Daniel C. Dennett - Do Persons Have Souls?

[@Gielderst]

This guy had to sit twisted 180° for 15 minutes. 👏👏👏

[@adriancioroianu1704]

Thank you for the instant laugh

[@andsalomoni]

It is not the only way he is twisted...

[@sadattahmeed7462]

Actually it's part of a much longer interview 🤣

[@Ploskkky]

@@andsalomoni "It is not the only way he is twisted..." Nevertheless he is more straight forward than all theists, that were interviewed for this program, put together.

[@bajajones5093]

@@andsalomoni wonderfully put

[@yasedky]

I can't understand how the interviewer is sitting in a much comfortable way than the interviewee !

[@equinoxproject2284]

I've never found sitting sideways in a pew uncomfortable.

[@spiritualawareness7736]

We are not "Physical Bodies with Souls" but in reality We are "SOULS incarnated in Temporal Physical Human Bodies," Evidence ➡️kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZCvhHSVlLuGjKc

[@estellescholtz5619]

Of all the questions one could ask-this is the selected one?

[@terryb3102]

Everyone may not have a soul, but I know James Brown does or did.

[@russellmiles2861]

Best comment, ever

[@TheSitherin]

Gotta pay the cost to be the boss #soulbrothernumber1

[@fryguy1133]

Funny 🤣🤣🤣

[@dAvrilthebear]

And his soul goes marching on! )

[@Jewelofthenile7]

😂😂😂😂😂💃💯

[@Linkous12]

Dan doesn't age. He's looked like this for 15 years.

[@dvaccaro96]

Dennett is really amazing. I used to think he simplified a difficult matter, but he's actually a step ahead.

[@Eduardude]

He's a materialist. Not only is he wrong and incoherent in his "explanation" of consciousness, but his view reduces human beings to meaningless material processes.

[@richkroberts]

For me philosophy is essential. It teaches one how to think. Part of the curriculum is critical thinking. It certainly changed my life and how I see the world.

[@kenhtinhthuc]

The products of thinking are thoughts and concepts: all man-made things. Sometimes to know the truth is to drop the thinking, thoughts and concepts all together.

[@G_Demolished]

@@kenhtinhthuc Cool, so you admit that you don’t want to think?

[@kenhtinhthuc]

@@G_Demolished I admit I don't want to think more than I need - the same way I don't want sugar (brain energy) more than my brain and my body need.

[@scambammer6102]

@@kenhtinhthuc "think as little as possible" - Tinh Thuc

[@kenhtinhthuc]

@@scambammer6102 How to stop your thoughts from controlling your life | Albert Hobohm | TEDxKTH kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGq5m2Njibt7n7M

[@Bo-tz4nw]

Interesting, as usual. Keep up the good work!

[@williamdane4194]

Do living organisms have souls should be the question. Because if humans have souls with all the cruelties humans are capable of, then other living organisms have them, too. We are all made of protoplasm.

[@5nowyOwl]

Everyone is an individual… so you are here to learn for yourself each experience of life and not for someone else……by learning infinite experiences for your own soul . Love is everything.

[@Eduardude]

According to Dennett, matter is everything. He's wrong.

[@charliebrady3751]

​@@EduardudeProve him wrong in a peer-reviewed scientific article. You will be famous forever. Until you do, I will reach the obvious conclusion that you are just speaking from a place of ignorance and delusion.

[@MetalWolfz]

Oh its a deepity

[@danbaron2561]

🔶 I used to be angry at, and afraid of Daniel Dennett. But, now I am not. All he does, is communicate what he thinks. There is nothing wrong with that. I think he is most likely correct in his beliefs. It is not his fault that the universe is the way it is. I bet that just like you and me, he would prefer if we persist in some way, forever. But, he cannot make that be true. Either can we. Ha!! 🔷

[@thegonersclub]

I have given up on that wish a long time ago.

[@JohnnyCrepe]

What an interesting seating position to have a filmed conversation.

[@georgecostopoulos2862]

Yes Dan is hiding his huge gut behind the bench. I think there was some design behind setting up the scene like this....:):):) I like Dan though - He's smart and knowledgeable and is not intimated as a philosopher by the scientists taking stabs at philosophy in our days. Cool guy

[@mavericktuco6991]

Would love to hear more from Daniel Dennett..seems like one of the smartest guests ever on the show

[@scotteralus8188]

You can find a lot of his lectures on KZbin. At Google, the Royal Institute, etc. He’s definitely brilliant and entertaining at the same time.

[@handzar6402]

He denies consciousness exists, so he's not that smart.

[@scambammer6102]

@@handzar6402 He knows way more about it than you do that's for sure.

[@charliebrady3751]

Much of his writing is on his website. Sadly, he has had his last brilliant thought. RIP. He was a brilliant and lovely man.

[@louisedaniel1485]

love how engaging and digestible the conversations are in this channel 🤍

[@balasubr2252]

@Mary Louise Daniel If the soul is not the body and vice versa, technically, shouldn't they pay each other for their service to one another? Why would one not pay the other for services? If one cooks a meal for oneself, why would it be silly to pay for such services? Doesn't the philosophy and its ability to ask the right questions seems to be contradictory to find the right answers? or is it the reasoning that has failed to get at the right answer?

[@spiritualawareness7736]

We are not "Physical Bodies with Souls" but in reality We are "SOULS incarnated in Temporal Physical Human Bodies," Evidence ➡️kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZCvhHSVlLuGjKc

[@photographyandthecreativeyou]

Fascinating conversation! Thanks to you two gents!

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Hi, if you’re going to answer any questions, which gives scenes to the others, you will need the tools like: life experiences, quantum mechanics, science, physics, philosophy, fundamental laws, religious information, and language, explanation techniques, and finally you have to be a good writer, and if you know how to used the tools above, you also can bring anything you wanted to reality, even if those subjects are far from true!

[@robertevans9897]

Professor Dennet u are outstanding in your field and I have followed you and read your books since I had children cos I wanted to give the world useful humans the are both open minded and educated and above all they have apathy which trumps everything. Be proud proff you helped me make my children 👍

[@rolandroland4366]

excellent interviews !All are most important philosophical enquiries of our human kind !

[@TwistedSisterHaratiofales]

This discussion reminds me of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lays awake at night and truly wonders if a Dog is real.

[@petermsiegel573]

Dog is real but irrelevant . Only Cat deserves our worship.

[@zeigbert1743]

Fun fact: Dennett doesn't make any appearances during busy season, aka December.

[@urbangorilla33]

He is an ardent caroler at Christmas by his own admission.

[@charliebrady3751]

I'm pretty sure that I saw him in the front row at a Boston Bruins game about ten years ago. Dressed as Santa Claus, of course.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Soul and Person is the same reality, it is something that we Are, You have to differ between, 'I am' and 'I have', me and my consciousness, 'makes' the soul/person, it is Eternal, but always on a move.

[@fr3d42]

We are finite animals

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

@@fr3d42 It is seldom now a days, that people get born with tails. Slowly but surely, We is in the end of the Animal Kingdom One by one, the tail-bone-people, are going to be 'Real People'. In future, We dont need physical bodies, and Life continue.

[@fr3d42]

@@holgerjrgensen2166 ok buddy

[@peterstanbury3833]

Arguing that there is 'process' rather than design resolves absolutely nothing, because one has no way of knowing that the process is not itself the design mechanism. Thus to argue that there cannot be a designer because there is natural selection is to unjustifiably pre-judge that natural selection could not itself be the mechanism a designer chooses. Dennett is correct that philosophy is about asking the right questions....but it is also about not ceasing to ask the questions just because a particular answer fits one's own particular bias.

[@Rotten_Venom]

What if EA Games has created the world? Soul Pack (Starter Pack) 4.99$

[@MUFFINHEAD1985]

Pahahahahaha

[@Bill..N]

Thanks for interview..Daniel is my favorite philosopher and honestly the only one that doesn't let go of my attention..His genius is in his ability to see and clarify the OBVIOUS, that has been completely hidden in our cognitive "Blind spots..Thanks.

[@Dion_Mustard]

because he is a genius does not make him right. he could be VERY WRONG ..and I doubt he'd ever accept the possibility he is wrong.

[@Bill..N]

@@Dion_Mustard Oh disagree about that, history has shown that scientists are willing to say they were wrong when the evidence indicates that's the case.

[@brandursimonsen4427]

I agree with your view of him. But he fends for his soul. Arguing for the stance of his subjective person. Examples. He said good questions result in sets of answers like the sciences. He should have said that true questions result in knowledge. He did that to justify his beliefs. He is sly. If he was to argue true and false questions. He would have to say that philosophy is a intelligent design of many species of knowledge. The qualia of question is veracity and not goodness.

[@andsalomoni]

Daniel has a colossal blind spot in not seeing that whatever he does, says or thinks, only exist because and when he is conscious. Even when he says that consciousness is an illusion, he must be conscious to say it.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@brandursimonsen4427 he mocks and chuckles at those whom are open to the possibility of non-local consciousness or as people call it "soul" which is a term i very much dislike. he is a typical atheist buffoon , besties with richard dawkins. that's says it all!

[@biggusbestus551]

I would love to see the reaction of the minister of that church after watching this video ...

[@WintersWar]

I don't see the potential so called drama on the horizon that you see. the conversations were respectful.

[@tonk82]

Sound is really bad on this one, sounds... metallic.

[@heleen313]

It got better around about 8 min. I think they had over compensated the echoing of the location 🙂

[@freepadz6241]

Two mics mixed together give a comb filter effect

[@gooddaysahead1]

I agree with the guest the that the design is beautiful. I understand that the process of evolution can design beautiful things without being a designer. In its simplest form evolution is a series of random events that either work or don't work...Survive or die off. But how can we call the product beautiful? Who are we to make a judgment of its beauty? Aren't we a product of this random process? Do other creatures view us as beautiful? Things simply are what they are. Either everything is beautiful or everything is meaningless. We don't stand apart from all the other products. We are not above it. We are in it.

[@lightworker4512]

When you start to connect within yourself, you will no longer need to try to find answers outside yourself

[@NomadOutOfAfrica]

Until you get thirsty

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Until you realize that you will eventually fail yourself.

[@lightworker4512]

@@mentalwarfare2038 is it failing or is it going through experiences both good and bad.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@@lightworker4512 failing yourself and having bad experiences are completely different things. I can have a bad experience without failing myself.

[@anywallsocket]

"all the answers are within" = 'return to monke'

[@Dismythed]

You don't have to research every philosopher to know what the mistakes are. You just have to know what the mistakes are. That is why knowledge of fallacies and what makes a correct argument is so important. Knowledge of Descartes, or any other philosopher, is not going to teach you how to think. That will only teach you to perpetuate mistakes that you have not identified yet.

[@thumperrusty4570]

I was standing, talking to a friend when I consciously left my body and in a flash I went to a 120° angle. I was looking at the left side if his face. Then I looked back at the body I came out of and said, "There's Rusty, Who am I, looking at Rusty"?. Then in a flash I proceeded back into Rusty's brain and looked out of my two eyes again. This happened after meditating for two hours a day, for one month.

[@moranplano]

I started having Out of Body experiences at age 18. I am now 72. We are Souls, who wear bodies to attain experiences to grow. I'm guessing you already know that. Best wishes on your journey....

[@brettbcomedy]

@@moranplano what does the 2 year old who dies of malaria in abject poverty learn from their experience? Where does the soul come from? Have you ever conducted tests in these out of body experiences? In what way are they verifiable or conveyable for the benefit of other people?

[@scambammer6102]

@@moranplano How many fingers am I holding up?

[@pete5177]

The title of this is click bait. The real title should be What Is the Role of Philosophy?

[@kerryburns6041]

" I do not have a soul, I am a soul. I have a body." C. S. Lewis.

[@fritzcervz6945]

Exactly!

[@Ploskkky]

Yeah, Lewis didn't get it.

[@kerryburns6041]

@@Ploskkky I´d be interested to know if you could substantiate your comment.

[@kerryburns6041]

@@Ploskkky To believe in something, I would have to be in possession of all the relevant data, and obviously I am not. Belief simply does not figure for me. Neither are you in a position to deny the existence of soul, so let´s get that straight. Neither of us actually know anything. Some of us like to explore what lies between our reach and our grasp. Belief is simply not relevant. I find KZbin a useful place for the exchange of ideas, do you have any ideas worthy of the medium, or do you just like to criticise others ?

[@ultimateman55]

@@kerryburns6041 The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

[@MetalWolfz]

Thank goodness for these videos, I'm reading "Intuition Pump and other Think Tools" and he is explaining very similar stuff in the book so it helps tremendously with my comprehension of these ideas.

[@williamsteveling8321]

"We already know what we're going to say," for me isn't always true when I talk to myself. I figure part of the issue is my ADHD and I use auto-conversation to organize my actions... But sometimes I will literally take both sides of an argument or ask myself questions out loud and it often leads to new ideas. I don't know what's up with that, like if it's a different way to engage both hemispheres of the brain, or if it's just a processing quirk I have, but I do find it interesting

[@downhillphilm.6682]

the answer to your question is 'yes'

[@dabrownone]

His point is the same; we talk to ourselves because we dont yet know what we are going to say

[@hollisticbomber2660]

We ought not talk to ourselves, this is the sign of a suboptimal mind. Processing verbally may appear as "conversation" but it lights up different parts of the brain.

[@scambammer6102]

@@hollisticbomber2660 you are so FOS

[@huberhg]

Dan Dennett, is spot on!

[@Eduardude]

He's a materialist, so he's either spot on or one hell of a stain.

[@mobiustrip1400]

I love Dennet. He talks like an intelligent great uncle most of us probably know, who, after a few stiff drinks would sit us down and expound weird stuff

[@andsalomoni]

A little too many drinks...

[@slapmeisterrecords8226]

You obviously didn't get the memo. This dude has been a laughing stock since 30 years

[@georgemoncayo8313]

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Stephen Hawking said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So, he thinks the law of gravity is nothing but actually that is something. Dr. John Lennox points out that that is self contradictory. Lennox says "If I say x creates y this presupposes the existence of x in the first place in order to bring y into existence. If I say x creates x, I presuppose the existence of x in order to account for the existence of x. To presuppose the existence of the universe, to account for it's existence is logically incoherent." It's much more easier to believe Genesis 1:1 than to believe that sci fi nonsense. So, some Atheists have to redefine nothing to make it something so something can come from nothing. Also the complexity of DNA is proof for intelligent design. "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." - The new answers book 2 p. 70. Bill Gates said "DNA is more advanced than any software ever created." Here, the following are just some out of many scientists who are Biblical creationists, Dr. Jason Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Bodie Hodge has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University, Dr. Terry Mortenson holds a masters of divinity and a PhD in the history of geology. It's not that science is against the the Bible, the darkened mind interprets the evidences for it through a naturalistic presupposition that doesn't allow anything spiritual because God's word says it's because people love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32. Note, archaeology confirms the Bible, the Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100,000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also it's strange when Christians bring up the fine tuning argument which there is evidence, atheists have to make up the multi verse theory which there is no evidence, so they make up a theory with no evidence to try and refute a scientific fact of fine tuning, so at that point its the atheist who's going by blind faith. Some atheists say they don't believe in anything immaterial but the laws of logic are immaterial and it exists. Jesus said "So it will be at the end of the age, the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50. Jesus also said "You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.

[@astro_monist2559]

@@slapmeisterrecords8226 according to who? Who has deemed him the laughing stock? I'm genuinely curious, enlighten me.

[@scambammer6102]

@@astro_monist2559 idiots that's who

[@samreh6156]

Soul, god, the devine are all human concepts. Fear and curiosity have created human culture.

[@Ascendlocal]

Excellent Robert!

[@sumedha1ster]

This enquiry has been answered by Vedanta beautifully in mathematical format.

[@davidjarred]

my neck is sore from watching this

[@MegaJosh187]

philosophy is the mesh that binds all others.

[@HSR107]

As I get closer to the end of my life I find myself wanting to be objectively eternal because the subjective eternity of a self-aware chemical reaction has far too many terrifying implications.

[@thomasridley8675]

I don't see how any of us are that important. Not too the point of deserving an eternal exsitence in any form.

[@HSR107]

​@@Michael-jh4wi not so far, but thanks Ultimately it doesn't matter whether whether what I perceive is objective reality or just a construct I use to cope with the void. Either I am objectively endless and the system will reboot which is something for which I have absolutely no evidence or, as all evidence suggests, I am objectively finite and the construct will collapse leaving a self-awareness in the void for a subjective eternity. (since that which does not exist can not know its non-existence) Then it is just a matter of whether the "I Am" is capable of "who, what, where, when, why, how". If not, then great. If so, then EEEEEEK!!!!

[@HSR107]

​@@thomasridley8675 Not sure what "deserve" (subjective value judgements) has to do with it.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@HSR107 You are right. I should have said earned.

[@HSR107]

​@@thomasridley8675 I'm not sure what "earned" (a reward) has to do with it either. Both deserve and earn require a entity with the authority to judge or bestow. I'm not contemplating the existence of gods or supernatural governments. Just death and what the self is.

[@writereducator]

Perhaps all knowledge is founded on questions. Every being can have questioned asked about it. If the mind asking the questions is great enough, every question about every being can be answered.

[@jameswest4819]

Well, a "Soul" has never been adequately described, in my notion.

[@alistairwatt8767]

the ''soul'' is so vaguely defined as to be completely meaningless

[@arvindupadhye7237]

it is what you are!

[@jameswest4819]

@@arvindupadhye7237 That is a general definition. That is not adequately described.

[@dongshengdi773]

The perfect example to answer this question is to read Asimov's book , The Bicentennial Man. or watch the film starring Robin Williams .

[@francesco5581]

Asimov was the product of very old science. HE is totally obsolete right now.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@francesco5581 You must be joking, Asimov is a legend, his philosophical stories and visions are so good we only begin to understand how deep are rabbit holes described in his books. He is not a fiction writer, Asimov is a science fiction writer, huge difference.

[@andsalomoni]

Asimov was fundamentally a detective-story and spy-story writer, in a sci-fi context. Philosophically he was a midget.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@andsalomoni Wow, hold on to your horses, Asimov is way more than that. He didn't invent robots, but he tried to imagine laws of robotics, that should tell you he was deep into epistemology of modern phenomena. What can i say about him that is not already written on Wikipedia, his concepts were so well analyzed and developed we should consider him as a father of scientific prophecies.

[@andsalomoni]

@@xspotbox4400 Yes, he had a vivid imagination for technical and scientific prophecies. But philosophy was not his thing.

[@alanw505]

As a semi educated human being living in the modern age I reject outright the existence of sin. Sin is simply an archaic term used to describe when religious people don't like something. Once sin gets eliminated as a thing the rest of the system collapses.

[@David-jr7rz]

Managing "Sin" in your Life-- That's how you Take care of your "Spiritual Health".

[@Traderhood]

Well said.

[@Traderhood]

@@David-jr7rz not buying into sin, that’s how you maintain your mental health. There is no such a thing as a spiritual health.

[@David-jr7rz]

@@Traderhood Consider a little different slant with the teachings of Jesus-- He tells us how to care for and protect our souls. You are living with some a majority of focus in life on one of three areas-- Mind, Body, or Spirit-- depraving or neglecting one or the other affects the other two. "Spirit"--- "Essence" of "Soul".

[@Traderhood]

@@David-jr7rz If there is a soul it is immaterial and as such it can’t be touched be neither physical nor mental. It is pure and it can not be compromised. Only mind and body can be compromised. But not by sin. By negative thinking, unhealthy habits, poisonous environment etc. btw. Who is Jesus?

[@olicorrivo3289]

Nietzsche was an interesting fellow who tried hard to de-humanize the sciences, claiming that our inferences about the world we're all tainted by the human factor and therefore, most likely wrong. I see alot of this in Dennet, especially when he speaks about the "tempting mistakes of past philosophers". He's like a continuation of what Nietzsche, in part, tried to do in the sense that, since materialism won the sciences and people still cling to old temptations or turn their head away from the consequences of real materialism, Dennet helps them see clearly how much humanity is still left in their materialism that is supposedly objective but still ask questions that reflects a subjective approach to the world itself, the object of their science. Rest in Peace Dan, wherever you are or aren't. 😢will miss your wisdom.

[@gyozakeynsianism]

What an excellent, clear-minded, history-appreciating, practical and intelligent talk. I love the idea of philosophy as the history of bad but really, really tempting ways of thinking. I think of socialism that way and I believe people would be less inclined to have positive beliefs about socialism if they understood the history of anti-capitalism.

[@scambammer6102]

you be clueless about socialism spunky

[@markberman6708]

Yes.

[@DestroManiak]

I just can't respect someone who denies the existence of first person consciousness.

[@Dion_Mustard]

here here!

[@xspotbox4400]

They dedicated an entire department for those cases in mental institutions.

[@andsalomoni]

Practical example: Some friends of Daniel Dennett visit him to go to the bar... - Hey, Daniel, let's go have a couple of beers! - (screaming) I'M NOT AT HOME!

[@xspotbox4400]

@@wolfgangmeisner6569 Thinker and Vedic tradition is an oxymoron.

[@TheTroofSayer]

I so agree with Dennett about philosophy's role in determining the right questions to be asked. The god question bothers me for this reason. Irrespective of whether there is a god, what answers can it provide? I think a more tangible question with far more practical implications is, what is it about the void that predisposes it to creation (we know it's a thing because of virtual quantum particles)? I remember Paul Davies' question, why something instead of nothing? Exactly. Implying, as what many true believers do, that "because god made it so", takes us down an anthropocentric path with all the wrong answers.

[@scambammer6102]

"what is it about the void that predisposes it to creation" lots of unwarranted assumptions there.

[@myusername5]

@2:47 "that sort of first person perspective will probably take you down the primrose path to dualism" I don't agree with this. Read The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer. He writes you are part of a Will and the empirical universe is a representation of the Will. No dualism needed. The first person perspective is very useful in helping us understand the human condition. Why deny our first person perspective?

[@marianadebono6310]

It isn't about denying our first-person perspective. It is a question of what makes it possible for us to self-reflect and to have a first person perspective in the first place. Something that is purely material cannot self-reflect, because self-reflection requires the trespassing of 'space'. Our self-consciousness clearly evades and defies space, it is 'unlimited' in the sense that it could never reach a 'wall' and stop -- unlike matter of course, which is strictly restricted and limited by space. This is, after all, what Goedel's incompleteness theorems show. That self-consciousness, subjectivity, knowledge. etc. are not restricted by the laws of physics and by the limits of matter. Ultimately, I agree, no dualism is needed (though this doesn't mean that consciousness is reduced to matter). Form/immateriality and matter are not at all contradictory, as Aristotle evinced years ago

[@scambammer6102]

@@marianadebono6310 really? have your consciousness fly over to the other side of that wall and see what's there.

[@vadimpetker2689]

I can tell you what is missing for development: I even made a scientific discovery about consciousness: All people do not notice that the head is always slightly tilted to the side of the leading hemisphere of the brain, and when the other hemisphere of the brain becomes dominant, the head changes the side tilt from right to left or vice versa. I noticed this when I invented a method for determining which hemisphere of the brain belongs to almost any opposite of any aspect, any field of science or aspect. I already know dozens of opposing differences that allow me to see how all types of sciences are connected by the fact that everywhere there is something that relates to the hemispheres of the brain. I can tell you a lot of new things that will allow you to win a Nobel Prize and become very useful.

[@Paulus_Brent]

Why do people hail this guy as one of the greatest philosopher of our times when his arguments could easily be unmasked as shallow thinking by a smart seventh/eights-grader knowing nothing about philosophy?

[@arnevajsing7120]

You should interview Pim Van Lommel.

[@randyg666]

Maybe Ron Jermy too

[@geezzerboy]

Why is the interviewer giggling like an hysterical little girl?

[@jameshudson169]

i missed it. DO people have souls?!

[@heavymeddle28]

Short answer "no". Long answer "yes" but with a "but"... 😊

[@Musika1220]

@@heavymeddle28 😅👍

[@Musika1220]

Well, I would borrow what an imperor once told Mozart : too may notes. Which means too many words to acquire a clear answer to your question here.

[@jameshudson169]

@@Musika1220 yes, verbose. concise is better. if you can manage it.

[@Richard-vu7kh]

@@heavymeddle28 haha 😂…good one !

[@librulcunspirisy]

Thanks

[@mediocrates3416]

The Cartesian Theater is transposable, it seems. The meditative experience suggests that self can transform, for a time. Reason abounds.

[@scambammer6102]

the dude abides

[@Eduardude]

Dennett is the guy who suggested that the moniker "brights" should be adopted for those who think like him (materialists who claim to justify their materialism scientifically). Nor did any excess of intellectual modesty weigh down his choice of title for his book Consciousness Explained. And you folks probably thought there was such a thing as the "hard problem" of consciousness, silly you! Turns out Dennett has it all tied up with a neat little bow. Dennett has solved the hard problem! You just have to be as clever as Dennett, then you'll get it and be a "bright" like him! In fact the hard problem of consciousness is not just hard, but impossible, because consciousness cannot be derived from matter. And that irreducibility of consciousness does not require dualism, as one might think in listening to Dennett.

[@johnhausmann2391]

You follow some insults by a couple of declarations about consciousness. Not very convincing.

[@jonathonjubb6626]

Ahha, the thinking man's philosopher...

[@kerryburns6041]

He begins by admitting he cannot answer the question. It should have ended there. However, should your question refer to the exact number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, this is most decidedly your man. Like all philosophers, he will never be held responsible for his errors, though they may catastrophic for others. For after all, if all the philosophers went on strike -- what on earth would we do ?

[@hesitatingdissension4682]

@@kerryburns6041 Enough already.

[@kerryburns6041]

@@hesitatingdissension4682 See what happens when you take your fingers out of your ears ?

[@G_Demolished]

@@kerryburns6041 I get that you’re surprised by the honesty there, but nobody can answer the question. Aside from that, your disdain for philosophy is uninteresting.

[@chyfields]

There is a part of each of us that has been passed down through the generations, like the baton in a relay, from one generation to the next; with each generation updating and adding personal details to the ‘baton’ before passing it to their offspring. Surely this is the soul.

[@chyfields]

Religion is a manmade attempt to explain our extraordinarily ethereal reality and our purpose within it

[@scambammer6102]

@@chyfields what's ethereal about it?

[@cvsree]

Person/soul/self All are same

[@xspotbox4400]

Let me try that. I feel like a real person, my soul is aching, all i care is about my self-interest. Therefore, I am optimistic, moral and egocentric. Those are 3 different things, individual human can be described with many other attributes than only those few or none of them. I believe you should rethink your simplification idea and come up with more accurate classification.

[@mariaandreaspashi1931]

@@xspotbox4400 not every body's soul aches, which leads to question if another non physical being having effect on soul

[@cvsree]

@@xspotbox4400 it is our mind that creates all these classification. In deep meditation all these thoughts disappear and what remains is peace. That's true reality

[@xspotbox4400]

@@cvsree But we don't want to alter our mental states back into a primitive animal form, this is why we learn symbols at very young age, everybody must know how to read and write or he couldn't be reasoned with and can't live in a civilized environment. Meditation can be a workaround this ideological conditioning, we can be free animal spirits while in trans and remain civilized humans after we snap back, sort to speak.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@mariaandreaspashi1931 This leads me to question, how can drugs alter normal human emotions, numb a person so much it became dead inside.

[@belablasco6681]

Soul is not a scientific term that refers to anything specific, it is a general term for mind or personality that encompasses all the traits, habits and peculiarities that make a person an individual. It is "that certain something" that is hard to put your finger on but which can be sensed because it resonates with one's own sense of self. Music can have "soul" and so can food-- a work of art or a cartoon character can have soul. There is only one soul, of course, and it manifests itself through each of us in unique ways. Our individual souls do not survive our deaths except as the memories we leave in others.

[@carlhaldeman420]

Yes, and "personality" does the same function as "soul".

[@JFrazer4303]

"The product is absolutely brilliant" Tell it to victims of the volcano or tsunami, or a flesh-eating bacteria.

[@anywallsocket]

still brilliant lol

[@kevinmm20]

You're missing his point, profoundly..

[@peterjones6507]

Why would anyone ask Dennett questions about philosophy?

[@enterthevoidIi]

what would you ask him?

[@peterjones6507]

@@enterthevoidIi I'd ask him whether he still believes calling his book 'Consciousness Explained' was a good idea.

[@alistairwatt8767]

@@enterthevoidIi I would ask him questions about science. He is a scientist, not a philosopher.

[@Ghost-vg6iq]

This channel is a rare diamond in the coal mine of youtube

[@alexanderabrashev1366]

coals make a lotta money too

[@brandursimonsen4427]

With enough time and pressure these made diamonds from coal.

[@arnevajsing7120]

What about all those cat videos or leaving Britney alone?

[@Ghost-vg6iq]

@@alexanderabrashev1366 Does this channel looks like it will make money ? I don't think so. To make money on yt you can do dumb stuff like paul brothers and make millions.

[@Ghost-vg6iq]

@@brandursimonsen4427 true tho

[@likable72]

The answer is no one knows.

[@Dion_Mustard]

Asking Dennett if people have Souls is like asking a homosexual if he would marry a woman - the two are just not compatible. Dennett is so closed-minded and driven by one school of thought that he would never accept a "soul" or as I prefer to call it "non-local consciousness". I have no time for the likes of Dennett. I have plenty of time for people who remain open minded.

[@Pheer777]

The problem with the non-local soul is it seems pretty hard to justify it. The Hard Problem of consciousness is a real one imo, but until there is some serious reputable data on veridical experiences in out of body experience or something, it seems a bit like wishful thinking. That said though, they definitely do dig themselves into the materialist camp so hard that its embarrassing to step out of line.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@Pheer777 not wishful thinking at all. have you done your research and read all the literature? the OBE / NDE is not an illusion and those whom have the experience do not consider it "wishful thinking" hence i prefer open minded people.

[@Pheer777]

@@Dion_Mustard I have done a decent amount of reading on it. Admittedly, I remain a bit skeptical, as anyone should, but I definitely think more studies should be done on them, especially trying to verify visual veridical phenomena. On one hand, I think the scientific community is very quick to dismiss, but on the other hand, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sam Parnia is currently doing the AWARE II study so hopefully that yields some interesting results.

[@andsalomoni]

It's funny to read comments of people who ask "reputable data" about SUBJECTIVE experiences. The only reputable data about a subjective experience is to have that experience, so I would suggest to start a practice to have those experiences, maybe meditation (read Osho's "Meditation - the First and Last Freedom", a manual of meditation techniques).

[@Pheer777]

@@andsalomoni There are many ways to verify the nature of an experience to see if its truly "non-local" consciousness that observes external phenomena not visible to the patient, or just a hallucination.

[@nessieness5433]

'It has no purpose, but it generates things that have purpose', that indeed is hard to grasp.

[@Eduardude]

Similar to what is called the "hard problem" of consciousness. One need not believe in any traditional theology to understand that mind is not a derivative of matter. Dennett is very wrong.

[@camilomontoya7412]

This whole attitude that "philosophy is the hand-maiden of physics", that it is incapable of doing more besides just posing questions, is a typical anglo-american attitude, aka, pragmatism, basically it says don[t bother asking fundamental questions, as long as it works its good enough. Cop-out if you ask me.

[@marksandsmith6778]

More i study the more it sounds like fudge an waffle. If anything Dennet is being kind. E.g 4 lectures on mind body and 6 methods of answering the question. 6hrs wasted No decision. Luckily we have science and evidential history.

[@andsalomoni]

Objective science is good to investigate, and can only investigate, objective phenomena. Being consciousness the subjectivity to which objective phenomena appear, science will never be able to explain consciousness. This is ontological, and is not fudge and waffle. And the "as long as it works its good enough" pragmatic mind is totally incapable of such an understanding. Neuroscientists will go on playing with brain imaging toys and the like to obtain some kind of objective results to put in scientific papers, "as long as we can entertain ourselves and the interested audience with pictures and diagrams of measureable correlates to subjective experiences". And subjectivity itself remains out of grasp. Consciousness can only be investigated subjectively, via direct observation of oneself. Which is what they call meditation.

[@guillermomontoyo]

I agree

[@marksandsmith6778]

@@guillermomontoyo with OP?

[@marksandsmith6778]

@Dakota Rossman good. And the first philosophers Were scientists from ios near Greece theoretical physicists EVEN THEN fighting againt religion. MSS

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

I think not, unfortunately, but let's hope it's true

[@ryankelley8774]

Philosophy is the foundation of everything we know.

[@bajajones5093]

@@Michael-jh4wi i told you so!

[@kerryburns6041]

Ryan, we actually know nothing. We have theories. We have the evidence of our fallible senses. We interpret this through our mysterious uncalibrated consciousness. To aspire to actual knowledge is frankly risible. Get a grip.

[@kerryburns6041]

@@Sergei_Gusakov Someone once said honour those who seek the Truth, but beware of those who have found it. I am content with a clumsy parable of my own making. It encourages me to dither, a vastly underrated accomplishment in my estimation.

[@randyg666]

I think therefore I is.

[@ryankelley8774]

@@kerryburns6041 lol if you did not have philosophy you couldn't even form that statement

[@jozsefnemeth935]

Best laugh is when Dennet shows a cow to an audience and explains it was not designed. Well, the idea of getting more milk from the cow has been consistently there for generations of humans responsible for breading this cow. What is this if not an example for design. Notice that the fittness function was defined by the human mind and was there long before evolution led to the cow. Evolution is just the search for the optimum by selecting the fittest. But does not define the fittest. The same way the biosphere with humans in it is not the product of evolution, but of the initial/external conditions. Which leads back to fine tuning of the Chosmos. A U shaped beach is not the product of the ocean that carves it out, but the product of the pattern of hard and soft rocks, i.e. initial conditions. The other misconception of Dennet that he can reduce consciousness to information or configuration. It's a magic with words. For a physicalist everything is reducible to substance and pattern but the only way this is helpful is to show that substance is secondary and pattern is primary, in other words materialism fails. But reducing the whole universe, the persons and stories in it to an inanimate word 'pattern' or 'information' is not a serious thinking, just a trick of phraseology. In the end, this is a universe fine tuned for creating persons and makes a personal creator probable. When Dennet explains the evolution of religion he forgets that these religions have a concrete history, Christianity have tons and tons of manuscripts, archaeological findings, not to mention the Shroud of Turin (depicted in the Pray codex and several previous pictures).

[@abe8979]

I understand the interviewer looking for the truth, But no one really knows what happens after death

[@JonasLindekrantz]

if you cut the a cable to someones headphones can he then listen to music with his headphones still. it easy answer when you know why.

[@bandini22221]

There are compelling arguments for intelligent design but they don't get much play in the media

[@center__mass]

The first statement in your discription is an outrageous assumption.

[@davidcraig7771]

Most regular people are religious no?

[@center__mass]

@@davidcraig7771 really?

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Consciousness as fundamental would, in manifesting a world, have sent sparks of itself out into the newly formed space. This would be the origin of souls or of micro units of consciousness that entities express according to their ability, the human being as the apex as the microcosm of the macrocosm or a miniature world; as a transistor radio is to a boom box.

[@LeftBoot]

Has Daniel tried DMT, LSD or Psilocybin recently? r/neuronaut

[@andsalomoni]

He should try meditation, if he had guts. But his desperate denial of subjectivity is the typical action of those who are scared of looking into themselves (I would not recommend LSD or the like to Dennett, he could get scared shitless).

[@Maka_Maka]

@@andsalomoni Could you elaborate further on this? What do these substances supposedly reveal? I'm genuinely curious.

[@andsalomoni]

@@Maka_Maka Psychoactive substances may release unconscious mind "concretions", so to say. If there is something that unconsciously scares you, taking substances may give you an unpleasant hallucinatoy experience connected with your fears, i.e. what they call a "bad trip". So using LSD or the like should be done by a person with a careful attitude and ready to face oneself, under the supervision of an experienced person, and in a supporting environment. It puts you in front of yourself, it's not like drinking a beer.

[@Maka_Maka]

@@andsalomoni Thank you

[@차장-l1z]

Don't look back in that angle.

[@evanjameson5437]

A thought comes into my mind--I speak it or send it to you.. Why? How is it possible to transmit anything (purposeful) without a spirit or soul that pushes that thought out in the first place? Is the brain just a liquid and matter computer that creates thoughts and actions and just turns off when we die? When we were born, did the nature of the brains processes pre-exist or is it only learned? When we kick the bucket, is the liquid/matter computer just dead or does a spirit drift away to another dimension? NOBODY knows for sure either way but something did design and put purpose into anything that comes out of us which is more than SURVIVAL and INSTINCT.. So what put the design together--God, some unknown higher power or just random evolution over time? What's the downside in believing in a creator or higher power--science can't say for sure that a higher power doesn't exist--a higher power or a God doesn't fit their narrative, even though they cannot prove their own theories. The agnostic or atheist fears that they are being duped into leading a life according to a spiritual world or moral doctrine--but in the end they are bieng duped by science which cannot fully explain it's own theories.. It's all to big, it's endless and yet there is a growing concensus among Scientists that life is too finely tuned to come from nothing more tahn random physics and time. I'll err to the side of a higher power, God or Supreme being, as I see no downside to a belief system that exceeds evolution..

[@Jaroen66]

The downside in believing in a higher power as the designer, is it stops us from asking questions. Like, how did it get to be this way? That's a tremendously useful question to science. But talking about narrative, God and religion is nothing more than a narrative. Why are you so critical about the narrative of science when you are not critical about the narrative of God or a higher creator?

[@madmax2976]

I err on the side of the truth; I don't know. I also don't see a good reason to think anyone else does either.

[@OdjoAdja]

maybe the discussion was executed base on storyboard settings, as this channel also keep video contents in cinematography touch.. soul is sign of living being that's why sos stand for save our soul to stay a live..

[@bajajones5093]

saw his face and went for a bathroom break. sad human being,

[@dry509]

Was the question answered?

[@tanshihus1]

Dennet is a materialist so the answer was baked into the interview before he ever opened his mouth. He doesn't believe in souls.

[@dry509]

@@tanshihus1 Thank you.

[@timjonesvideos]

Lets ask Dan Dennett, he knows everything!

[@davidkade4370]

He knows an amazing amount!

[@MsNathanv]

"Recreating the mistakes of Hume, Mill...." This is like the inverse version of damning with faint praise. I can hardly imagine any thinkers whose mistakes I'd be more proud of recreating, and I think we should keep in mind that modern, phD-educated philosophers disagree on what counts as mistakes by these great thinkers of the past.

[@Mike-hr6jz]

Why would you ask a Soules megalomaniac a question like that you make me laugh hysterically.

[@mr.hampton4982]

Does the soul exist? You cannot begin to answer that question until you have a thorough and clear definition of the soul thing under consideration. Having clarified the subject being considered, you can ask, "What evidence is there that suggests the existence of this soul thing?" None? Then, we can conclude that, this soul thing may indeed exist. But, without conclusive proof, there is no justification for believing that it exists. It may not exist. You have every right to keep looking for it, though.

[@georgemoncayo8313]

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Stephen Hawking said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So, he thinks the law of gravity is nothing but actually that is something. Dr. John Lennox points out that that is self contradictory. Lennox says "If I say x creates y this presupposes the existence of x in the first place in order to bring y into existence. If I say x creates x, I presuppose the existence of x in order to account for the existence of x. To presuppose the existence of the universe, to account for it's existence is logically incoherent." It's much more easier to believe Genesis 1:1 than to believe that sci fi nonsense. So, some Atheists have to redefine nothing to make it something so something can come from nothing. Also the complexity of DNA is proof for intelligent design. "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." - The new answers book 2 p. 70. Bill Gates said "DNA is more advanced than any software ever created." Here, the following are just some out of many scientists who are Biblical creationists, Dr. Jason Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Bodie Hodge has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University, Dr. Terry Mortenson holds a masters of divinity and a PhD in the history of geology. It's not that science is against the the Bible, the darkened mind interprets the evidences for it through a naturalistic presupposition that doesn't allow anything spiritual because God's word says it's because people love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32. Note, archaeology confirms the Bible, the Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100,000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also it's strange when Christians bring up the fine tuning argument which there is evidence, atheists have to make up the multi verse theory which there is no evidence, so they make up a theory with no evidence to try and refute a scientific fact of fine tuning, so at that point its the atheist who's going by blind faith. Some atheists say they don't believe in anything immaterial but the laws of logic are immaterial and it exists. Jesus said "So it will be at the end of the age, the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50. Jesus also said "You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.

[@mr.hampton4982]

@@georgemoncayo8313 Thank you for this message. I will try to reply later.

[@reversefulfillment9189]

Mr Dennett comes across as a really twisted guy.

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

Why?

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

Are you religious, is that why?

[@reversefulfillment9189]

​@@ChristianDall-p2jNo, I'm beyond religion. Didn't you notice his sitting posture? He's literally twisted the entire interview. I would get a sor neck.😅

[@dongshengdi773]

Science and Religion/Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science. … … … … … … … … Medicine, Nutrition, Psychology, Archeology, Paleontology, as well as all other fields of science are ever-changing and constantly open to re-interpretation. What's confirmed as "scientific truth" today can easily be marked as "scientifically disproved" tomorrow. New discoveries can render the information in this post obsolete at any time.

[@Bill..N]

Humble counterpoints friend..Although science was born of philosophy with Aristotle, it's subsequent divergence from the precepts of religious beliefs seems to make the two ways of thinking OPPOSITES, not complimentary..Additionally, the idea that there's an equivalency between the faith that is required of believers in a religion, AND the "Faith" that scientists exhibit when doing physics or cosmology (As examples) that seems to be EASILY refutable..These are counterpoints and not brought forward as offense..

[@andsalomoni]

@@Bill..N Part of the scientific community continuously shows its FAITH that only objective scientific findings are real, and this blind faith is due to forgetting that objective science purposely decided not to take into account anything subjective. This is why objective science is structurally incapable of saying anything significant about consciousness, which is utterly subjective.

[@luamfernandez6031]

Why a church? Lol

[@francesco5581]

thats why they cut the part in which the priest arrive and throw both out with a broom ...

[@GameCrafter467]

So Mr. Dennet, I have a question for you. From what you say if the process and design are separate and the design is so brilliant but according to Darwin the process which creates the design is dumb and completely mechanical why after a hundred years of progress in science, in mechanics, in computer science,... why don't we create that "dumb process" that somehow randomly creates the brilliant design! what kind of logic is this? I'm a programmer and computer scientist you know for a very simple task that the brain does e.g recognizing image ( which you philosophers don't even think about !!) thousands of smart people around the world are working on, but still, in terms of accuracy and performance and result, they are not even close to random brain you are talking about! So tell me how does a random process can make a brain that with only one plate of rice work a lot more than a group of supercomputers that basically plugged into an atomic reactor for their powers and do enormous mathematical and logical equations ?? So nature somehow randomly with a mechanical dumb process created us but thousands of intelligent humans after putting in millions(or even billion) of hours of hard-working and testing and experimenting still can't ?!!!

[@scambammer6102]

5 billion years of evolution junior

[@francesco5581]

"There is a reason for .." Ehm that is design .. Randomness does not follow a reason .

[@francesco5581]

@@Bringadingus It's the same, it's still a smart adaptation that does not follow random patterns. A random patter would have been like all red even in a green environment .. People give nature perfection and evolution for granted so they can dismiss the great intelligence that it shows every second.

[@chrisgreen8803]

@@francesco5581 It’s not “smart adaptation “… Natural selection is the driver

[@fr3d42]

Francesco, it's great to ask questions and everything, but please do some research on genetic mutations and natural selection, good luck

[@aaron2709]

Natural selection is a process. Random mutations produce longer or shorter lives. Longer lives have more opportunity to reproduce, entrenching the mutation in a species. 'Design' is a description of mutations that stick. The 'reason' for sticking is it keeps the animal alive.

[@francesco5581]

@@chrisgreen8803 a random natural selection would leave you with nothing, because at every step you will lose 90% of that specie. And it does not act only with life .

[@robertevans9897]

Should be empathy

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Copy of Richard Dawkins aka an unconscious hyper rationalist.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

@@Bringadingus funny way to say that committed to nonsense and not committed to absolute truth .

[@milano0103]

@@Bringadingus and after this question he became silent 😂

[@andsalomoni]

@@Bringadingus Absolute truth is subjective self-evidence. If poor Dennett starts denying subjectivity, he will never attain that evidence. To find the evidence for absolute truth, you have to be committed to subjective self investigation of consciousness. And it is out of the grasp of objective science.

[@andsalomoni]

@@Bringadingus Consciousness itself is not "the world", it is the world - brains included - which appears in consciousness (I don't think neuroscientists can study any brains while being unconscious), so investigating the "world" is irrelevant to the problem of consciousness ITSELF. Dennett explains everything about consciousness in neuroscientific terms, in brain terms, i.e. in objective (or "world") terms, he says consciousness is derivative. This is a denial of consciousness as autonomous. The phenomena of consciousness can be non-singular, non-unified, etc. but they happen in the same consciousness. I can have as many different and seemingly unconnected conscious experiences as Dennett wants, but the fact that I am conscious is always the same "being conscious of..." Or do you think you have two consciousnesses? To reach an "absolute truth" about consciousness, to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, the only way is subjective investigation from the inside.

[@andsalomoni]

@@Bringadingus "The hard problem of consciousness" is common terminology used by scientists when they refer to understanding what consciousness is. Look at your own experience and you will see that consciousness is prior to any experience you have, by definition. To study the brain you must first be conscious, so consciousness is primary. Or can you show me whatever brain and brain activity when you are unconscious? It is not bad reasoning (it isn't "reasoning" at all) it is simple acknowledgement of a matter of fact. For the first time in human history, our culture has reached a level so low that we try deny the primarity of consciousness - the most astonishing deny of reality ever seen. A consciousness so basic that even when you try to deny it you must be conscious.

[@Lok783]

It's probably far more simple then that, Think of the Universe as your higher self that there is only one being, And this reality we are collective and seemingly separate. It's really very simple everything you are has come from the Universe, personality, Consciousness, your sense of individuality all of it. There really is no self identity were all part of one thing which is our higher being. There is only one being in existence and it's all of us. Human perspective is not the same as that of say an insect your mind.creates the rationals based on the size of your Consciousness.

[@schmetterling4477]

I think of the universe as a bunch of quantum fields. That leaves very little room for such nonsense.

[@achyuthcn2555]

Obviously No!!! Persons have bodies.

[@verticalisland]

All I could think is: "Diabeetus"

[@HussainFahmy]

*_Order out of chaos is a delusional concept._*

[@starfishsystems]

You need to read about thermodynamics. Any introductory text will do. Just be sure to read it CAREFULLY, without presuming to know it's conclusions.

[@constructivecritique5191]

We don't ask ourselves question, we ask questions of ideas.

[@johnmyra4502]

Dennett looks wise until you listen to him.

[@controllerbrain]

Which parts are unwise?

[@alistairwatt8767]

all of his views on the topic of consciousness are just meaningless spiritual rambling.