Videos

Daniel Dennett: “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds” | Talks at Google



UCbmNph6atAoGfqLoCL_duAg

How did we come to have minds?

For centuries, this question has intrigued psychologists, physicists, poets, and philosophers, who have wondered how the human mind developed its unrivaled ability to create, imagine, and explain. Disciples of Darwin have long aspired to explain how consciousness, language, and culture could have appeared through natural selection, blazing promising trails that tend, however, to end in confusion and controversy. Even though our understanding of the inner workings of proteins, neurons, and DNA is deeper than ever before, the matter of how our minds came to be has largely remained a mystery.

That is now changing, says Daniel C. Dennett. In From Bacteria to Bach and Back, his most comprehensive exploration of evolutionary thinking yet, he builds on ideas from computer science and biology to show how a comprehending mind could in fact have arisen from a mindless process of natural selection. Part philosophical whodunit, part bold scientific conjecture, this landmark work enlarges themes that have sustained Dennett’s legendary career at the forefront of philosophical thought.

More about the book: https://goo.gl/lHNgiP

Similar Posts

31 thoughts on “Daniel Dennett: “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds” | Talks at Google
  1. Wait…isn’t google anti science ? Isn’t this patriarchy on display ? Why couldn’t they find a female evolutionary theorist ? What does this mean ? Can google continue ? I feel oppressed by his competence. We need justice !

  2. Nobody outside your echochamber cares to smell your ideology. In a scientific lecture it's especially odius. You can refute assertions of others and capitalize whatever letters you choose at your dinner table.
    There are too few true scholars but many political scientists.
    Il delete this, if by the end of the video my opion changes

  3. D.D. said somewhere here that he did not know how music could be bad. Well this is just ridiculous! There are so many different kinds of music and just as many tastes. So what one person likes, another will say is bad. I know that personally, there are certain kinds of music that are really bad. I hate it. Other pieces are works which can uplift the listener, but there are others which just allow the hearer to wallow in depravity and drag people down.

  4. I was wondering when we would stop getting Dennett doing science and start getting Dennett doing meta analysis of science (philosophy according to Dennett, more or less). It's within the first four minutes (and I think that's more interesting than whether Creationists got Schooled….Religious Naturalist-Evolutionist here).

  5. " Then you had this amazing event, …" " it just happened to work…" " a chance event that happened…" " a tremendous creative burst.. " " that could be…" " a design process exploiting information in the environment to create…" " the brilliant designs of evolution…" " outstrips human design often by many degrees…" " it's design without an Intelligent Designer… " " that's Darwin's idea…"

    Stop it. I can't stop laughing. This guy is the best comedian ever! Thank You Google.

  6. So funny when he talks about how Picaso's genius was selling all his paintings that weren’t perfect. Then says to the Google audience "don’t you wish you could do that?".
    IDK if he new the irony in what he said?

  7. The problem with this talk is that Dennett makes proclamations and assertations as if they are fact but aren’t. He puts forth nothing except for theory but without supporting it. How is this man allowed to teach when he wildly postulates things that aren’t factually backed? The entire speech, in fact his entire career is a unsubstantiated. He is an outrageous fraud.

  8. What? Please tell me Dennett didn’t just postulate termites analogous to 86 billion brain neurons. What!? He claimed termites was “bottom up” because they build from the ground! No! They have absolute top down design mechanism. He literally doesn’t get past kindergarten thinking to say termites are bottom up because they start on the physical bottom. No! It’s supposed to be from an intelligence viewpoint that the collective termites are bottom up but he doesn’t show this! In fact he gives no evidence of this at all. He just wildly postulates it!! wow. This is absolute crude ignorance. He has no idea what that the termites don’t have an intelligence network. He doesn’t evidence it!!

  9. Dennett asks how the human brain can exhibit immense intelligence but the termite colony can’t. Why? I’ll tell you Dan. Because one ☝? is a human brain and the other (termite colony) isn’t a human brain! Is he really asking why termites can’t write poetry? Termites are neurons Dan. This correlation is wildly erroneous & ridiculous.

  10. It's not just theism that Hume makes war against but Causation / Induction (thus destroying science itself), Time, Location, Personal Identity (which can really amount to only mere sensations he said)…and so on. David Hume was a playful, clever, mischievous polemicist who indulged sheer reductionism his entire life. And I'm sure he could even "prove" he himself did not exist, as all good skeptics can.

  11. i like, really liked that, like, that one, like, questioner, like, kept saying, like, the very, like, word that dan, like, made a, like, point of, like, pointing out as, like, a viral, like, word

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com