Daniel Dennett | From Bacteria to Bach and Back | Talks at Google

How did we come to have minds?
For centuries, this question has intrigued psychologists, physicists, poets, and philosophers, who have wondered how the human mind developed its unrivaled ability to create, imagine, and explain. Disciples of Darwin have long aspired to explain how consciousness, language, and culture could have appeared through natural selection, blazing promising trails that tend, however, to end in confusion and controversy. Even though our understanding of the inner workings of proteins, neurons, and DNA is deeper than ever before, the matter of how our minds came to be has largely remained a mystery.
That is now changing, says Daniel C. Dennett. In From Bacteria to Bach and Back, his most comprehensive exploration of evolutionary thinking yet, he builds on ideas from computer science and biology to show how a comprehending mind could in fact have arisen from a mindless process of natural selection. Part philosophical whodunit, part bold scientific conjecture, this landmark work enlarges themes that have sustained Dennett’s legendary career at the forefront of philosophical thought.
More about the book: goo.gl/lHNgiP

[@dl4403]

Dan Dennett is a treasure. Clearly under-appreciated with only 360k views!

[@iainsimpson6972]

It's great that we can still listen to his talks & read his books, but I will miss hearing his takes on new ideas & events. Such a sad loss for us all.

[@Sxzod]

47:03 What a simple and accurate explanation of evolution here

[@FeedBackLoop248]

Dennett delivers again. The master of cross-discipline explanation.

[@nontheistdavid]

Exactly. He is a fox among hedgehogs.

[@vaibhavgupta20]

I think you mean fox among hedgehog.

[@nontheistdavid]

Yes Dennett is a fox. Corrected

[@RobertASmith-yy7ge]

He delivers a lecture of verbal diarrhea.

[@vaughangarrick]

If you say so

[@pathologicallyfriendly]

The guy at 1:02:55 is Dennett's caricature at 42:40

[@mrloop1530]

I'm not like sure what you like mean. Can you like give an example?

[@robin7020]

It's as though they put him in the audience on purpose.

[@ilovethesmelloffire]

Lmao

[@gaiusjuliuscaesar3204]

Charles Darwin on talks at google

[@geertdepuydt2683]

Charles Darwin XXL

[@bgoggin88]

Matheus Mendonça Chuck D in the hizzy

[@naimulhaq9626]

Dan is the end of philosophy, pretends to understand science. Should watch how water preserves memory, information and even react to thought.

[@Sifar_Secure]

@@naimulhaq9626 Do you think that in order to restore his reputation as a philosopher Dan Dennett should acknowledge the validity of homeopathy?

[@naimulhaq9626]

Dan is incapable to avoid stunt philosophy. But if you care please read the latest TIME article on PLACEBO.

[@morn1415]

One of these cases where I want to give more than one like.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

So many questions to ask Dr Dennett... I would need to sit down and hammer them out with him for hours..

[@zeldaoot23]

Never get tired of listening to Dennett!

[@DieMasterMonkey]

Epic, and very inspiring if you're into GA/EC/Machine Intelligence.We're all lucky to have Dennett around.

[@ErikCBruce]

thank you for posting this . . . genuinely appreciate being able to return to this (over & over) beyond words

[@AngeloXification]

It's amazing that almost anyone can have access to the fundamental constants of the universe. We have many great mathematicians and scientists through the ages that have granted the every day person the privilege of this knowledge

[@RahulJain-uo5ol]

Feeling grateful

[@racecar06]

8:40 is totally mind blowing ! Excellent talk 👌

[@Dayglodaydreams]

How would you establish music as a physical phenomenon. Thought is based on the physical brain and it arises from the physical. Thought about music is about organized sound, that is an organized set of vibrations in the air. Hearing is something that relates to the set of physical sounds. A physical ear drum is being aroused. Perception is what...of physical things. The process of writing involves material things. Recording is translating physical to digital (and digital devices are based on electronic activity that is physical), back to physical. The mental is grounded in the physical, and perception is rooted in the physical brain.

[@MaherKhaldi]

excellent talk ! thank you!

[@windokeluanda]

Brilliant. Congratulations DD. I feel sad for DD did not get the point of ANC.

[@msueldo]

Love this, please enable CC.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

52:45. My answer to Chomsky's quote: I can't understand all of science but I trust it because I have studied it enough to feel I understand some things to some extent.

[@Mortum_Rex]

An absolute pleasure listening to Dr Dennett. I wish this talk was 10 hours long. Not sure I felt satisfied with the last answer though, which of course dodged the question after the contradiction was revealed. Ok, we don't know how the consciousness trick is done yet. That's why it's called a hard problem of science! And yet there is an assumption that it's Newtonian and it's all just qualitative and merely a sophisticated computer. To make that assumption when we have no idea how consciousness works yet and then to talk about respect for the truth in the same breath is just intellectual dishonestly. The bit about programming a funny bone is just bollocks. He is anthropomorphising a simple algorithm. That wouldn't constitute pain or give a machine rights if it got sophisticated enough. There is clearly something more at work here when it comes to consciousness. I'm not implying it's hocus pocus and woo, but rather a quantum layer underneath that makes minds more than just a collection of atoms. The Physicist Roger Penrose is worth listening to on this. The experiments with the carbon nanotubes at the base of neurons in particular are real interesting. They could be serving to somehow contain a quantum state that can be collapsed into a superposition at some triggered time. As of this time, I don't believe this has gone through a peer review process yet, but it's getting there. The experiments are showing that it's these nanotubes that are being affected by anesthesia, which has been a mystery for a long time. If this turns out to be true, then we may finally have a small foothold when it comes to the problem of consciousness.

[@JimBalter]

"That's why it's called a hard problem of science! " It's not called that. The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is specifically *not* a problem in science, but rather in (bad) philosophy of mind. Dennett has written at length on why this unfortunate formulation is a deflection and diversion from the actual hard work to be done. "we have no idea how consciousness works yet" This isn't true. Perhaps you should read Dennett's book. And the Hameroff/Penrose stuff is a joke.

[@Mortum_Rex]

@@JimBalter He knows how it works? Sounds like he should have won several Nobels by now. He hasn't. This one's going to take time. I'm in the Penrose camp. Consciousness is NOT a computation. I understand the pitfalls of religious charlatanism here, but that's no reason to reject ideas, which many in science seem to do purely because it's too thorny and they are simply too scared to go there.

[@thefacethatstares]

@@Mortum_Rex Have you looked into Wolfram's recent work involving 'multicomputation'? My understanding from his ideas about consciousness is approximately: "Consciousness is not \*a\* computation - instead, it arises from the 'computability-space' you get when considering \*all possible\* computations on given input information"

[@mahtafatemi7071]

Wonderful to listen to so much wisdom.. i wonder if you have considered discussing A I with Yuval Noah Harrari...

[@TieXiongJi]

I am so glad I listened to the whole explanation of memetic evolution.

[@frozzytango9927]

kinda makes you think there was already intelligent design in the first place.

[@JimBalter]

@@frozzytango9927 It doesn't make intelligent people think that.

[@mahtafatemi987]

Daniel Dennett on a discussion panel with Yuval Noah Harrari. that would be an amazing blast.

[@dannyiskandar]

this is such an amazing talk

[@cogoid]

54:00 "We should not make persons out of AI because it would blur the lines of moral responsibility." But we already have systems that have life of their own -- corporations and whole countries with their dysfunctional governments ! Lots of individuals try to have their way, and out of confluence of many interests, things happen which no single constituent wanted or can be meaningfully held responsible for.

[@jamesconners8396]

If there is redemption to be had, it's at the level of the individual. The moral and mental well-being of a single person acts as a force of positive influence within their network. From this arises sound government, corporations, etc. An AI super entity placed in charge of say, the government, has no stake in the game and there exists such a potential for chaos within that kind of system that it's unbelievable people still espouse it.

[@bratwizard]

@Bat Computer They're undead animated by bad zombie juju.. shiny, happy people eating brains. If all of the peoples would only hold hands all around the world, a lot of them would drown.

[@trudyandgeorge]

Well said. You're exactly right, and to what degree would we say that corporations have blurred the lines of moral responsibility? But these entities and their enormous capital have given us much progress. There are no obvious right answers it seems.

[@Vladasization]

Following the comparison between a termite colony and a neural network, could it be proposed that the former should posses, although somewhat bare, but still subjective consciousness? What about humanity as a whole? Could it also be subjectively conscious beyond what we, acting as single cells in the human society, could perceive?

[@c.guydubois8270]

There's a sci-fi novel with sentient termite colonies...

[@Dayglodaydreams]

I was wondering when we would stop getting Dennett doing science and start getting Dennett doing meta analysis of science (philosophy according to Dennett, more or less). It's within the first four minutes (and I think that's more interesting than whether Creationists got Schooled....Religious Naturalist-Evolutionist here).

[@peterpinn5330]

I listened to some of his speeches. This one: I am amazed.

[@jonahansen]

Effing excellent awesome presentation!

[@TheTroposa]

So funny when he talks about how Picaso's genius was selling all his paintings that weren’t perfect. Then says to the Google audience "don’t you wish you could do that?". IDK if he new the irony in what he said?

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

Was thinking the exact same thing. lol.

[@Thamer4life]

I learned that it takes little more than to be a con artist to be given the podium at Google, ever since they invited Anita to talk. Dan Dennett, however, is an excellent choice; he is someone who demonstrably knows what he is talking about and has the achievements to prove it. Thank you for this.

[@Thamer4life]

Since I brought this up, I'd like to paraphrase Dan Dennett's answer regarding his stance on PC culture, which is my favorite answer on the matter by far. The following is not word for word; for the exact quote, watch his interview with Gad Saad here on YT. "I think political correctness is a hindrance to the free exchange of ideas and is harmful to public discourse in general, especially if given free reign over legislation. However, I also think insulting people only for the sake of insulting them is a cruel thing to do. While we must be allowed the freedom to say whatever we want, being pleasant towards others, even those we disagree with, helps us move forward much more smoothly."

[@romant142]

Walter Sullivan for sure

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

BOOM! LOGIC! His quote is worth repeating, so I shall: "I think political correctness is a hindrance to the free exchange of ideas and is harmful to public discourse in general, especially if given free reign over legislation. However, I also think insulting people only for the sake of insulting them is a cruel thing to do. While we must be allowed the freedom to say whatever we want, being pleasant towards others, even those we disagree with, helps us move forward much more smoothly."

[@RobertVHarrison]

The catch is, what is everyone else's idea or definition of political correctness?

[@symmetrie_bruch]

i agree but you certainly don´t need sarkeesian to see that: they had deepak chopra on, twice. these are only two of the most prominent cons, bullshit artists and generelly just plain idiots. sadly there are many many many more. having somebody like dan on is one of only a few rare exceptions.

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

Trees have reasons. Split brains show that humans often come up with ad hoc explanations for the things they do. This is why the scientific method is so essential. It gives us a verifiable and testable way to ensure the thing are we doing are truly rational and beneficial.

[@theconnoisseur2346]

The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it again after hearing he just passed away a 2 days ago yesterday from NDT facebook post 😢 1:07:04

[@hydbhtfs7802]

Daniel, I wish you do not die. You make us "think" differently

[@MonicaAliciaColunga]

Amazing !

[@williampierce7188]

This man has dedicated his whole life to the epistemological effort of explaining how we came to be what we are without including the line "And then the whole thing gets sprinkled with pixie dust". Dualism seems to be our brain's default stance, but unfortunately it gives us no purchase on anything.

[@jagari1]

UT is a

[@chicagolandable]

If only I could be as smart and witty as this man. How he has made a simpleton of me.

[@prometeo_X]

You still have time to catch up ;)

[@theconnoisseur2346]

The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...

[@prometeo_X]

@@theconnoisseur2346 looks like you've never read an actual philosopher

[@mnemonicman4161]

Rights and responsibilities should increase hand-in-hand with comprehension/consciousness. This can't be based solely on being human, or not. We need a way to make comprehending constructs (e.g. A.I.) accountable, themselves. As an example, based on how we (people trained in forensic psychology) treat criminals: constructs could value something, which would be taken away as punishment. Eventually, the punishment is learned as a deterrent. At the same time, an action - incompatible with the morally reprehensible action - is rewarded.

[@renubhalla9005]

Dear Sir,I request you to give a list of terms or new terms coined by you and their meanings in the context in the glossary at the end of each book.This will help readers both scientific and common people.Thanks.

[@JoshYates]

"Just 86 billion semi-automounous neurons doing their thing" - Daniel Dennett

[@electricrice]

An absurd statement that is the result of circular reasoning.

[@majisher]

@@electricrice what is circular about it?

[@5piles]

scientism

[@fustian]

two small corrections so far: protists are eukaryotes, and hominids as a taxon includes the apes signed, big dan dennett fan

[@dorkthrone]

He's actually almost correct in one sense. Initially the classification of protists did include some prokaryotic forms, but those forms were later reclassified as monera. That was in the 1800s though. Perhaps he read that somewhere and misremembered?

[@JCW7100]

When Dennett says "hero" at 10:16, doesn't it kind of sound like how Stan Lee would say it? Also great presentation! :)

[@Baumann992]

Does anyone know where you can find the tree of life graphic he uses or something similar as a poster?

[@craighoyer6543]

Dennett gives a charitable approach to fearing Frankenstein's monster. I predict that Asimov's 3 Laws win out and that machines endure full domestication with machines' own help, and Dennett's creativity-enhancing machines lead our way.

[@Volound]

better than having war criminals on, and nice to see the comments are enabled.

[@DieMasterMonkey]

Volound Don't think you know what "war criminal" means.

[@wynlewis5357]

great speaker.

[@salogg1]

Please, english subtitles!

[@sdmarlow3926]

His TED talks were more interesting, but I'm taking this in from an traditional AI perspective (which is only at the very end of his book). Dennett is the only one speaking out against Chomsky, but I haven't heard him mention Skinner and behaviorism directly. Indirectly, he replaces the idea of language as the end all with the lower level idea of meme's we attach words too.

[@no_more_spamplease5121]

Dennett does mention behaviorism directly in some videos where he discusses evolution. And he also wrote an article titled "Skinner skinned".

[@sdmarlow3926]

@@no_more_spamplease5121 Interesting, but Skinner was talking about a narrow aspect of behavior; that animal behavior was driven by environement, and I think Dennett innate and learned abilities, which are like the bread of the behavior sandwich. Skinners conditioning really has nothing to do with the language aspect, and I think both Skinner and Chomsky should have just stayed in their own lanes. *lots of wrongness to go around

[@morganthomas2242]

What remarkable connections get made

[@gregmeissner9960]

excellent stuff

[@theconnoisseur2346]

The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...

[@Quintilianator]

His terminology is just a little off at the beginning: protists are also eukaryotes. Protists are just single-celled eukaryotes, and eukaryotes are cells that have a nucleus and organelles.

[@aristotle4048]

I think he just got protist mixed up with prokaryot.

[@Theroadneverending]

Dude go away

[@chintudachannel]

After just first few minutes I went on to read the comments!! :)

[@alexandersmith6140]

Thanks for uploading this! Dennett's so lucid and such a wonderful connector of dots. His implied acceptance of plutocrats at around 1:10:00 disturbs me, though, and his assertion that "the damage done by post-modernists to the very ideal of objectivity and truth is... that's vandalism" at 1:13:25 is wholly ignorant of what philosophers discussing postmodernism are actually saying. I can't be the only one who thinks this?

[@Life_42]

Great man.

[@graemeroberts2935]

This is really brilliant and exciting.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it again

[@aristotle4048]

Dawkin's book 'The Selfish Gene' is the best overview of neo-Darwinism, certainly; it is not however up to date with modern evolutionary theory, in which genes are just one (not domineering) part of a system, filled with feedback loops.

[@thiagomartins4992]

CADA SEGUNDO É UM BLOOING MIND DIFERENTE

[@RileyRampant]

the 'bare brain' isn't merely a programmable logic array (aimless, purposeless neurons) it has an architecture, vast numbers of functional areas (most notably for vision and language, social dynamics, learning, etc., etc). to that extent, his analysis is actually quite misleading - i suppose to beat the drum for social/cultural evolution (in service of, of course, corporation-think). you dont have to negate the one to appreciate the other.

[@marcoribeiro3053]

And some of Gaudi's critics (and there are many) would say that HE was clueless (not that I agree). But yes, he was the boss, not a termite.

[@Rico-Suave_]

I think most of the time the camera should be pointed at the presentation screen

[@bratwizard]

I think it would be better to say, in some circumstances, that reason is revealed, rather than we (or whomever) didn't have a reason in our minds until retrospectively afterward. Thus reason can be considered latent and dormant, even if not obvious or apparent, until such moment that its purpose is understood, and thus the reason revealed. I've been mulling this over and wondering if it could also be something like the way sculptors talk about sculpting-- chipping away everything that *isn't* part of the artwork until what remains is the point-- the purpose-- the reason-- for the artwork. I had another thought in a different portion of the talk where he was talking about termites (chaotic / evolutionary design) versus man (pre-considered, specific design), and I was wondering if perhaps the termites were receiving their manufacturing orders via some different sort of channel. While they may have evolved to carry out specific "mindless" actions, was the reason for those actions not similarly "revealed" in a manner similar to the sculptor's art-- in that they were "chipped away" over successive iterations to be the embodiment of the reason.

[@CristalMediumBlue]

amazing

[@Rico-Suave_]

Brilliant

[@fritzdoerring9058]

What about a deterrent governor somewhat like a nerve pain to restrain reasoning robots from harming us?

[@The22on]

As Mr. Spock would say (with one eyebrow raised), "Fascinating!"

[@mixedmeds]

makes it sound like intelligence in general is only an effect, not a feature, so any structure could be capable of intelligence if it produced the effect

[@tekannon7803]

Dear Mr Dennett, Thank you for your insights and extensive research and your knowledge in general that you have so graciously shared with the world. Dan, I have a wrench to throw in the spokes of your wheel of wisdom, however. We have got to factor in that the living cell to have happened by chance in the primordial soup of an early Earth is not on-the-charts of possibility. The outer membrane of the simplest cell, a yeast cell, has 10 to the 78 billion combinations and only one is possible for it to work. Secondly, at 35:50 in your talk you mention Picasso's quote: "I don't seek, I find." It is not an arrogant summation of his own mind power, what he means is that as a painter he doesn't stop until something in his mind tells him that he has found the best way to solve the particular problem that he was working on. Nothing more.

[@damonhollenbeck957]

You forgot to think about how many times a yeast cell was almost created before it worked. A single 5 gram packet of yeast contains approximately 90 billion yeast cells.

[@damonhollenbeck957]

yes, the possibility is low, but over the given the timeline of the existence of life, the probability that a something would organize is actually not unlikely.

[@danielboyd4079]

Dennett has a response to this towards the beginning of his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (to the probability of the first cell emerging via natural processes)

[@AndreasHLux]

Hes getting older since former times, but he look similiar this time in the former at Tufts University. True individual of science.

[@theconnoisseur2346]

The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...

[@damonhollenbeck957]

@@theconnoisseur2346 Dennett, unlike the others you have mentioned is actually still alive, so who is really old-fashioned

[@andrewwalker1377]

Wow such a pleasure to visit fellow truth seekers and valuers

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Thanks

[@jakeR1954rr]

Haaa! The "virtual machines" concept made me think immediately of Mckenna and his cultural operating system talks...

[@sulljoh1]

Rip, Dan ❤️

[@FutureAbe]

A great mind there. Im sad to see him aging

[@keitha4768]

I agree. We should definitely freeze him.

[@negbefla6956]

Accept it

[@stevetucker5851]

Mythagoras Yeah, hopefully he comes to Christ so he can experience eternal life instead of eternal death.

[@mgrycz]

@@stevetucker5851 Please, try to avoid speaking.

[@John-qo9hw]

@@mgrycz 😂

[@reinforcedpenisstem]

I think he's right about free will as well.

[@RobertASmith-yy7ge]

Unfortunately since you believe we have no free will, you have no reason to believe Dennett is right about free will.

[@reinforcedpenisstem]

@@RobertASmith-yy7ge Dennett believe there is free will, actually.

[@borilboyanov5544]

we're top of the shelf designs haha

[@iNuchalHead]

Is Problem vs. Mystery the same as Natural vs. Supernatural? Or, is it more like How vs. Why?

[@andrewlunceford5503]

It's simply problems can be solved, mysteries cannot.

[@superdog797]

Chomsky talks about this extensively in a lecture available on KZbin. Rats cannot solve a prime number maze because they just lack the relevant concepts - they are biologically limited and hence that is a mystery for them. They can’t even understand the problem. For humans, Chomsky argues, there are limitations in our abilities that probably render much of the universe as unintelligible mysteries.

[@jorgealbertoramirez6068]

Daniel dennett to the joe rogan podcast!

[@douglasw1545]

Why is the video so glitchy

[@thomasmurphy9429]

RIP King

[@darkpandemic5802]

super

[@theconnoisseur2346]

The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...

[@wavelordmelly]

i love him

[@DouwedeJong]

Google - You can not say you have not been warned ! What are the unintended consequences of your business model. We gave you a change because you said:

[@ruinerblodsinn6648]

RIP Mr Dennett

[@willywhitten4918]

*"Some folks calls it a sling blade, I calls it a kaiser blade...hmph"~Karl Childers* \\][//

[@johns.7297]

Dennet seems to support the precautionary principle.

[@nukeout]

Really good talk - now lets figure out how to leverage this to solve the #climatecrisis!

[@mfg587]

When leaders realize they are not supposed to oversee anything but instead create a nurturing environment and defend their team rather than push real progress can once again be made rather than 0’s being added to bank accounts. Capitalism is inherently good, but lack of regulation from the people, like the “we the people” has led our leaders down the wrong path, the internet is the cure for that I believe. Information is so powerful, more that I believe I can comprehend.

[@eeprou1]

So we are termites that created meme platform

[@rasmith_99]

haha 😆 yea! Only a university professor would come up with such crap.

[@ilovethesmelloffire]

@@rasmith_99 douche

[@rasmith_99]

@@ilovethesmelloffire good one! lol. Go back to your lowlife life.

[@rmeddy]

The engineer in me likes Dennett but the metaphysician in me hates him, I always enjoy his talks though

[@donaldclifford5763]

What specifically do you hate?

[@rmeddy]

He never provided satisfactory answers when it came to free will and consciousness , he's just seems to side step most of the tougher queries.

[@rh33dan]

Don't listen to Dennett on Free Will. He doesn't have an actual argument. I lost a lot of respect for him over how he handled talking about the topic with Sam Harris; he came off as very condescending, and kept resorted to little personal jibes, while never actually addressed any of the points Harris raised.

[@steveb0503]

Ahrin Dee Couldn't agree more, I think Harris is spot-on in his take on free will - however, I agree almost wholeheartedly with him on virtually everything else. His "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is an absolute masterwork.

[@rmeddy]

I think my problem with Harris is , I don't really get what the end game for his argumentation is. I saw this same dead end , back when they first clashed and when they clashed again in the recent podcast exchange. What Dennett is arguing, is once you acknowledge any kind of counterfactuality in your decision making, that would be a tacit acknowledgement of compatibilism which should be good enough in some kind of pragmatic way. Should Dennett stop using the term Free Will? Maybe but who cares at that point? Someone needs to explain what exactly is the point of Harris' argumentation , given that he constantly appeals to counterfactuality, in almost every important facet of life that does involve a pragmatic sense of volition.

[@smitty1647]

i like, really liked that, like, that one, like, questioner, like, kept saying, like, the very, like, word that dan, like, made a, like, point of, like, pointing out as, like, a viral, like, word

[@vipulvatsyayan6955]

termite vs architechture model got me

[@minnjony]

How does the first meme come into being?

[@FranAbenza]

"Words are semi-autonomous informational structures"

[@rangedkid]

At 9 min in, actually there are boss termites and architect termites. They're called workers and soldiers. Ants and termites have hierarchical and complex social behavioral systems. They call on repairs to damaged pathways, they relocate families to stay with others until a new space is built, etc.

[@StuartMirsky]

Realove no, what he means by "boss termites" are termites who think about what's being done, make plans to get it done and direct other termites to do it by implementing elements of those plans. Dennett is reminding us that there is a great deal of behavioral complexity in nature through which living entities seemingly accomplish purposive goals where those entities have no knowledge of those purposes and nobody in particular has those goals.

[@shanejohns7901]

At around the 50:00 mark, he mentions that AI 'don't have any skin in the game'. And while I agree with him in the LITERAL definition of 'skin', his comment breaks down when the phrase is taken figuratively as I expect he intended. AI has more 'skin in the game' than we who are merely biological and degrade entirely (to the point of death, and therefore non-existence) over time. AI, it would seem, already has that problem solved. AI, it seems by definition, can be backed up nearly infinitely -- certainly with enough redundancy to make the issue moot. So AI would really be looking at a near-immortality with which we mere humans cannot at this time compete.

[@trudyandgeorge]

He meant that the electricity that feeds the computation is free for the AI.

[@davidnrose2135]

His RI lecture is much better I think, bit annoying that he keeps buttering up the Google employees as well. I am still a Dan Dannett Stan thoigh

[@waled324]

great man.

[@RobertASmith-yy7ge]

Fat man.

[@HeathcliffeMcHarris]

Thank you Internet Jesus for 1.25x speed.

[@cynic150]

D.D. said somewhere here that he did not know how music could be bad. Well this is just ridiculous! There are so many different kinds of music and just as many tastes. So what one person likes, another will say is bad. I know that personally, there are certain kinds of music that are really bad. I hate it. Other pieces are works which can uplift the listener, but there are others which just allow the hearer to wallow in depravity and drag people down.

[@Derek-iy9vu]

31:30