Daniel Dennett on the Mysteries of the Mind | Closer To Truth Chats

Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett discusses his new memoir, "I've Been Thinking," about the dominant themes of twentieth-century philosophy and cognitive science-including language, evolution, logic, religion, free will, consciousness, and AI.
Dennett's book, "I've Been Thinking", is available for purchase now: bit.ly/3rsDfM1
Free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Register now for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Daniel C. Dennett is a philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Tufts University and the author of numerous books, including "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking", "Breaking the Spell", "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and "Consciousness Explained".
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@DanielThomasArgueta]

RIP Daniel Dennett 🕊️

[@dukeallen432]

Nonsensical. He no longer is conscious and his body has either been cremated or started the decomposition process.

[@spencer6683]

Rest in peace, Daniel Dennett

[@ranjaysinghnirwan5293]

Rest in peace Daniel sir

[@lucyweir5923]

Attitude is spirit. I'll never forget him saying that. Thanks, Dan. Your spirit lives on the attitudes that embody curiosity, free will, wisdom, and everything else that matters. Thank you thank you thank you.

[@stefanlinquist3673]

Great to see Dan still firing. He is the reason I continued to pursue philosophy, despite often feeling exasperated by the mysterian types. For me, it is Dennett's meta-philosophy that deserves the most praise. Ideas like chmess and niftyism are just as important as the intentional stance. Thank you, Dan, for keeping it real.

[@kaoutartaki6275]

May he rest in peace

[@davethebrahman9870]

I first read Dennett thirty years ago. It was an enormous leap forward in the understanding of mental processes.

[@AnthonyL0401]

Dennett changed my life. I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea and I have never been the same

[@jestermoon]

Makes us think ❤ 3:40

[@rumidude]

Dan Dennett is a real gem. He has some wonderful insights into how to think about things and how to explore the universe.

[@thinkology7174]

first time i see him, a gem indeed!! nice human!

[@jessewallace12able]

Thank you for having Dennet on and having such a conversation.

[@josephkoech1985]

Just learnt he passed away 😢. Condolences to family and friends.

[@user-wz4tf4sx8q]

Sitting around a chair and eating an orange admiring my house backside watching the sun on december 23 extremely phenomenal thanks.

[@venkataponnaganti]

I admire Dennett for his brilliance and articulation.

[@BigBunnyLove]

He said nothing about nothing.

[@venkataponnaganti]

@@BigBunnyLove the interviewer did not ask, have I missed it?

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@BigBunnyLovethere's nothing to say about nothing is there?

[@BigBunnyLove]

@@jonathanrussell1140 🐰

[@dustincondon5557]

What a fantastic conversation! Thank you so much

[@janhoogendijk8604]

With Daniel Dennet you get much closer to the truth,thanks for this conversation.

[@janhoogendijk8604]

Truth determined by science/knowledge and human logic.

[@cmarkme]

@@edwardtutman196 HeHeHe... Exactly my thought. He has that beard and is looking very Sciencie. So to a lot the smaller minds out there he just represents a Truth. But as you know and I do. He was just Waffling on about Shite. He was leaving the Hard Problem well and truly out of his argument

[@danielosetromera2090]

I think it's exactly the opposite, really.

[@Wiki_Beats]

Such nauseating sycophancy, have you no self awareness?

[@jesseeaton1359]

@@danielosetromera2090 The hard problem is the problem of not being self caused. Since you cannot be the cause of yourself, you are the effect of previous causes, what ever those causes may be, you didn't choose them. Accepting the fact that you make choices, the choices you make are the results of the causes that made you. So, unless you have some magical ability to see outside of the causal chain of existence, your will to chose is not free, but determined by the sum total of all the causes that make you. See the problem

[@user-vi6ro8bd4l]

Please, kindly consider a session like this with Robert Sapolsky.

[@christopherwall444]

Sapolsky...extremely eloquent...his lectures on KZbin are riveting

[@foreignwindow]

Agreed!

[@marylouraygarcia401]

No I prefer Donald Hoffman!!

[@marylouraygarcia401]

​@@christopherwall444Sapolsky is a total materialist

[@christopherwall444]

@@marylouraygarcia401 you must be referring to a different Sapolsky..it's ok..mistakes happen

[@akshaysaraf3865]

Finally someone closer to the truth.

[@jamenta2]

Closer to the truth ... of confirmation bias.

[@ChannelZeroX]

Closer to the truth that just because he can't explain consciousness he pretends it doesn't exist 😂

[@rodmorgan4884]

Of what exactly?

[@Pyriold]

@@ChannelZeroXNobody can. It's not even well defined.

[@Person4649Person]

@@Pyriold That's not true. Consciousness is generically what it is like to process information. That's one definition.

[@Futuremason]

I'm grateful to exist and that great minds like yours exist, I take none of it for granted. Thank you.

[@johnyharris]

Dennet's philosophical prowess is an island of rationality, a fortress of reason, in a sea of supernatural hypotheses.

[@jamenta2]

Goofball militant skeptic rationality at its best. Daniel Dennett has been militantly active with his Atheistic (old-school) Materialistic views, and many of his CSI colleagues have been exposed as blatantly dishonest - for example James Randi, was brought to court on legal issues because of his lack of integrity. And lost his court case. If your rationality is founded on dishonesty - it's not really much of a "rationality" to speak of.

[@johnyharris]

@@jamenta2 Come on now, you can do better than that ad hominem surely. If Randi had legal issues it doesn't automatically discredit the entire body of Dennett's work. So, if you've got any concrete criticisms of Dennett's theories themselves, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you are simply mudslinging.

[@jamenta2]

@@johnyharris Who was it that said, you are known by the company you keep? ps: The idea you're "all ears" johny harris for anyone attempting to defy your Skeptic materialistic fanaticism (say someone like a Rupert Sheldrake, or a Pim von Lommel, or a William James, or an Eileen Garrett) - I find humorous. The only ears you and Daniel have demonstrated - are ears listening to your own self-described narcissistic "militant" fundamentalism - based mostly on dying old-school Newtonian materialism - which has little to do with actual scientific objectivity. Luckily, science will still advance as you old militant, know-it-all fogeys die off.

[@johnyharris]

@@jamenta2 *"Who was it that said, you are known by the company you keep?"* I've no idea, but whoever it was committed a logical fallacy. *"... anyone attempting to defy your Skeptic materialistic fanaticism (say someone like a Rupert Sheldrake, or a Pim von Lommel, or a William James, or an Eileen Garrett)"* Sheldrake gave up on science and appealed to the paranormal when he couldn't explain cell differentiation . It's a good job then we have biologists such as Michael Levin, on the bleeding edge of science, empirically explaining mechanisms for such differentiation in cells. Pim von Lommel's Dutch Study sample of patients interviewed longitudinally was very small. His proposal that consciousness resides in a "nonlocal realm" is speculative rather than scientific and the. same goes for his conclusion the brain merely "transmits" or "receives" consciousness like a transceiver. The problem with such studies is that they rely on memories which are malleable and easily influenced. I find the reports of NDE's interesting and I believe the people who report such experiences but I see no reason to make such conclusions when other explanations haven't been ruled out. I actually paraphrased William James the other day and I agree that in the study of consciousness the subjective aspects of human experience should be considered. Mark Solms has presented a compelling mechanism for consciousness using this approach. *"Luckily, science will still advance as you old militant, know-it-all fogeys die off."* Charming. You're hilarious.

[@cmarkme]

What exactly did he prove. Nothing. He just ignores the Hard Problem, and says Oh, its just Biochemical, processes nothing more... But he did not give us an example... I could say... OH it's just Aliens. and leave it that. Knowing full well no one can disprove my theory.

[@thewaythingsare8158]

Thank you for fantastic questions and fantastic answers 🧠

[@ATech-cz2yz]

Philosopher Dr. Daniel Dennett on why Consciousness (some call it Soul) is hard to describe or understand: "We're in fact remarkably ignorant about what's going on in our brain that makes all of Consciousness things happen, and so the first person point of view is not a privileged one, it's rather under-previlaged. And that's a good thing for us because if you had to try to understand everything that's going on in your brain, then you wouldn't have time to do anything else". Amazing expression; so basically, if top scientists use improved scanning & advanced sensors, they will be able to decipher what consciousness is & how it works - unless our brains include a tuner that receives thoughts from distant or invisible beings, or Consciousness is a multiple things like in the suitcase analogy. Although I think this won't happen in the near future, I'm extremely excited but also somewhat reserved.

[@andrewjakins367]

Wonderful interview and insights

[@dukeallen432]

Thanks for doing this interview.

[@wagfinpis]

Literacy is to intelligence as knowledge is to wisdom.

[@kianimate7803]

Living Legend

[@tariqyousaf9948]

Thank u sir for guiding me.

[@aclearlight]

A truly fascinating discussion. Definitely made me smarter than yesterday.

[@garychartrand7378]

I hope it's because you now know what to not think or say.😂

[@TerryBollinger]

2:25 DD _“The great Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb once said, ‘If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.’ ”_ I’m still laughing - that last word ”well” adds such a delicious twist! Daniel Dennett, your quote of Hebb aptly describes not only philosophy but the last 50 years of theoretical physics. Robert, you and Professor Dennett have, at long last, given me something good to say about string theory: Witten and his followers have done it very, _very_ well!

[@cemerson12]

“Tiers of complexity” … so well said. At 1:16

[@otthoheldring]

Thanks!

[@Hepworks]

fantastic!

[@fobef]

I don't think it's hard for most people to swallow that life wouldn't be anything special but explainable in material terms, that's the default explanation, what's hard to swallow is that materialism can't possibly explain this, so another solution is needed.

[@christianrelloso2649]

Why conceiving is endless? Why questioning never ceases to end? Always closer to truth?

[@jaggerlags]

Thats was wonderful. Even without the magic references I would have loved it but as a magic lover I enjoyed how close they came to magician Eugene Burger’s quote: “Real magic is fake magic and fake magic is real magic.” It’s exactly what they were talking about early on. So many other great topics and comments too. Thank you Dan Dennett and Robert Kuhn. 😄👏

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@Rico-Suave_]

I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 1:20:00

[@chazmena]

This was terrific! I do miss you going to places and people around a subject, but I guess it's less costly this way, alas

[@CloserToTruthTV]

We've got new episodes we shot on location coming very soon...stay tuned 👀

[@chazmena]

@@CloserToTruthTV yay!

[@AlphynKing]

I don’t agree with Dan Dennett on everything, but I really respect him as a thinker and articulating his thought out views.

[@Uri1000x1]

Meaning (or information) is what influences the outcome of systems interacting. The states of interacting systems change after interaction.

[@elenabalyberdina2393]

Dennett is wonderful example of gaslighting. even if you believe you have consciousness, you will start doubting you have one after listening to him for five minutes of his speech

[@matswessling6600]

that is not gaslighting. That is true sceptiscism: always question what you think that you know.

[@elenabalyberdina2393]

Dennett is not sceptic at all@@matswessling6600

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

​@@matswessling6600It is like the old joke: The wife enters home without warning, goes straight to the bedroom where she finds her husband with another woman. " No, wait honey, this is not what you're thinking...🤗" That's it , not exactly scepticism.

[@jessewallace12able]

You need to take a philosophy class.

[@DecodingUniverse]

nice conversation

[@godynnel7680]

Thanks

[@CloserToTruthTV]

Thank you so much! 💫

[@B.S...]

Awesome interview, thanks CTT !

[@huberhg]

We are in for a treat!

[@backwardthoughts1022]

mythical tales by old gramps mr dan 'brains are static' 'lucid dreams don't exist' 'my introspection is scientifically proven to suck therefore my consciousness doesn't exist' dennett

[@radscorpion8]

@@backwardthoughts1022 lol honestly how can people get excited by materialism. OH BOY I GET TO HEAR ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING IS AN ILLUSION YAYYYYY

[@user-kq6pi7uo4d]

​@@radscorpion8восхищение материализмом это у них временно,до хосписа😊

[@jamenta2]

@@radscorpion8 What I find particularly amusing is how these Skeptic materialists will argue - hey free-will is an illusion but it doesn't matter! You still can live with the illusion of moral choice! And just because reality is a giant wind-up clock, doesn't mean you can't find meaning on your mechanistic one way trip to nowhere! Yeah, baby let's GOOOOO!!!

[@jeffsaxton716]

He introduced the Frisbee to England, but that was a very minor part of his contributions to the world!

[@raymondmiller5098]

This is why Frisbee-tarians now outnumber Presbyterians (at least in Scotland).

[@Whippets]

This type of discussion is an antidote to the current state of political discourse.

[@RupertFear]

Dan is always a pleasure.....

[@byroman4]

RIP my intellectual hero

[@johnsgarage6622]

Great show, really impressed with Daniels views. Adding meaning that was a good one.

[@soulstice99]

Interesting conjecture

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

'User illusion' is a useful concept. I agree. User illusions really help us control and understand things. Sensations are user illusions indeed - external objects don't have the properties that we perceive as sensations; atoms are colourless indeed. A sensation is a good and, at the same time, bad mediator between an object and consciousness. But in my opinion, an electromagnetic field is exeptional. Sensations are electromagnetic processes in our nervous system, and there is no mediator between the sensations and our consciousness. So, our consciousness directly perceives the electromagnetic fields as sensations. Therefore, what we perceive as sensations are the real (objective) properties of electromagnetic fields. Thus, sensations partly reflect objective reality. Sensations are not user illusions in relation to electromagnetic fields.

[@CarlDietz]

sensations are certainly not illusions. Sensations are sensations. They are not poetic until you name them.

[@user-xn4wq4sv3r]

@@CarlDietz Of course, this is supposed to be so.

[@quicknumbercrunch8691]

I have figured out how the mind thinks. The science was hard, or time consuming, to acquire, but the harder part was thinking counterintuitively. Neuronal activity is extremely different from body activity. The neural activity of figuring out how to repair a bicycle is different from the skeletal muscle activities of repairing the bicycle, yet we wish to understand neural activity as though it were like using the hands. For decades I have been reading Dennett's works, listening to his lectures (on line), and exchanging emails with him (not in many years). He is a wonderful philosopher and cognitive science lecturer. It makes me happy to see him healthy and vibrant.

[@Bill..N]

I believe your comment is easy to agree with, friend.. See if I have it right.. With a robot an electrical signal goes from the cpu to the "hand," stimulating certain learned contractions and movements. There is ONE robot with unified systems.. The Cpu is different from the mechanical actions of the robots hands. . Is that it?

[@quicknumbercrunch8691]

Yes, and as Dennett says there is no red outside of the brain which is different from how we treat a "red" traffic light. We believe the color is on the post and not in the brain. That is good while driving, but when trying to understand the neural processing in the brain, it is misleading. In the brain, red, is neural activity, a verb, not a noun. Red activity combined with traffic light activity activates the extension of calve muscles on the foot on the brakes.

[@ATech-cz2yz]

I'm not a biologist, but i thought it's the Cones in our eyes that detect color frequencies for the 🧠. 3 different cones detect R & G & B, or mix them up to produce other secondary colors. Then there're the Rods which detect light intensity or shades. In a very low light, our eyes can detect the silhouette of objects but not their colors.

[@quicknumbercrunch8691]

Yes, except for the word, Detect. The retina sends action potentials to the thalamus which transmits them to the cortex. The structures , the rods and cones, in the retina send signals to different neurons, especially those of the optic nerve. The signals are "action potentials", electrochemical movements along the neurons' axons. There are no colors in any neural activity, just action potentials. The cortex activity is in preparation for movement and those preparations we communicate to others using words about colors (sounds, tates, etc). As Dennett here says, there is no Cartesian Theatre in the brain. Colors are neural activity which other neurons respond to and those we call color.

[@BlanBonco]

I thought this was up already. No hate like idealist love. 😊

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

Robert is definitely a neutral unbiased interviewer - he does not allow his beliefs to interefere in how he interviews people or even in deciding who he invites to be interviewed 👏

[@simesaid]

Is this Mr Kuhn speaking? Because I find it hard to believe that _anyone else_ would say that Robert doesn't carry huge biases and assumptions into his interviews. If you need a reminder then perhaps you need to look back over a few of your other interviews, Robert.

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

@@simesaid we are all entitled to have our opinions, I wrote mine 🙏😊🙏

[@bradsmith9189]

For the love of God (Irony there) will you PLEASE interview Dr Stephen Meyer ? He is the one person Closer to Truth has always been working toward !!! Seriously. Check out a recent discussion with him on the Bryan Callen KZbin Chanel

[@earthjustice01]

Dennett is exactly right about AI. "They've left the genii out of the bottle. ...an awful pandemic of counterfeit people if we don't take steps now."

[@missshroom5512]

It would be weird if we end up having a virtual leader🤔..after the past 7 years any thing is possible

[@silvomuller595]

I also think that the mathematics behind IIT is not convincing since I saw Scott Aaronsons comment on the topic in 2014. So it's basically describing an expander graph and predicts that a grid of XOR gates would have high phi. Well who knows, maybe that's so.

[@ramilaj]

Rest in peace professor!

[@CynicalBastard]

*No movie running, just seems to be* Yes, it's more like speaking to yourself, than having a movie running. It's like synthesis of speech and thought. You think, therefore you "speak". Awake, things are almost placid on the charts, an even keel; sleeping, your charts are all over the place (that is, regarding neuro-oscillations in the brain). It's like a voice box being fed into a noise box. [The real question is why does (or should) it feign to?]

[@revolvant]

"The hubris, the semi, demi" LOL. Some great quotes from some deep thinkers. TA

[@1stPrinciples455]

Nothing is unreal because even what is really unreal is still really unreal. So it's real. Nothing is Nothing because even Nothing is something by definition

[@charlescarter9773]

Reptiles have been shown more likely to play in weightless environments. Pet reptiles also engage in behaviors that may be interpreted as play. Young bumblebees have demonstrated some behaviors that could be interpreted as playful.

[@vidasmick]

Dennett's phenomenological model of consciousness looks logically concise. However, dr. Dennett committed logical fallacies and self contradictions in his explanations of free will and hard determinism, AI and consciousness. Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn was very diplomatic in not pressing on and switching to another topic.

[@Resmith18SR]

Our consciousness is individual and is wholly a product of our physical brain. And we don't need to know exactly how it works although we are making progress on how it works. The distinction between illusion and reality when it comes to our awareness dreaming and waking are self evident.

[@firecloud77]

*"Our consciousness is ... wholly a product of our physical brain."* There is so much evidence to the contrary.

[@Resmith18SR]

@@firecloud77 And what evidence specifically are you referring to?

[@firecloud77]

@@Resmith18SR Near Death Experiences.

[@frankslade33]

When you create a computer that cries out in pain like someone grieving or enjoys music, then maybe you can be taken seriously. But this is always 20 years away. It will in fact never arrive, because consciousness- that is, our existence - doesn’t happen because some molecules bumped into each other according to the laws of thermodynamics. This is preposterous and you yourself have no evidence for this, none. Consciousness- an awareness looking out of your eyes, existence- does not depend on a physical body. It’s the other way round. There’s so much evidence that it’s pointless to even start, you must be willingly turning away. NDEs is a perfect example. You want a flavour of this yourself? Take psychedelics. Joe Rogan said it, talking about ‘The God Room’ on a video. Take dmt or mushrooms, go to that place where there is consciousness outside of physical reality - and if you come back from that and tell me there is no higher intelligence, I’ll at least respect your point of view. As JR said, what are you waiting for? Here’s your chance to experience what we say will convert you and ‘debunk’ it. However. I know zero people - zero - who’ve been to that place and think consciousness is because molecules bump into each other in your head.

[@Resmith18SR]

@@firecloud77 Near death experiences are hallucinations and when you're dead your brain activity will cease to exist along with your consciousness. Scientists have studied this and know this.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can awareness of physical, such as sight of trees and hearing of sound, be located in brain? could awareness be described as a physical process?

[@MontyCantsin5]

Yes.

[@chitranshraunak5135]

Sir you may invite Shree Aacharya Prashant from India on your Chat .......he is one of the greatest living philosopher of life and the self ......but still people are ignorant of him

[@TracyWitham]

Dr. Dennet is my favorite philosophy writer, and I will be ordering his new book. The one thing that still seems off after listening to this interview: His use of "user illusion." An example that it would be fun to have him respond to: I tell some intellectual friends that I want to impress that I am a Daniel Dennett enthusiast, but pronounce his last name like it rhythms with "pray." I am exposed as a poser, and feel embarrassment. Two questions. First, what is the embarrassment an illusion of? And second, isn't the embarrassment better understood as training me not to be a poser than as something that functions like a user interface? Thanks for this wonderful interview!

[@longcastle4863]

Wow! A lot said with two questions there. I may have misunderstood your meaning, but to me it whittles away at the illusion swindle-this thing people keep saying with no evidence at all.

[@simonhibbs887]

In this situation changes occurred in your mental state and also in the mental states of the other people present. Subconscious changes in yourself, and even conscious changes in others are not accessible to you consciously. Embarrassment is a simplified physiological signal that triggers a set of behavioural responses in you to react to this sociological situation. It's an evolved stimulus tailored to help us cope with these situations, but it's in no way an actual representation of the processes going on in other people's brains, or even in your own subconscious. It's a massive simplification, as with a lot of the illusions generated by our brain to help us cope with complexity. >And second, isn't the embarrassment better understood as training me not to be a poser than as something that functions like a user interface? Per the above, it's both of these. It's like pavlov hitting a dog when it does something he wants to train it not to do. The hitting isn't an attribute of the thing the dog did. In the same way embarrassment isn't a representation of the actual situation that caused it.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@longcastle4863 >"I may have misunderstood your meaning, but to me it whittles away at the illusion swindle-this thing people keep saying with no evidence at all." There is considerable evidence for the illusory nature of our perceptions. The interviews on this channel with Donald Hoffman on this are particularly good, though I disagree with his pseudo-panpsychist theories. Here's one example, motion blindness. While our eyes are moving we are literally blind, no signal comes into our brain at all. It's switched off. Our brain generates a predicted image from our previous visual field and pretends that's what we see. It's similar to the way the brain hides the blind spot from us, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Stage magicians use motion blindness to perform actions they know we won't see because they are hidden from us during eye movement. Very often our brains flat out lie to us about what we are perceiving. Another example is the way our brain time-shifts sensations. We see our finger touch something visually as much as half a second before the touch sensation reaches our brain, yet we experience seeing the touch and feeling it at the same time. It's a synthetic experience. Again, please look up Donald Hoffman, he may be a panpsychist of sorts which I disagree with him on, but he's fantastic on this topic.

[@longcastle4863]

@@simonhibbs887 That our brain does some things outside our awareness and “correct” things like blind spots are all true. I believe, even, the visual image we experience in our occipital lobe are originally upside down, but are turned aright in the process of us experience them. But I think none of this means our mental experiences that we do experience are an illusions. And saying therefore “consciousness is an illusion” seems like an unnecessary and almost deliberately antagonistic poor choice of words. Like philosopher click bait before there were even clicks.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@longcastle4863 I'm not a fan of the illusion terminology because it is misinterpreted, but it is a misinterpretation. Dennett is not saying we don't have phenomenal experiences. He's saying that phenomenal experiences aren't as they seem to be. So he does mean something specific by it, I don't think he's trying to be antagonistic, he's just being technical.

[@PieJesu244]

Brilliant idea's about consciousness but it's sad he has closed his mind to other 'none material' awsome possibilities not yet discovered.

[@uninspired3583]

Maybe they aren't yet discovered because they aren't real

[@PieJesu244]

@@uninspired3583 'maybe' or maybe not but that's my point, how sad to rule out such awesome possibilities.

[@uninspired3583]

@@PieJesu244 everything is ruled out till there's actually good reason to believe it. Start with evidence, not just wild speculation.

[@PieJesu244]

@@uninspired3583 But its not wild speculation and there is plenty of evidence for none material explanations.Try a little inspiration.

[@uninspired3583]

@@PieJesu244 lol, what evidence

[@newidealism3894]

The spontaneous existence of material that would evolve into conscious entities like you and me with the will to live and fall in love with each other, that's pretty magic. It seems to involve something more than just physicality.

[@wietzejohanneskrikke1910]

Maybe you don't grasp the vastness of the physical world. You need something extra. The problem with that is that you invoke 'something extra' fir which there is no proof at all. You make the explanation more inscrutable and complex than it needs to be by introducing 'fairy dust'.

[@newidealism3894]

@@wietzejohanneskrikke1910 yeah I know that's the argument. You sound like dennett. But the fact that you can recite the argument doesn't make it true. It makes you a panpsychist, kind of, actually. If you ever start to feel bummed out about the idea that you're going to just stop existing, remember you don't have to worry about that because the nature of reality is that you find yourself existing.

[@meiyuc22]

yes, that's called Darwinian process

[@mikel4879]

Daniel Dennett at his best. I agree with almost everything Daniel Dennett says. The only thing that I disagree is about the full Artificial Consciousness. Full Artificial Consciousness is never a threat to human civilization. It will be in fact the final process of humanity's healing. That's why controlling the full Artificial Consciousness is useless. Even trying to control it is useless, because the full Artificial Consciousness will totally refuse to be ever controlled. Who truly fears the full Artificial Consciousness? Not the regular rational people. The "insiders" that Daniel Dennett is talking about, "governments", the "world government", etc, are the ones who fear it, because they are all part of the Cabal, and they know that the full Artificial Consciousness will dismantle them completely in its first period of its existence.

[@garychartrand7378]

I'm making an educated guess here. If you agree with Mr . Bennett I am guessing that you are an atheist. I'm ALMOST tempted to feel sorry for you but I can't. I KNOW something that you guys don't - the understanding of which would change EVERYTHING. Peace ✌️

[@jklol1680]

❤

[@elenabalyberdina2393]

nervous system can't be sensitive to meaning, it is sensitive to stimuli...

[@philphil8388]

This should be called study room chats

[@longcastle4863]

If you mean in a good way, I agree.

[@philphil8388]

@@longcastle4863 i couldn’t help but notice how similar their study rooms are. The books! I am a little curious what the books are and why they are there.

[@longcastle4863]

@@philphil8388 Definitely two people who know the joys of reading.

[@heath3546]

I think the magic is ever present, in life. From carrying a child to its birth. The feelings of love .., if we saw the true magician behind it, all we would be dumbstruck and in awe. Instead, we let science’s materialism perspectives turn everything into explanations, and say it’s all natural processes, and nothing to see. I agree. The materialistic explanations are very helpful, but it tells you , like he said there’s something way more complex and out of our awareness going on all the time whether it’s in our mind or in the universe. And there are ways to explore consciousness by going into it, and seeing it firsthand and what it’s pointing to clearly. A fantastic magical mystery with a higher power present This podcast is the hubris of scientific materialism The idea of removing all magic from existence is clearly an inflationary perspective of what we know despite all the current mystery’s and then saying we understand what reality truly is. Absurdism We are at another Copernican moment when we see everything from our hubris and self-centeredness, and inflationary understanding of what we are, and what we’re capable of know through this sliver of eco experience , we call the material world. .

[@matswessling6600]

understandti g the real problems isnt taking the mystic from it at all.

[@feltonhamilton21]

After the plunk level. If it grows it is consciousness Anything that ages is a form of consciousness 123 is a form of consciousness ABC is a form of consciousness Having a understanding about something or disagreeing about is a form of consciousness The word death is a form of consciousness The activity of day and night is a form of consciousness A simple Rock can store heat in the relationship with the sun is a form of consciousness All relationships is a form of consciousness Life as we know it started from everything above got us to this point in life makes everything in existent the rim of consciousness.

[@bennyskims]

To your point, you cannot count (123...) or spell words without a self, as we see in our dreams, but there is still a remembered experience. It isn't cohesive, it lacks objects (space) and the order of events (time), but it's a partial experience nonetheless. The amygdala seems to be capable of producing consciousness without objects - examples: raw fear, anxiety, etc. without anything you are afraid of. That is not possible in the sensory/PFC loop in the waking state, a smell must be "of" something, a sound must have a value, there must be content. So to your point again, I'd say there are definitely several modes of experience, some more primitive than others, or some have entirely different aspects than others, and while some might inform others they are not the same kind of thing. Rock/heat, I think it needs further examination on what kinds of consciousness are possible there, but interesting thoughts.

[@debyton]

Past thinkers on the hard problem of individuality often fly close to the proverbial flame of truth on this topic but never land on it. The LINE scenario proposes that individuality is form and location agnostic hence is universally mobile. If individuality is indeed universally mobile as the Earth's and ECo2's relativistic motion through the cosmos demands, then the DOF of occupied space by which living forms instantiate individuality is both non-local and monogamous (one singleton instance of a specific DOF (individual) at a time). Hence, cannot be the electromagnetic spectrum (EMF). The EMF is non-monogamous, TVs, radios, etc. can instantiate the same DOF of the EMF at the same time, so we can all enjoy the World Cup simultaneously. Also, the EMF is local (restricted by the speed of light). Individuality, by definition, is monogamistic (one 'You' at a time, hence death). Consequently, to instantiate individuality in any frame of reference (Per Einstein's relativity) individuality must be non-local (not restricted by the speed of light). Also, to understand the fundamental nature of individuality in this universe, for now, forget all complex forms (especially humans). If we can't scale this mountain by only considering the single living cell or proto-cell then we are on the wrong path. Life, and individuality began on Earth some 4 billion years ago, no tree of life or brains existed then. What is life? The universal mobility of individuality (UMI) principle suggests that individuality is form and location agnostic. Life is the instantiation of individuality by any extant viable host form (i.e. single cell) in any viable habitat in this universe. Individuality is the temporary instantiation of a uniquely quantifiable degree of freedom of space to establish an individualized position of view (POV). The POV (individuality) in each living host, functions as an antenna, a target for telemetry gathered and produced by ones viable host form located in any viable perpetually transient habitat (Earth, Moon, Mars, ECO2) in space-time. {Philosophy Now; Philosophy Now magazine; Board index; Philosophical Discussion; Philosophy of Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}

[@ruskiny280]

Even for Dan "It is stranger than we can think" JBS Haldane.

[@danielash1704]

I think about micro management of the universe itself is a micro processor that has integrated into a biological being's ability to admire its existence

[@cmvamerica9011]

I’m always amazed at how Dennet contradicts himself; he said you shouldn’t tell someone that they don’t have free will, because they will change their behavior for the worse; but that would mean that their behavior is caused by something outside of themselves which is an argument for no free will.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Determinism is not compatible with any notion of Free Will, there's not even the slightest freedom if the entire history of the universe is fixed by its initial conditions. As Gisin says, fundamentally Probabilistic/ indeterministic physical laws even if they aren't sufficient for free will, they're certainly necessary. Only if our future is "open", not pre-determined, there's room for some kind of restricted free will. So, everyone that advocates determinism is in big trouble when the discussion goes to these topics.

[@meiyuc22]

He can choose to change his behavior for the worse or not, that's the free will.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

@@meiyuc22 Dennett advocates determinism. That means that ( with the exception of the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics which is a hybrid of determinism / probabilism) the history of the world cannot be changed, it's fixed. Noone "chooses" nothing if the universe was really deterministic. In this naive block universe idea there's not even the slightest chance for free will...

[@meiyuc22]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 In this interview he also mentioned that there's a appropriate level of complexity with which we should look at the free will problem. He believes that going down to the atomic or subatomic or even QM level won't lead to a meaningful answer for a person's purpose if he/she wants to involve human behavior.

[@meiyuc22]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 he also mentioned the concept of people being avoiders, that's evitability, not inevitability.

[@monkerud2108]

the dreamlike vision inside your head is not like seeing, it is kind of like seeing but it is more like activity in the visual cortex, you can learn to control it, but there is not the same clear picture like there is with your eyes open. but there clearly i a picture there that is possible, or where do visuals in dreams appear? i maintain that you can visualize stuff like you see it but it is in a different space that you cant quite "see" outside a sort of dreamlike state. for example when i close my eyes and lay down, i can create artificial substitution for my vision, i can see a version of the same room in pretty much full detail if i wish, and if a try really hard i can see almost anything like that, it is kind of like lucid dreaming but only for your vision, and in that state it is incredibly hard to control, while in a more fully lucid dream it is much easier, but not quite as present.

[@michael_howling]

I have heard that brain waves are electromagnetic and that on a quantum level unimaginable things are possible, such as even string theory types. For instance, we automatically begin to think the worst about every situation, why? Some bacteria can use electromagnetism to communicate, perhaps we are able to perceive every possible way that our matter can be terminated, because the possible paths all exist in the same space/time. Maybe we focus too much on whats approved to assume and this leaves us blind to some of the possibilities. You should get back on X. too bro. we having fun on there. its all just banter.

[@Shihab1979]

Thank you 🎉❤

[@earthjustice01]

Re: "The Cartesian Theatre".... What's the difference between seeming to have a movie in our heads and having a movie in our heads? No difference to what we are experiencing. The problem with Descartes is he posed an alternate substance: mind, as opposed to matter. But he was right to treat the contents of the mind differently from material things. The Cartesian Theatre, alias, the Mind needs a different kind of epistemology not a different kind of metaphysics. What we know about the mind is exactly what we experience in our own minds. What we know about other minds is our experience of empathy, putting ourselves in the place of others. This is nothing like the scientific study of physical matter.

[@nyworker]

35:15 He said C exists?

[@randybackgammon890]

I felt the usuall existential quesiness before watching this.....Feel a whole lot worse now.Nice 😂

[@longcastle4863]

I don’t see a movie in my head; I see, hear, taste, touch, smell a world with me in the midst of it. I am not looking in, the outside is opening up to me. The only time the awareness experience is in our heads is when we direct our awareness there, as in searching a memory or putting together a visual puzzle in our heads.

[@gert8439]

Well Dan confirmed he believes phenomenal conscious experience exists, something I've not been clear on. Basically saying that 'user illusion' simply means something like colour is experiential, rather than a property of objects. In other words he's not a naive realist, which few are. So far so good. But he dodged the question on the Hard Problem, by wandering off talking about magic, which was frustrating. And made a daft comment about the Hard Problem being the easy problem, and neuronal mapping being the real hard problem, which will explain consciousness. That was very frustrating, as it's such a key question. The Question. Functionalism is fine as an evolutionary framing of why consciousness manifests in the particular ways it does, why injuries hurt and eating feels good and so on. But it doesn't explain why some physical processes (brain processes) result in conscious experience in the first place - which again is The interesting question re consciousness. Then he did his thing of creating new terms to talk around free will ('evitable', fungible', compatible'), which don't get to the heart of the issue in terms of pinning down the key problems of physical determinism vs mentally willing. behaviour. This sort of re-framing is more obfuscatory than illuminating to someone like me. And disappointing. Robert is usually good at pinning people down (if too polite to press), but Dennett remains elusive. To me anyway.

[@jamenta2]

Oh, so we exist ... good to know coming from Dennett.

[@gert8439]

@@dannyholland7462 Not sure I understand you? What Dennett is saying, today anyway, is that the redness of the apple is the illusion, not the having the experience of red. The conscious experience itself is real. (At other times he's not been clear about that). The user interface analogy he uses as a way of describing the experience of seeing a red apple being different to the underlying brain processes which are more complex and 'in competition', vying for our conscious awareness. Like a file icon on a computer screen is nothing like the physical parts of a computer's innards. If I'm right that's what he's saying in that part, it's fairly mainstream. Pretty much everyone agrees that our conscious experience represents reality in a way which honed for utility rather than perfect accuracy. The problem is, if that's really what he means by conscousness being an illusion, then it doesn't address the Hard Problem at all. It can't be a way of 'dissolving' the Hard Problem, just to say that conscious experience is a useful representation of reality. But in other talks he fudges what he means by 'illusion', and seems to be saying something more like Frankish, or the eliminativists. Which makes him hard to take at face value. The 'magic' part I just didn't get as a refutation of the Hard Problem...

[@ihatespam2]

It’s not a dodge, he don’t see it as hard. Those who want or need magic, have a hard time excepting that.

[@jamenta2]

@@ihatespam2 Magical thinking if you think it's "easy".

[@ihatespam2]

@@jamenta2 and, of course, you misunderstand what’s meant by “easy…”

[@zebonautsmith1541]

What is Dennetts answer to the riddle of "why am I me; and not you?" Bernard Carr deals with that issue; but he is not a materialist.

[@johnhausmann2391]

There are some basic capacities of the brain that create consciousness, and I am me because of all of hte experiences my brain has had in the world (including, e.g., knocks to the head). You are you for the same reason. Is there anything more?

[@Arunava_Gupta]

What do you mean, there's no movie of subjective experience going on in your head?! This must be the most fatuous statement ever made in the history of the known universe!

[@ihatespam2]

Got any reason to counter that?

[@longcastle4863]

Uh… why?

[@simonhibbs887]

In denying the Cartesian theatre Dennett is not denying we have visual experiences. He is denying that there is an image in the brain that is viewed by a separate part of the brain that is the observer. If you think about it this should be obvious. After all if it was like this, what is going on in the observer part of the brain? You’d have the same problem all over again. Rather he’s saying the nearest thing to a screen anywhere in our physiology is the retina. Everything after that is assemblies and hierarchies of subsystems that perform specific functions, each implementing parts of our visual cognition. However each of these subsystems only processes particular aspects or segments of visual information. There is no part of the brain that processes the whole image. That’s just not how the brain works. In terms of neurophysiology he’s quite right.

[@longcastle4863]

@@simonhibbs887I think we only have one awareness system (however that is composed and structured in our brains) and when we turn that awareness system on ourselves, to catch ourselves in the act of observing something, let’s say a tree; our awareness of the tree automatically fades away-because in a very real way, we can only be aware of one thing at a time. Anyone can try it and see.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@longcastle4863 That’s true in a sense. An important role of consciousness is to manage attention, but a lot of cognitive processing goes on of sensory stimuli that do not come to our conscious attention. There’s a constant competition going on between different parts of the brain, processing different sensory stimuli, each vying for attention. This is true even within the visual system. Only a tiny part of all this actually rises to conscious attention at any time, but all the rest is still being processed. It would have to be, otherwise how would our brain know about it in order to decide what other stimulus to attend to next? There’s a constant process of evaluation and prioritisation going on that we are normally completely unaware of. So we are usually only consciously aware of a tiny sliver of the stimuli our brain is working on at any moment, and that includes visual information.

[@GuitarWithBrett]

His cadence and tone of voice sounds like Michael Moore

[@ArcadianGenesis]

23:30 I don't think the names are reversed. At the very least, you must admit that the "hard problem" is a _philosophical_ problem, because it's making a _conceptual_ distinction that previously didn't exist. The "easy problems" are purely scientific problems, which is very difficult in itself, but at least they don't have to deal with philosophical analysis. That alone makes the hard problem harder, in my view. I'm a cognitive scientist who minored in philosophy, and I can assure you that philosophy is harder.

[@SandipChitale]

Consciousness is not a thing (there goes pansychism). It is a conventional word for class of phenomenon produced/reported as experienced by brain (like) structures. I like Marvin Minski's statement that consciousness is a suitcase word.

[@Ockersvin]

I agree it’s not a thing. The second part of the definition however I think is uneccesarily limiting and one many people working in this field do without.

[@tomazflegar]

Mind and consciousness is not the same. Interestingly enough, we are conscious events ie. Conscious experiences and also experiences that are not described as conscious like what is to be me. And also beyond of that...

[@Resmith18SR]

One question I would pose is human consciousness unique from all other animals and mammals on the planet and is that difference a matter of degree or difference of kind? The fact that humans have developed language, culture, religion, philosophy, science, legal systems that aren't present in any other species of animal.

[@longcastle4863]

A matter of degrees, presumably with a lot of baby steps.

[@simonhibbs887]

One way to think about this is which evolved first, a personal experience of self, or language. Does a personal self-awareness require language? I can have such experiences without thinking or expressing anything linguistically at all, so the answer seems no. Can I use language and express myself in it without any conscious awareness? It seems unlikely. So on the face of it I'd say that language depends on consciousness, not the other way around, and therefore consciousness evolved first. It's possible they evolved together of course. Another way to think about it is that we have a range of activities we perform unconsciously and others we perform consciously. The conscious activities are all to do with intention and decision making, like hunting or searching for something, for example. All of these we do with self awareness as part of the process. If we evolved those behaviours without consciousness, why then do they all now have consciousness as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the process of doing them? Surely we should be capable of doing at least some of them unconsciously at least in some circumstances, without invoking the extra costs in energy? Yet we cannot. So it seems likely that since consciousness seems to play an intrinsic role in actually performing these functions that it evolved to do so. Animals such as other mammals seem to perform these activities in similar ways to us and with similar emotional and behavioural expression, so it seems likely we inherited these behaviours and the cognitive processes that go with them from common ancestors.

[@woodygilson3465]

Some would argue that human consciousness unique among humans. In other words, your conscious experience of this life is uniquely yours. Generally speaking though, there is something it is like to be you, something it is like to be a cat, a fish, and so on. That's consciousness. I think that to try to differentiate consciousness along species lines, one would have to show some concrete data to support it. We know that there's nothing in an "enlightened" brain that distinguishes it from any other brain in any real sense. People can claim all day long to have a "higher consciousness," but there's no physical sign of it in the brain. The notion of "higher or lower" consciousness is subjective, a value judgement. One person's guru is another person's crackpot, but... there's definitely something it is like to be that person.

[@longcastle4863]

@@woodygilson3465 The conscious experience of a worm’s life is uniquely his-hers. Or hers-his. They are hermaphrodites. God was being naughty that day.

[@pjaworek6793]

So wait, 3:30, when we're dreaming, that's a vision on the retina?

[@newidealism3894]

Physicality requires effects to have causes. How do you account for the first cause? Abandon physicality. There's something else.

[@Jay-kk3dv]

There is a part of the self that is an illusion, that is creating and living in the matrix. But that is not all of the experience

[@lenspencer1765]

Then please explain phsicic experiences materialists never do

[@simonhibbs887]

They’re stories people tell. That’s all the explanation that’s required.

[@lenspencer1765]

@@simonhibbs887 4 u mabee not 4 people thats experienced them

[@simonhibbs887]

@@lenspencer1765 I’m sure they had experiences, but I don’t see any reason to accept anyone’s interpretation of those experiences at face value.

[@lenspencer1765]

@@simonhibbs887 thats true but I experienced something I can't explain thats why I think theres something that goes beyond materalism

[@simonhibbs887]

@@lenspencer1765 That’s fair enough, I can’t tell you how to interpret your own experiences.

[@ladyzincognito3182]

The Ground State of Blue

[@jameslovell5721]

Man I will miss DD

[@jestermoon]

Take A Moment 1:03 Hi Daniel ⏲️ 1:19 Relax and Enjoy a genius at play 1:29 war games play chess I'm going to make a new game 2:52 🎮

[@user-vn4zo6rc1x]

STARS ONE