Daniel Dennett: Philosophy, Robert Sapolsky, Human Clones, Free Will, Existence

48 thoughts on “Daniel Dennett: Philosophy, Robert Sapolsky, Human Clones, Free Will, Existence”

1. This podcast has been out for members already. To get access to podcasts a couple days ahead of time, support the channel, then "join"! – Curt

2. If something is possible, someone will do it; no matter what Dennett thinks.

3. Dennett , like most people, can’t see past his very large Ego.

4. I’ve wasted my time listening to Dennett.

5. It's amazing how mistaken Dennett is, and how many assumptions he makes. Food is not teleological. He is assuming a purpose for food based on the values that occur within the subject that makes utility of the food. He presupposes instrumentalism. He presupposes pragmatism. He presents himself here as a notably uncautious and dismissive person, and I don't see how he is respected as a philosopher based on his representation of his thinking here.

6. We act because we a condemned to be(lieve) we are free to do otherwise. It's the placebo that loses no efficacy in the knowledge it is just that.

7. How is Sapolsky's assertion not more dangerous than Social Darwism has proved to be? This can be used for great evil.

8. ❤

9. Anyone for whom Dennett's explanations of phenomena such as consciousness remove the magic from them is exactly the kind of "superficially deep but shallow deep down" thing that Dennett discusses.

10. Love that Dennett's advice for other philosophers is to be very serious about science and to learn it. The kind of science-less academic philosophy that he describes as being interesting only to other academic philosophers is indeed vacuous theory which is in fact the source of most the criticisms against philosophy as a discipline.

    Philosophy is much more than the papers philosophers produce as cogs in the university system.

11. “A philosopher who is afraid of looking foolish is gonna have a pretty uneventful life.” Daniel Dennett

12. I remember learning about philosophical zombies as university, and thinking the idea wasn't very illuminating or helpful.

13. Qualia is defined by Wikipedia as "instances of subjective, conscious experience". Now the fact that people see/hear/touch the same objects of the world differently, or that they interpret those differently, doesn't mean that the subjective conscious experience doesn't exist!

14. “If they were as complicated as you and I, they would be conscious!”.

    What? No, they would be a simulation of consciousness? How does he not understand this distinction?

15. free will is just a poorly thought out idea that never even got scientifically proven. it doesn't even matter if we have a "soul" or not. all we know about is cause and effect, we aren't even able to comprehend anything else than that, so the idea of free will doesn't even make any logical sense. people who believe in free will doesn't even know what this so called free will is supposed to be. yes, we do have a will, obviously, but to believe that there is some kind of freedom involved is simply irrational. and no, you dont need to believe in free will to take responsibility. the will to take responsibility is just another naturally occurring event that is statistically likely to happen in varying degrees due to the way our brain is structured to behave

16. On free will, Dennett's distinction relies on a point of view switch. According to Dennett, taking the objective point of view seems to be a mistake in judging whether free will exists. The thought experiment for judging the existence of free will should not be resetting the world to have EXACTLY the same physical arrangement and then asking if a person can decide otherwise. It's kind of analogous to Chalmer's philosophical zombie. Just because we can clearly state a thought experiment in language, doesn't mean that we should make ontological conclusions based on such experiments. Particularly with concepts like free will and subjectivity, where the concepts are filled with ideas like intentionality and reasons, which are unclear at the outset. I'm surprised that people in this discussion are so dismissive of Dennett, when there are so many unclear aspects to the discussion. I guess people often just want to settle with a belief and move on.

17. What Dennett calls 'control' is not more than an illusion.

18. "I have a tiny soul made of robots made of robots, and somehow all those robots consist of me (which is also a robot) but once we get up to MY level of complexity, oh well that's where I'm special! You see I have free will!" How does that make any sense? Only Philosopher that has left me daft after reading / listening to him 🙂

19. This was a great guest Curt!

20. 24:54 Daniel's point here strikes me as a 'reverse baby and bathwater' situation : with LLMs or 'counterfeit' people, we are far too likely to see the bathwater and just assume the baby is in there too (or by assume, I would mean a more active attribution of the baby – we're giving it to them willingly).

21. It is correct that free will does exist with in , but at the same time it’s only illusionary , and at the same time free will doesn’t even exist , just like self doesn’t really exist !

22. Evolution does not explain consciousness, therefore it is BS

23. You can only go so far from the path of theory. Experience is what is missing with this old gentleman. -thank you Curt for the amazing channel

24. I wonder why Curt Jaimungal mirror-imaged the video. Or maybe it's Dan Dennett who's doing that, although he didn't in the debate.

25. Many thanks! A very important dialogue for further brainstorming…
    There is no need for “zombies”, “agents”, “arguments”. It is necessary to build a Primordial generating structure (“La Structure Mère”, Ontological Superstructure), representing the triad “being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming”. Solve the problem of ontological justification / substantiation of knowledge.
    B.Russell: “What men really want is not knowledge but certainty.”
    A Zenkin: "The truth should be drawn…" ("Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics")

26. Nobody is better than Dennett.

27. 'There is no ghost in the machine. It is all machines from here on down.' ~Dennett

28. Sweet Berry Wine!!!

29. A legend passes.

30. Coming back to listen to this after hearing the news. Curt, hats off for picking his mind with engaging questions and comments. How lucky we were to have him with us

31. RIP

32. RIP to Daniel Dennett

33. Rest in peace Dan🙏

34. Dr Daniel Dennett died today. Information is real. Maybe what he conveyed somehow survives in those that he influenced, like me.

35. Nice fella, but it's amazing how many of your esteemed guests are defined by their relationship to God, or the proposition of a God anyway, even when they deny His existence. Daniel's "good friends" are highly-regarded atheists. In the case of Langan, the poor man labours under a delusion that his intelligence brings him closer to his god than the human hoi polloi can ever get, and therefore his utopia is a dystopia ruled by an "intellectual elite" and his dismissal of humans as image-bearers of God leads him to conclusions an arch-eugenicist would be proud of. Earnest and erudite though these conversations are, I'm beginning to see them as a cavalcade of clowns. For Dennett, God has a message: "A fool says in his heart there is no God." For Langan: "So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Daniel passed into eternity today, and he'll discover a Truth that will cause him to realise he wasted his time basking in human admiration and displeasing his Creator, who I pray will show him mercy nevertheless.

36. Damn RIP buddy

37. Rest in Peace, Mr. Dennett. How lucky we were to have such a brilliant mind.

38. Rip Dan you were a great inspiration to me

39. He seems to promote free will as a means for control. To try and persuade humans into self governing themselves as a means for order, NOT anything to do with the truth of the matter. There is no free will, and it is basic common sense.

40. John 6:63 KJV — It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

    The flesh is just a bio machine for the soul , our souls are our true ids or selfs, we shed these flesh suits just like a change of cloths upon death of the bio machine …essentially we are just vessels, literal prisons on this prison planet and can only be freed by Christ our creator. Then we become spiritual beings of light where the universe is our playground… seek freedom while it can be found the Warden of this prison is soon to be cast down to take control over his beast system ..the Devil 😈 will soon arrive when the ufo are openly announced and flying in ane sight.

41. Man I really hope Lex Fridman got this man on his podcast before he passed

42. Also Curt, great job dude you always have such a beautifully in depth look from every angle and I think everyone on your show knows it

43. i already hate using phones i want to talk face to face with people…

44. Only God can create life .
    Scientists certainly cannot create life .
    Dolly the Sheepinstein was a heartless , soulless clone .

45. I cant accept that there issent a ghost in the machine, im sorry, im an atheist, but i do belive that there is some kind of, what the hindus Call an “atman”! You May Call it a ghost in the machine, but it is there! We are more than just our brains, I AM MORE THAN JUST MY BRAIN! And if there is not a ghost in the machine, i am a determinist, a soft determinist, what some would Call a compatibalist, but a determinist none-theless! I am the atmann, and if you want to convince me otherwise, then solve the hard problem of consiousness!

46. One of the best interviews

47. Albanian's say, be your own God. That means not that there is no God but take the actions in your hands.

48. He names Dawkins as a good philosopher to dismiss Sapolsky's case, but Richard himself is also a determinism camp

Comments are closed.