Philosophy Overdose
An interesting interview with Daniel Dennett discussing various philosophical issues having to do with mind and meaning. Some of the topics discussed include consciousness, science, materialism, computation, meaning/purpose in biology, emergence & reductionism, the intentional stance, evolution, philosophical zombies, the self, and free will…
This interview was given by Robert Pollie from a podcast called the 7th Avenue Project. For more information, go to www.7thavenueproject.com.
Source
This should be good.
Great interview. Many thanks. Agreed on many accounts.
interesting interview, thanks for sharing it.
Fantastic interview. Super sharp. And, apparently, unedited. I've shared this everywhere I can share it.
Daniel Dennett and Robert Pollie are engaged in a wonderful dialectic here. On Dennett's side of the dialectic he plays the role more of the authority about Charles Darwin, while Pollie's strait-man role has more authority on Dennett than Dennett was aware. Pollie plays well his knowledge of the interviewee, and I can see a definite hope in Pollie to make Dennett greater than Darwin himself. But Dennett sides more with Darwin than even himself since Darwin is the original de-mystifier. Darwin's contributions to science extend further than Dennett's, Dennett suggests. Yet, Pollie I think does not want to be himself de-mystified to the authority of Dennett in his own contributions to science and thought so he avoids talking as much about Darwin, the more important figure as suggested by Dennett. I find one important hope that Dennett and Pollie both share is that science is an authority that can bring beauty into this harsh world. It is important to see Darwin as Dennet's greater influence. His contributions were to make the harsh world a happier place for us all too, but Dennett knows this I think a little better than Pollie. Both Pollie and Dennett are aware of a definite extension of de-mystification in the world of ours by science and philosophy. I also think that Dennett's English-teaching Mother was a big help to his own command of English because in this interview Dennett explains very clearly his ideas.
This guy is literally stupid.
Science wouldn't be what it is without philosophy. Empiricism, which science is based on wouldn't exist without the myriad of philosophers of epistemology that have existed throughout history.
What Dan says about free will is really what I feel about it, as well. I think the issue he is speaking about has caused a schizm between Dan and Sam Harris.
You are not just the billiard ball.
What is the billiard ball without the table to bounce off of, and the other balls to interact with? It has no meaning on it's own. In a relativistic sense, it has no vector or velocity, unless there is some other frame of reference.
This is what Dan meant when he said that the idea of the "self" is a simplification. Because the self is a combination of your corporeal body interacting with inputs and outputs; with external influence.
So the external world is also a part of the self. It is NOT a closed system. Your "self" can not be solipsist, it does not exist without that I/O.
I'm not sure how Dennett sees it, but I define the "soul" as the interaction of the entirety of the universe within the light cone of my past and present existence; Whatever interactions have influenced my state of existence, as it is now, and whatever this state of existence will effect until the universe dies of heat death. Yes, in this definition you are part of my soul.
Your free will is simply the algorithm of those inputs and outputs. It is you who made those choices, you decided based on the mechanics of the universe that created you and brought you to the moment of choice, and you also are that universe.
Compatibilism is simple and obvious. But maybe too obvious for some who are attached to notions of duality.
But I'm just some artist, working on a painting while listening to you guys. What do I know?
GREAT interview by the way.
Thanks for this!
Ask this Intellectual Moron what he thinks of the placebo.
THERE IS NO FREE WILL, BUT FREE WILL IS NOT THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES OF COURSE WE CAN DO THAT. FREE WILL IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES WITH NO INFLUENCES FORCING YOUR HAND. EVERY CHOICE WE MAKE IS DETERMINISTIC WE ARE PUSHED BY BILLIONS OF DETAILS OF REALITY AND OUTSIDE FORCES TO MAKING OUR CHOICES
Free will is an illusion. It (and consiousness, of which it is a part) is simply the brain responding to it's own activity – just like a moth responds to a light source. It evolved for the reason that it helped our anscestors to make more human beings carrying their DNA. The interviewer asks why, if there is no free will, can't people "…do whatever they please without responsibility…" . The answer is that , if we do not take account of other people's desires, they will respond to us. And we might not like their response. And it might mean that we don't live long enough, or find a mate with whom, to reproduce. We could say that we are aware that free will is an illusion and so stop taking account of our own, or other people's wants on the basis that it is all pre-determined. But that might just mean that free will and consciouness turns out to be a lethal mutation.
It's interesting how he talks about the way we use the word "determined" as a compliment about a persons personality. I think a maybe more interesting word is "deliberate" and it's variants like deliberation. Because it is precisely the process of deliberation, that is the considering of different options and their probable consequences, that liberates us from the sort of abject determinism of non sentient entities. It's what gives us whatever degree of freedom that we might have. I think of it as "proximal free will" That is, I don't think that there is any way to deny that the ultimate causes of any and all of our actions stretch far beyond ourselves. Yet, there is also no denying that the proximal cause of any decision we make is some faculty within ourselves, and there is a social and psychological imperative for us to take responsibility for that.
A brilliant interview thanks to the sharp questions presented by the interviewer. I listened to many discussions with D. Dennett but this is truly one of the best where he gives very skillful answers to very precise questions.
Fantastic interviewer! Well informed & insightful questions to get to interesting answers.
What is the book they are refering to?
what book is he talking about
Is Dennett saying something similar to John Searle, that consciousness is to brains as digestion is to the GI tract?
Or they make pseudo non factual vagaries like "Well being" as a philosophy…SAM DUH HARRIS.