of the content of this video
Great show, loved it!!
Im just coming across him now. Who else could you recommend? Anyone...older or even really new, young, sort of unknown?
He obviously is interested in understanding the bigger picture not just isolated phenomena - see the connections and how everything fits together. Even consciousness is subjected to the laws of evolution. Ideas like souls are just concepts we use to provide a framework to explain things like what it means to be a sentient being. This kind of reasoning is endless and just leads to further inquiry about what we mean when we talk. Daniel is brilliant and very articulated. It all makes sense to me.
hi! I don't really understand your comment- you conclude that if there is no meaning, there's no point in looking and yet you acknowledge that you are lucky to be here. Doesn't an appreciation of your existence demonstrate meaning in itself?
The dislikes are people who cannot get over the idea of someone running the "software" in their brains.
Dennet doesn't argue that there is no such thing as consciousness. HE just demystifies it and shows how it derives from physical processes. Surely you don't deny your consciousness? And the legitimate distinction made when some says "he fell unconscious" and "he regained consciousness"?
I'd like to listen to the guy, but the background music is so loud and obnoxious I won't.
THERE ISN'T A QUESTION TO ANSWER, JUST BE HAPPY AND THE GOOD LIFE WILL ALWAYS SHINE THROUGH.
Perhaps you could describe what a ghost is first as this where most people would disagree. Energy is energy and certain patterns can still hold together before diffusing into their surroundings. Imagination is a much more likely plot. Our minds can and do play tricks on us. You have to understand the whole chemistry and physics of it before you can even start to explain what a ghost is.
There is no such thing as "consciousness" Dennet and Gilbert Ryle are two that summon some of the best evidence for why this is so.
they should change the Title to Small thinker
Well, I believe muzikjay put it well in his reply to your first comment. People feel the urge to make sense of things, and philosophizing, for some, scratches that itch. We all philosophize to some degree.
That distinction comes from a category error, the category error that there is such a thing as consciousness. The processes occuring physically and neurally are more broad and complicated than a distinction of "gaining or losing" something when we fall asleep or are severely concussed. As Dennett says in this very video, we don't need to explain what isn't there. Therefore, I don't need to deny what is not there. I affirm what is there and it has not to do with this concept of consciousness.
Daniel Dennet is very modest and humble.
Also to add to berating Dennett's Philosophy, his philosophy is that of the 'semantics error of time' as I call it, and Dennett does it very well, a argument that must be heard but in the end religion or intelligent design remains ahead of the human mind and is still the 'I told you so'
What about these questions:
"What is consciousness?"
"Do we have a soul?"
"What is the nature of the mind?"
Seems like he answered all of those to me. Just because his answers seem straight forward to you doesn't make them worthless.
Very nicely done.
Always shots fired with Dennet lol freaking love it
Maybe I'm missing something but what is wrong with "I think therefore I am" in the ontological sense? I realize Dennett argues that there is not discrete or centralized "I" but our ability to think does seem to affirm our existence.
The background music is so loud, who would wan to list to this?
Why is (part of) Dennett "amazed" (a euphemism, I presume) at what he calls the hubris displayed by some people (19:41)? If nightingales and poems about nightingales can be explained by algorithmic processes, why does he take exception to attitudes to poems about nightingales, which in the scenario he proposes would be generated by algorithmic processes too?
Nice editing job, whoever did it :)
What a cool guy
AMEN, WHY Cant people understand that its so simply
Universal Consciousness
Does anyone know if Daniel Dennett has a stated definition of consciousness?
I could never understand how he makes the enormous leap from "consciousness is limited and often confused" to "there is no consciousness". There is no evident logical connection between the two.
It could mean that since "consciousness is limited and often confused" that the consciousness is deemed inaccurate or unreliable. With that label on it, I believe it's easy to also label that this inaccuracy allows one to question the legitimacy of consciousness as a whole.
@@biggy20dood So we should only entertain things that are predictable and facilitate the scientific method?
What use is philosophy?
Deep inside me i know he must be right that there is actually nothing to explain about consciousness. But still i can't get rid of the urge to insist that "qualia" is irreducible, like Searl said. Do you have an explanation? (not a challenge, but really a question)
This guy is one of the four horsemen
@outsidemendham Could you give an example?
Who do you turn to for information on consciousness? Who has the "answers?"
And...how do you know ...?
shame, I was already aware of most things he says which I do agree too. But I lack extremely in remembering visual stuff. Not cuz of his trick, I can barely visualize an image let alone keeping it visualized.
@circusOFprecision That is weird, because you just framed the basic functionalists' perspective, and then said that you don't get it. Why must there be something inherently intelligent about the universe, and how does that follow from the fact that your appliances are input/output? We have, (by we I mean humans), a frame of reference for how appliances work, not universes! Your comment seems a little confused to me, but I assume that there is simply a missing premise.
What use is living?
Heheh! Love it! Are you that guy from the Royle Family by any chance?
Left and right side of the road driving.....is it really evolution or the other? What other possibilities can we examine?
@outsidemendham I agree, it would be nice if he had presented it slightly less surely. Though it's only a must to be humble about truth and evidence it if you try to impose it on others. (especially on the pain of death). - Sometimes, to be able to indulge yourself in your work 100%, you need to have a conviction that you're right. - However I think Dennett is the first to change his stands and opinions when presented with new evidence or hitting a dead end wall in his work. :)
To be honest I don't know much about actual delivery of philosophy, I just know the arguments they propose. Searle and Dreyfus are the biggest challengers of strong AI and their arguments have been proven correct over and over again, while at first they were ridiculed by the AI community. Today Dreyfus is known to be right which is why people like Kurzweil are making the same mistake AI folks did in the 60s.
Was that K9?
I couldn't agree more with dennet
@listen2meokidoki BTW: If you are just being cheaky, I apologize. Your message is kind of hard to read. You could be being a smartass, or you could be genuinely complementing me, or you could be being a smartass while genuinely complementing me... I can't really tell.
I think the best part is watching a philosopher pelt his wife with snow. It lessens the intimidation you feel when reading the words from someone much wiser than you if you know that they enjoy activities that are childish in nature.
He examines a number of different definitions in his book Consciousness Explained.
What problem(s) have you solved?
He's a human with the basic human elements of necessity for happiness. He's just chosen to pursue a life of rigorous study.
13:10 is that K9 of Doctor Who?! O.o
great vid
Worry of only thyself...every being has its morals.
Happiness is not a goal to many people? Well, I haven't met a single person who doesn't pursue it (to be fair I'm only 17 so I haven't eperienced much). Some poeple just don' know how to pursue it, for example, someone who believes money is everything living a life as a criminal. Such a life doesn't seem appealing for many reasons, sacrificing so much for pleasure, not worth it. To thorougly define happiness it would probably take a lengthy essay.
And you are also misrepresenting Dennett btw. He is a reductionist in the positive sense, to be sure, but you can't be a reductionist without first acknowledging that there is something to reduce. In Dennett's case he's written whole books forwarding tentative hypotheses about how human first person experience is produced. What he is denying is that there is elemental "consciousness stuff"/ "qualia stuff" or souls out in the universe, but that's not the same thing as denying consciousness itself
Amazing, a guy like Daniel Dennett doesnt even comprehend what an observer really is. Sometimes smart people are the dumbest.
What you say has no weight behind it, until then you are not saying anything important that can contribute to any conversation
"Yes we have a soul but it's made out of lots of tiny robots" #mustsee
That sounds exactly like the same thing as denying consciousness itself. I dont feel Ive misrepresented. In addition, being a reductionist as well as a realist or an "eliminative materialist" ( the churchlands' fancy way of saying reductionist realist) would set one, dennett or otherwise, on the right path to explaining these things by virtue of what is there. That "something" that they reduce would then come from real scientific understanding instead of tentative hypotheses.
Specific categories might also suffice, but I don't dwell myself on whom might be the most intelligent Atheist, Creationist, etc. People are products of their culture and how they've been raised, it seems statistical that a minority rejects belief.
Many are clever in their expertise. I chose Stephen Fry because he permeates many categories, and his knowledge is broad because of his interests. He's no Newton or Bach, but they too, are limited to their professions. Info increase is also a factor.
This is interesting because you're giving more interest than usual to these minor details, while asserting that the supernatural should be fact (curious to know why).
As much as I've gathered, atoms were material very shortly before the formation of elements. You are free to disagree and share your own findings in repeatable evidence to correct scientific discoveries. /watch?v=vAF0eSvz7dc
If intelligence is information collecting, perhaps we can speak presently (not all time) about Stephen Fry.
I'm a Philosopher and I regard Daniel Dennett's philosophy as just dogma, stemming from his hate for God, just hate and rejection and lack of understanding. Just an stubborn person, and now a stubborn old man.
What a wonderful video! "A lucky star" cannot do for me - not satisfactory. Although right now I am not religious, I think we can take the best example from Christianity or any source with a similar advice. Feel thankful? Do something , make someone or something better and happier. That would do :) Doing good feels good and that all continues the cycle of awesomeness :)
Sky Adriana jkkkl
@listen2meokidoki Are you suggesting that, because I'm talking about the details and consequences of functionalism, I think that functionalism is the "answer to everything?" What does that even mean? I would never begin an argument with X is the answer to everything. Now, say something that isn't utter nonsense.
@chedillychedilly1
Functionalism assumes emergence, that intelligence literally springs forth from nothing (there was no intelligence before the threshold was met, now there is) at a certain point of complexity. No one has ever define that point or threshold. I'm saying that threshold doesn't exist. I'm saying that the universe is intelligence in action. My view doesn't require miracles, it simply requires recognition.
Yeah Mock Me - Socrates was a bum - So I'm in good company - as for yourself you fancy you are someone - So tell me Mr R - and - Answer me a question - "What Use is Philosophy?" Then maybe I'll consider what you say more deeply.
The sad thing is that he is probably right.
I still disagree with his complete rejection of qualia. Though I understand his views and justification.
Harbinger cool
is there scientific proof to what you say?
there are differences between groups of people. Not exactly what the -caste- system implicates but akin to that system
I think he is wrong: Basing his entire take on present physical evidence. Even now science/physics shows that causality is not the basis of reality and that of experiential perception. This means that our perceived evidence for consciousness is not necessarily the process but a by product of something that according to him does not exist...... Ha.
@listen2meokidoki compared to which countries far superior system development* :)
You seem to be employing a very strange definition of "consciousness". Most people, including Dennett, use the word to refer to the phenomenon of having a first person experience. To suggest that it isn't there is interpreted by most people as you denying that you have a first person viewpoint.
The mere fact that you can reduce it to atoms is no reason to reject the concept any more than it is a reason to reject cars and tables.
@circusOFprecision He explains what it is not. If he could explain what it is then we would be a lot farther in neuroscience.
This man, Daniel Dennet, is not a philosopher. He associates science with philosophy, and thus counters every lie he exclaims as philosophy...
"One of my favourite artefacts is the British seagull outboard motor. Which is dead simple, And their moto is, What isn't there can't break! Much the same could be said about consciousness"
I would like a better explanation of this. "It's just not there" doesn't cut it for me.
Video just moves on after that like fact.
I dont understand it, can you explain it?
@@kilimli8824 The moto in the quote i posted, yes.
The video as a whole, no.
8 )
@chedillychedilly1
All the appliances in my house are input/output, in fact input/output is the name of the game of the flow of energy. So no, I still don't get the functionalist perspective. There must be something inherently intelligent about the universe itself which we don't fully understand yet.
I am not going to debate you as you haven't done your homework. Have a great day!
why would jesus love satan so much to keep him alive
scarlett the devil has no death or life I think God Jesus the holy spirit and Satan are immortal but God is like a modder who makes the game fun Jesus is someone who uses GoDS mods and tells everyone about the modder and the holy spirit is like an overpowered item
The holy spirit can be seen as energy. Kind of like a wire. It cant funtion without energy. The holy spirit is our highest source of energy. And we can learn to speak with god through the spirit.
entertainment
sounds like david hume to me
Trying to explain away ghosts like dennett trys to explains away consciousness.
there is an application technology called the brain that you could experiment with
الفلسفة حكمة الأغبياء ، ما أجمل حكمة الله في كتاب الله العزيز الحكيم .لا اله الا الله .
If there's no soul then explain ghosts!
bottom line our soul uses the body to move around in this world no soul body is dead.n dies dicomposes. simple