Videos

Dennett on Spirituality



LennyBound

These clips are taken from the documentary film “Mystical Brain” which can be viewed in its entirety at:
http://nfb.ca/film/mystical_brain/

The film focuses on a team from the University of Montreal who seek to understand the neurobiological basis for religious experiences by performing brain scans while individuals meditate and pray.

More info on Daniel Dennett can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Source

Similar Posts

44 thoughts on “Dennett on Spirituality
  1. I agree with thanks for posting, but that's it. What are you even trying to say? How is this B.S? 1) Any anatomist would tell you that, yes, the cell has no cognitive functions in itself, making it essentially a robot. 2) WFT is a robot without a mind? What are you trying to say here? Of course robots dont have minds because they are simple, mechanistic devices made by us – theyre not sophisticated enough to have a mind. 3) The third statement is just beyond comprehension – What?

  2. I just finished reading a book (The Spiritual Brain) by one of the contributors at the University of Montreal, one Mario beauregard and it was 90% crap, but the other 10% was interesting. Mario lacks basic logic in my opinion.

  3. I thought that was pretty awesome as well. However, to be honest, I was a little disappointed when I saw he didn't have a full beard when he was three.

  4. This is news to me as well (and not split hairs, but that isn't really an organ)
    You might interested to know (assuming you don't) that Dennett's youthful ambition was to be a sculptor.
    I'm keenly curious myself to see any works he might have sculpted, if any are extant, so if anyone reading this knows of any publicly accessible photos or museum holdings, please don't hesitate to let me about them.

  5. Love it or hate it, comment voting is part of the YouTube experience. None of my videos have ever had it disabled and probably never will.

  6. Ah, yes, the intelligentsia must be more "open minded" as regards crackpot ideas. One hears this incessantly, ad nausea um, from third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh-rate minds.
    To be open minded is not to grant uncritical approbation -or even mild respect- to any absolutely chuckleheaded idea that might be proffered -it only means you give them a hearing.

    But you've made even this impossible, as you express yourself so poorly that one can only hope English is not your native language.

  7. There's a book (it's not religious or pro-supernatural at all, btw) that looks quite good called "Brain & Belief: An Exploration of the Human Soul" by John J. McGraw. I dropped a link to this in the comments section for a review of it here:

    goodreads(dot)com(slash)review(slash)show(slash)22743161

    My name on that site and in those comments is MyFleshSingsOut if anyone wants to check out my profile and maybe talk books, philosophy, etc, there.

  8. Its beautiful… the idea that we are a massive team, of teams, working together to make up ourselves. If only our societies would take a lesson from our bodies, and reject caveman competition.

  9. It's great that Dennett plays the organ like that. Entirely fits with my conception of the guy, what a charming bloke! The perfect grandfather.
    Thanks a lot for posting.

  10. "—-each cell is as stupid as can be !" . That means one quadrillion stupid cells make up the team, YOU…..intelligent you (or stupid you). That´s one hell of a team!
    But, then Mr. Dennet is more of a philosopher.
    I think I´ll just stick to praying.

  11. @cmpresents Dennett's not a scientist. He's a philosopher. And I know from other stuff I've heard and seen on this subject, that he has put a lot of thought into this position.

    It's easy to describe someone's ideas as stupid, but how about actually putting some meat behind your argument? It's not like you were near your character limit. So, how about it, back up your insult with something persuasive.

  12. @cmpresents You're judging him based on a snippet from an interview, that he didn't produce or edit and therefore had no control over what words they chose to air. I'm afraid I don't remember sources, but he certainly has explained how consciousness can come about from unconscious elements.

    So if you think he's wrong, where do you think consciousness comes from?

  13. @cmpresents Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing on scientific grounds. If you're saying God made consciousness and there is no natural explanation to be discovered, then I'm not really interested in that conversation. Thanks.

  14. @cmpresents You wrote "…consciousness comes from the mind of God. I have no idea how it works…" If you had a hypothesis as to how consciousness works (perhaps even an interesting theological one), I would like to hear it, but you already stated you don't. That's why I said I wasn't interested.

    You describe Dennett's idea as "stupid" and dismiss him as "confused", but I'm the one who's close minded. I respectfully disagree.

  15. @cmpresents You seem to think that Dennett has put forward a complete theory of consciousness and that he thinks he has completely solved the problem. He hasn't because as I said before, he's not a scientist. He has put forward a philosophical hypothesis that science may one day support or may one day prove wrong.

    I can't except "God did it", because even if I was a believer, I would still want to know how he did it.

  16. @cmpresents If people throughout history had taken your position of, "God did it and it can't be explained," we wouldn't have the germ theory of disease, the theory of evolution or probably even a theory of gravity.

    And now you're repeating yourself. I already explained earlier that Dennett has a lot more to say on this subject than the what was shown in this video. I don't remember any specific links and you can't post links on youtube anyway, but Google could really help you out.

  17. I agree with Mr. Dennet to a great degree on this – on the individual stimulae level the cells coalesce to form new structures and functions – the cells in and of themselves possess only a rudimentary awareness – awareness in its most basic sense is not the same as consciousness, rather it is the platform upon which consciousness is built. Awareness I see as a component of consciousness but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, therefore no part can be '=>' the whole.

  18. Spirituality has no cause and effect relationship to either religion or science. It is about connecting with reality and a deep realization of being part of that reality. It reaches beyond dreams or imagination. It is nearly impossible to describe this deep realization. It can't be done within standard, scientific or religious lingo, nor is it necessary to do so. The kid staring at the universe can have a spiritual awakening, and become an astronomer because he had this experience.

  19. 'it isn't immaterial, its an organisation of cells'. Thats his opinion. At that point, he is talking about that which has not been proved. The 'soul' is a romantic notion, born of ages. Consciousness isn't. Its the nub of the 'problem'.

  20. @LennyBound Well I appreciate your unbounded channel. This is what truth seeking is about so thanks….and of course thanks for this lovely video.

  21. @fishybishbash

    yah, he has an obvious agenda…an obsession it would seem, that a good shrink would need to figure out the motives pushing his need to so prematurely claim all as no more than pulleys and levers.

    whats really funny to me, is that the definition of spirituality he gives at the end is what almost any religious (catholic, protestant, muslim etc) leader would give you.

    "life/existence is a mystery we do not understand…so be humble and go through god/science"

  22. When listening to Dennett discuss consciousness and free will, it felt clearest to me he has the best insight into this stuff, because he integrates philosophy of masterful level with the science. I think he sees Reality in a new plane Sam Harris doesn't quite get regarding some things, such as free will. I could be wrong, but that is what I see.

  23. Anyone with a serious interest in discovering the nature of mind, I suggest you read Schopenhaur's The World as Will and Representation. Materialism is based on a naive perspective.

  24. So what he is saying is that all our thoughts, feelings, ideas are from a collection of cells? That in itself takes faith to believe that this is the case

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com