Big Think
When Daniel Dennett Changes His Mind.
Question: When have you changed your mind about something?Dennett: Yeah, and fairly recently. For years, well I’m going to try 2 that really faded. In my first book, I disparaged models as I said replace the little man on their brain with a committee, I said that seem to only make matters worst, “They are no, no.” If it’s a committee of dances, each of them does only part of the job that’s far for me he matters [IB] that’s progress and that lead to what’s called by some people homuncular functionalism where you take the whole self, the whole agent the whole person and you break that person down into sub-agencies that are themselves agencies they had their own sort of agendas and they have, they have this information they have is the, you might say they have their own beliefs and desires and they work together to achieve the larger person. That’s not entirely figured if you talk to someone that’s deeply, deeply predictive and explanatory and here’s where the mistake comes, and I imagine said that we can do a sort of a Russian dolls cascade, we’ve start with these large fancy agents and we make them up out of smaller agents so we make those up by the smaller agents until we get down to an agent that can be replaced by a machine and then we discharged all the homunculus, homunculi, and this is a finite regress, its not an infinite regress and I imagine by the time we got down at the level of the neuron, a neuron was something that can be replaced by a machine. Well, I think I stopped. I said that the regress stopped a few stages too early. I think a neuron is better viewed, a single neuron is better viewed as a little agent of it’s own than it is a sort of selfish agent that the activities of an individual neuron in effect reaching out and then contracting it’s dendritic]branchings. It’s got some purposes, it’s got some reward systems of its own. It is a little skin area and agents on sorts. And of course it is an ultimately a machine but it’s also a very much of an agent and that’s something that I’ve recently been thinking about it and I think I was really wrong about that.
Source
His "Breaking the Spell" book was awesome!
Reminds me of a Fairly OddParents episode.
Den Bann brechen war wirklich UNGENÜGEND und versehen mit viel zu verschachtelten Sätzen. Das liest sich keiner der traditionell Gläubigen durch
Daniel Dennett changes mind – world explodes/universe implodes
Whoever or whatever writes these transcripts needs to be replaced, especially if ESL individuals are trying to understand the speaker.
(e.g. Skinnerian agents)
Imagine if Dennett changed his mind on something else instead…
Clearly there's only one gigantic elephant left in the room..
Hume couldn't find a self. A 'little man inside the brain. Hume is Dennett's idol. Hume, though, confessed that his theory of no-self was wrong. Dennett studiously ignores this. Dennett, therefore, keeps talking from his tiny materialistic/reductionist planet.
Dennett's been spouting the same self-involved dreck since I took his class over 25 years ago. He attributes agency to neurons. That's old news and wrong. I didn't hear him change his mind here, either.
"Committee of dunces" sounds about right to me.