LennyBound
In this clip, Daniel Dennett discusses the notion of an “epistemic horizon,” and argues that (contrary to popular belief) adopting a purely materialistic account of mind does not provide grounds for nihilism.
For Dennett, humans are biological devices that respond to the environment with rational, desirable courses of action. He believes that even if our brains are causally determined, it does not follow that we are not morally responsible for our behavior. Dennett argues that we base our decisions on context, gradually limiting our options as the situation becomes more specific. In the most specific circumstances (actual events), he suggests there is only one option left for us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
The complete interview with Dennett can be found here:
http://www.hollanddoc.nl/dossiers/39221631/
Also, another interesting clip from the same documentary series can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJzqHnwNbUY
Music: “Poets Act” by Phillip Glass from “The Hours Soundtrack”
Source
@lourak wow, OK… does that mean I'm "dismissed?" lol. I guess you really did get upset. Of course, if I were you, I would have "left it" before you ever made that first silly comment.
@lourak lol… if you give me the "last word," does that mean you've said something interesting already? 'Cause I'm still waiting for your "first word."
And notice I didn't say anything about Dennett's argument. Quit trying to distract people from noticing that I was only talking about the idiot way you put your phrases together.
No, no, I insist, YOU take the "last word," lol.
Damn background music ! It drowns his words and takes your mind off what he's saying. I'm off to try and find another vid.
@petestrat07 "Is there an untimate reality or is reality purely subjective?" I reject the question catagorically, the answer is that both are true.
Solipsism much?
Thank you for posting this, LennyBound.
@insanewarlock666 I have a good understanding of evolution and I accept it as fact. Im also a huge fan of Dawkins. As a matter of fact the very thing you commented on (consciousness) on is exactly what puzzles Dawkins the most too.
See "Richard Dawkins – Subjective Consciousness"
The human mind is conceptual and will always be inadequate to fully comprehend this existence. To believe in God is a concept. To not believe is a concept. Reality does not care for concepts.
Life is drained of meaning by that.
This is just utter bullshit.
Consiousness is an illusion. Albeit a very stubborn one.
The only reason why people think they have free will is because they can't see over the "horizon". Hence people believe in FW because they can't predict the future. I think that implies "wishful thinking" for most. They simply want power over their own lives!
Are we conscious of this illusion?
The simple truth is that the causality inherent in determinism makes free will impossible. The 'elbow room' That Dennett refers to is also subject to that same causality. We strive, but the striving is not ultimately up to us.
There is much that evolution chooses to naturally select out of existence or utility, the human appendix being an example. Evolution, however, tends to work on a very, very long time scale, and consciousness may already be on it's way out.
I too define consciousness as simply awareness, and that is one reason I don't see it as having a role in storing and processing the data required for human decisions.
The alternative to complete determinism would have some events incoherently uncaused.
I said it "may" be on it's way out, but there is certainly no evidence that it is. I have nothing against consciousness, per se, and would rather be conscious than not, I think. I agree that why we are conscious remains unexplained.
You don't follow the logic I use properly because chocolate cake is not unique at all. It is made of particular atoms that are common in the universe, for example. And thats forgetting the similarities in properties it shares with other compounds. What atoms is consciousness made from? We have to assume that mind=brain for us to even answer this questions, and that is still only an assumption backed by no direct research…this isnt my main point against determinism anyway anyway.
That is, as I said in the previous comment, if you assume that consciousness/ mind = the brain, for which there is no scientific evidence in support of. At best, there is only a correlation between what we call mind, or consciousness, and the brain.
I know science pretty well in fact. I study psychology at university, and we learn about the biology and anatomy of the brain. I also study philosophy though, so I can reason about things and dont just accept what Im told. Indeed, there are many case-studies where the effects of brain injury are clearly demonstrated, but there is more than one possible explanation for these findings. Im just suggesting an alternative to the usual one…cont
2. cont…and indeed, if you actually talk to people in the field (which I highly doubt you have), you will learn that they are not sure whether consciousness is in the brain, as we usually think it is, because, as I say, there is no evidence that actually suggests this conclusively. It seems that way based on current research and on our ability to form ideas at the present, but it seemed that the Earth was flat once upon a time also. I think things are far more complicated than it first appears
You misunderstand me – there is evidence of consciousness being linked with the brain of course, but there is no evidence saying that consciousness is a product of the brain ie whether it solely exists within the physical confines of the brain.
No Im not lol. What are you talking about? I never said there was no consciousness in the brain. You said that and then 'you refuted me'. Thats a straw man fallacy Im afraid. If you scroll up youll see that I say theres correlation (a link) between mind and the brain in an earlier post. And you didnt refute anything anyway – you just said I dont know science well enough. You havent presented an argument of any sort, nor have you provided any support for your opinion.
Aha, now that you've repeated your opinion it makes it more true.
Dennett is a hypocrite.