Thursday, March 5, 2026
Latest:
Videos

Big Thinkers – Daniel Dennett [Philosopher]

Artis Modus



Pete Machnik

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)

Source

Similar Posts

36 thoughts on “Big Thinkers – Daniel Dennett [Philosopher]”

  2. Good video, nicely produced, and I liked the music – mentally stimulating, and the video clips historically interesting. Some of the clips were utterly distracting (but entertaining!) like the insane guy shredding the couch with a knife and the family 'ducking-and-covering' from the nuclear blast. Thanks for posting, it is inspiring. Now let me watch the video, ignore the distracting video clips, and do some original thinking…! (and thanks in advance to YouTube for not having a restrictive limit on comment length any longer – otherwise I'd have to chop this up into many comments to get around that, like in the old days…!).
    On Science vs. Speculation
    I'm glad he said "science" when he referred to referring to know how the mind works – because how far can speculation take you? That said, there is value in innovative, impartial, and unbiased observation, which, in natural philosophy, many such notions evolved into specific branches of science… and that said, his interest on how the mind work is not a philosophical endeavor any longer, it is a scientific one (which he indirectly states).
    On Science and Philosophy
    What Mr. Dennett illustrates is that, not only does philosophy affect and guide science, but science affects philosophy – philosophy now has to keep up with science as we gradually let go of religions, which are all make-believe, and cannot serve us any longer in that capacity.
    On Former Philosophers and Religion
    Most of what former philosophers proposed has fallen by the wayside, for they have not kept pace with new discoveries. This goes for religions, too (which are all make-believe, rendering them less and less relevant – and you cannot argue religion – since they are make-believe, you can make it anything you want).
    On Science and Love, Creativity, and Ethics
    He missed here – science must study love and creativity – we can't continue to exist with our heads in the sand (and who said knowledge cannot be romantic?). It definitely must address ethics.
    On Talking
    I pity Mr. Dennett for having to 'talk', for that mode of communication cannot transcend the primitive (it has its place in the physical world, but has very little, and very inefficient, application in the thinking world); and it takes a lot of effort away from thinking, which must pain any thinker – a philosopher is someone who likes to hear himself think, not talk; once you begin speaking, you are communicating with a handicap to the handicapped. Audiobooks are the only exception, for they are based on writing, and I would much rather listen to an audio rendition of his writing – forget about those who rely on tongue-wagging – they are no more capable of thinking than animals and insects (I'm being extreme, but I'm making a point – talk is not for thinkers). I cannot discount the physical world, for that is where our minds (and thus their survival) reside (and it is where sex is – who can discount that?).
    On Perspective Shift
    We are in a post-religion drift, and we need one NOW! (I've already developed one, but who am I? Just some guy who likes, no, needs, no, is driven, to think). Such a 'perspective' will be an 'adequate philosophy' (and an adequate philosophy will keep pace with new discoveries).
    On Body and Mind
    He flip-flops on the 'mind' – first he denies it, putting too much emphasis on what the book "The Lives of Cells" presented, then he admits it exists (as a product of the mechanics of nature, where he is right, not only from the lack of evidence of a creator, but from what we've seen and discovered). To finish it, we are more than a collection of cells – as exemplified by cells themselves – when they do come together, they begin to perform new functions as a whole (example, all the cells in a brain now perform a higher function – which answers his quest for how the brain works); and it seems to be a law of nature – and it is all explained by chaos and probability – the probable interactions of attractive/repelling forces of matter. It is why we 'eat' and why we developed membranes – to increase the probability of the required interactions by our components to continue living. Lessen that probability, and your components (and you) starve.
    On the Mind
    He states that the mind is just a mechanical device, but it is not – it is life, which is very, very different (as different as chaos and order)..
    On God 'Making' Us
    Funny how we assume some 'larger being' made us, when in fact it could very well be innumerate smaller cooperative entities (meaning molecules and cells); and let's not forget the possibility (among an infinite number) of 'beings' that are so small and fleeting that their universes are within our atoms and whose universes exist for only a nanosecond, and yet have reached such a level of enlightenment and technology that they play critical roles in the existence of that atom (just taking physics to its extreme).
    On the 'Soul' and 'Afterlife'
    They are make-believe, though they are nice notions. When I die, I'm going to say, "Goodbye, I am off to play among the stars now," just to keep the intriguing notion of 'afterlife' alive. What I would then be is the 'soul', which we may modify while we are alive. Fanciful notions, however. I'll put my faith in evolution – where an advanced being 'recreates' us – if we are worthy – which also has a practical effect on morality. Stalin? Scratched from the list!
    On Consciousness
    More and more our biological senses are becoming relatively less and less (compared to our technological sensory extensions). Same goes for our biological speed and strength. The Martians in the 'War of the Worlds' had it right in that respect, for example.
    On Robots vs. Life
    He missed here – life operates on chaos (which answers his still-unanswered question of who we are and how we got here) – that mechanical dog doesn't. We are products of chaos, the mechanical dog is a product of order. This also holds true for active molecules vs. the 'tiny robots' alluded to. So he claims that understanding mechanical devices will give us insight into how the brain works (which means 'life'), and that is not the case.
    On Advanced Artificial Intelligence
    For it to work, it needs an adequate philosophy – meaning defined goals, which in turn define good and evil, which in turn guide its actions.
    On Algorithms
    Saying 'algorithms require no intelligence to operate machines' is a silly and out-of-context view. You cannot separate the algorithm from its benefactor – it is but an extension. True, if you encounter a machine and the benefactor is not around, then yes, it is an independent entity, though it is serving no purpose, having lost its benefactor, in which case you can make it an extension of yourself.
    On Philosophers and the Real World
    He says that philosophers do not put their thoughts to the test in the real world. This may be true for academic philosophers, but philosophical thought must be tested in the real world – for that is precisely where it must end up (at least and adequate one).
    On Philosophy and Abstraction
    He says "Philosophy is a very abstract profession and we tend to live in a rarefied atmosphere." and this is true, and a sad statement on where philosophy has been (and where it is going, meaning 'nowhere'; and if anywhere, into the realms of ridicule, disdain, and irrelevance).
    On Morality
    He is vague on morality. Good and evil are goal-driven, and it is within the realm of philosophy to recognize ultimate goals, such as overcoming death and ignorance, or becoming 'ultimate beings' (taking evolution to its ultimate conclusion) that can withstand everything the universe can throw at us (which necessitates valuing diversity – since we do not know which being (read ‘natural trial-and-error will succeed – man may be an error after all) and contacting other life to accelerate our goals (no matter what quantum size or quantum distance it is relative to us). So to his statement, "We have nobody to thank for life" may be a premature statement…!
    On The Ultimate Question of Life
    He missed there, too – the main question of philosophy is not "What is the meaning of life?" given that life grows and operates on chaos and probability; the main (ultimate) question has become, "Why Bother?" (which includes pursuing the answer to "What is the meaning of life"!). This quest may develop into a science, but right now science does not (and cannot) address it. Go ahead and apply for a scientific grant and see if you get it. A philosophical grant? Maybe…

  5. 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.

  6. Just a neuron making its job, common that's the most intelligent system , each cell is amazing and how the whole system works in harmony is even more amazing. Life just happened and is going by itself like a machine. Finally the life is solved.

  8. A leibnizian semiotic of biology

    One of the current problems of modern biosemiotics is how living entities deal with codes. For example:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365164
    “ Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science. The main reason for this is that modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level, and that the genetic code was not followed by any other organic code for almost four billion years, which implies that it was an utterly isolated exception in the history of life. These ideas have effectively ruled out the existence of semiosis in the organic world…..”
    So much for codes and signs as used in traditional semiotics. Recently we have begun to explore a new field which we call Leibniz semiotics in which monads and intendeds (mental objects) play the roles of codes. But at the same time Peirce's Categories provide the infrastructure. Monads are Leibniz's ingenious method of partitionng the material world, not by atoms or cells, but conceptually, in terms of groups of material which can be considered functioning wholes (whole concepts). For example, one whole might be a flock of sheep, in which individual sheep are nested and within each sheep would be nested its various organic parts which are nested conceptual wholes, typically as functioning wholes, such as liver, stomach and brain. Each of these material groups are then assigned mental correspondents called monads.
    In order to govern this hierarchy of monads, a single governor is needed, which is Plato's Mind, the One which governs the Many cybernetically. Thus the parts are controlled mentally, not physically. This turns the whole biological entity into something that can potentially be programmed on a computer or represented on a spreadsheet.
    As an example, let us consider perception in a sheep. The process of perception occurs, according to Leibniz, in two stages (perception and apperception), I have added a third semiotic stage (idea formation).  Each of these stages can be diagrammed with a semiotic triangle, with Mind playing the intermediary (active) role.  Hence the vital importance of Plato's Mind.
                                                                                                             Mind
    FIRSTNESS Stage I (perception):    input sensory nerve signal/________  unconscious mental experience in the sheep
                                                                                                                       Mind
    SECONDNESS Stage II (apperception):  unconscious mental experience/——-  conscious mental experience
                                                                                                                         Mind
    THIRDNESS Stage III (reapperception):      conscious mental experience/___ idea formation (whatever that is) im the sheep.
    —
    Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
    See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
    For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net

  9. Concious can't be explain, he is making assumptions based on his own brought up faith and understand of how he thinks utilizing his own brain to think about the function of brain which has concious present in it. How can an intelligent being creates it's own intelligence from nothing… creating a brain that reflect and analyze and make appoperiate decision will never be self made, from ignorance of existence can never bring intelligence that greater then it's being.. intelligence comes from a source that must be 1000 time greater then what it created… I don't want reply to any none sense comments…

  13. Come on Daniel, that is such one dimensional thinking. Yes we are that little man sitting at a console directing the the life. You must think outside the box. We humans are actually multi dimensional beings, who direct how this agreed upon venue is interpreted by our brains. Our brains are the intermediaries between who we are as the entity, and who we believe we are as a third dimensional being on earth.

  21. 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.

  25. "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.

  34. 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

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com