Daniel Dennett 3of3: Evolution of Language and Music

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

To turn this into a complete ripping on religion, many think that the Holy Bible is the best book ever, and some even say that they believe it to be divinely inspired because it is such an amazing and touching story.

But the first half was copied directly and shamelessly from common pre-Jesus mythology, and the second half is original in name only, sharing many elements of many previous stories. Only in isolation is it impressive.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

The overrated Bach phenomenon is easily seen in modern movies.

I have seen a lot of "ripoff" movies which are well-made despite having mostly-unoriginal plots, and I have sometimes thought, "that would be an awesome movie if it was the only one of that sort ever made." But viewed among its peers and predecessors, it is only a fair amount better than average and certainly not divinely inspired.

[bersa888]

The point about Bach is especially close to my personal feelings about the composer... honestly, as a musician, there's nothing magical about Bach's music. It may sound magical or God-sent to the musical ignorant or to the blindly religious ones. This does not take away the beauty of the composition or its effectiveness.

[theinquisitor]

@bersa888, as someone with very little knowledge of the technical aspects of music, I'm curious about whether knowing those details actually increases it's aesthetic appeal?

[bersa888]

@theinquisitor : it does for me and for my musician (mostly professionals) friends. Knowing exactly why we love chocolate or how love works (!) wouldn't ruin anything for me, on the contrary. I think it all depends on how someone's mind work. As a skeptic, rational person, I WANT to know as much as possible about our world and ourselves. Growing up I wanted to know how Bach or Mozart "did it". Even without their musical intellects, learning & hard work can really illuminate a "mystery" :-)

[bersa888]

@theinquisitor (cont.) ... at the same time I love the "effect" that music and the arts can solicit on our senses... but a drug-like stupor or mindless ecstasy is not what a look for when I listen to a beautiful piece of music... my mind always leans toward an other kind of "understanding", trying to grasp forms, structures and those elements that make that passage so effective - and beautiful to listen to. And this was true even before I became a musician/composer :-)

[theinquisitor]

@bersa888, music to my ears, pun intended. I know a couple of people who think that understanding spoils beauty, and I find it utterly incomprehensible. I also find that knowledge of something beautiful only deepens it's beauty. I always want to know how the magic trick works, and it's more interesting after finding out than before. I was considering learning to play an instrument, and finding out that it could deepen my appreciation of music only makes me more eager to do so. Thanks :-D

[bersa888]

@theinquisitor :You're welcome!

[heeh2]

@theinquisitor

The book "Unweaving the rainbow" by Richard Dawkins is about the aesthetics of understanding. check it out!

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

Pseudointellectual.

[AnonymousWhitePerson]

The English language is Linguistic Feces.

[jacksawild]

Electrons repel each other because they have a like charge, it's been well understood for about a hundred years. A material theory of mind might fail if we fail to create artificial intelligence. Check out numenta, a self learning, self arranging, representational and hierarchical memory software design. This thing can learn to see, hear and who knows what else? It seems that higher mammals share what we think of as human, emotion, planning, reason and communication. We're lucky is all.

[NeoConvert]

You've disappeared again.

I posted two points of reply to your eight-part response.

What's crackin'?

[theinquisitor]

(1/4) Sorry Neo, I've been procrastinating again. But I have given your responses some serious thought. It seems to me that we may differ on what qualifies as an explanation. I agree with your statements about our empirical understanding being reactive. We can describe the behaviour of matter and make reliable predictions about it's future state by examining it's current state. The ability to make testable predictions is the cornerstone of any scientific theory.

[theinquisitor]

(2/4) If our predictions about the movements of electrons turn out to be correct, as they do when using quantum theory, then I think it's fair to say that quantum theory is accurate within that scope. But our understanding is limited, and we don't know what an electron "really" is. Maybe there's a structure of superstring deep down, and other structures further down than that, we don't know. But no matter how deep we go, we can always say, okay then why is it like THAT?

[theinquisitor]

(3/4) These kind of explanations are by no means complete, and the answers always lead to more questions, but is this really a limitation of the materialistic paradigm, or just a limitation of human knowledge of any kind? If I concede for the sake of argument, that the human mind cannot be material in nature, then what is it? Wouldn't any investigation of the non-material mind be just as susceptible to the limits of inquiry that apply to investigating the electron.

[theinquisitor]

(4/4) How does describing the mind as something other than matter give us a better explanation, even if it's true? If we call it spirit or energy or soul or magic, what does that get us? Does that really qualify as an explanation? How is this different from the way natural philosophers described life a few centuries ago? It seems to me that saying that it's magic is giving up. It stops any further enquiry. The question that I'm dancing around is, how do you explain the mind?

[stehoz87]

This is why science is futile. Our intelligence cannot solve infinity and it is arrogant to think so, ' but acquiring wisdom rather than knowledge can be fulfilling which is why religion exists.

[theinquisitor]

What wisdom has religion granted us? Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not supernatural. Just because science has limits doesn't mean that making shit up is a source of wisdom.

[stehoz87]

On a scale it has taught discipline, but no wisdom for religion is imagination. IF you start with a core of belief of freewill and that one is alive (both of which are unprovable), religion and science is the filler inbetween that and the only possible known conclusion of 'god'.

[stehoz87]

Science cannot solve infintiy and therefore never come to a conclusion regarding the core belief. 'Finite' is not possible. It doesn.t matter what or who god is but that there is no other conclusion other than infinity. If infinity is real then god is real, even if that is just infinite intelligence If everything has an explanation is to admit determinism, the core belief is that this is not the case and results in an expression of the term 'soul'.

[stehoz87]

This core belief is wisdom as it cannot be communicated via a medium of intelligence and is wordless.I ask would you know you were alive if you were born without your senses?

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

@stehoz87

I will re-write that for you:

"I haven't got any knowledge, so I will use another word and claim to have that instead."

Sorry, religion is still retarded.

[NeoConvert]

I have to say that it's disappointing that you should drop out of the discussion so suddenly.

Once again, my question to you was "in whose universe does 'mind' better fit"?

This is a no-win for you, because you've already admitted that it is basic. But then, if you're a materialist, then mind must be basic in a way consistent with your commitment to matter being basic. But once again, mind has NONE of the properties of matter. What gives?

[theinquisitor]

(1/8) NeoConvert, sorry about my sudden disappearance. After some distraction and procrastination I just decided to take a break from internet arguments for a while as it was doing my head in a bit. If you're still interested, I'll continue now that I've had a break. I'll try not to vanish without explanation again. Regarding your tendency to be terse, I have no problem with that, I merely wanted to make sure this wasn't going to be a largely emotional argument.

[theinquisitor]

(2/8) Firstly, I think I may have misinterpreted what you meant by the mind being ontologically basic. I think it is basic in the sense that it's where we have to start from with our explanations. Everything we experience is in our minds, we don't have anywhere else to get our information from. However, whether mind is some kind of primordial thing that cannot be explained in terms of something else is another matter, no pun intended.

[theinquisitor]

(3/8) I do acknowledge that our understanding of matter as it stands doesn't offer an adequate explanation for the existence of minds. I have nothing approaching an explanation for the existence of consciousness. But asserting that mind is basic and requires no further explanation strikes me as a cop-out. It's as good as saying it's magic and can't be explained. Just because we can't yet explain something doesn't justify resorting to the supernatural.

[theinquisitor]

(4/8) I don't have any emotional attachment to materialism, I simply see no reason to leap to the conclusion that there is anything other than material. The existence of mind is a deeply puzzling question that remains to be answered, but to say that matter couldn't possibly explain it is premature. We don't know everything about matter yet. It may seem that I'm being overly reluctant to consider an immaterial cause for mind, but I have good reason for remaining skeptical.

[theinquisitor]

(5/8) Consider the position that philosophers were in a few centuries ago when they were trying to explain something that seemed just as inexplicable in terms of mere matter: life. Many said that living things could only be explained by invoking some kind of elan vital, an immaterial force that animates living tissue. This was presented as a proof of a god. That is, until we found out that there's nothing immaterial about the metabolism of a cell.

[theinquisitor]

(6/8) A plant doesn't grow because of some immaterial force, it grows ultimately because of chemistry, a purely materialistic process. I think we might be at the stage with our understanding of the mind that these natural philosophers were at with their understanding of life. The brain is an astonishingly complex thing that we are yet to fully investigate. It's too soon to dismiss materialistic explanations and resort to magic.

[theinquisitor]

(7/8) I don't know how matter can explain the mind, but every mind that we observe always has a highly complex brain attached to it. I would say that the mind is what the brain does. To suggest that a mind could exist without a brain is like saying breathing can exist without lungs. Until we see minds that can exist independently of a material brain, I see no reason to resort to dualism. The unexplained has always been the place for magical or supernatural explanations.

[theinquisitor]

(8/8) When we knew virtually nothing about our world, everything was explained with magic and gods, from lightning to the motion of the planets. As we have continued to explain things in terms of material causes, the supernatural has retreated further into the gaps in our knowledge. The way the this trend has been going, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of supernatural explanations. Saying it's magic doesn't explain anything anyway. I prefer to say I just don't know. Yet.

[NeoConvert]

Good to see you're back.

A couple of comments then:

1) The ancient tendency toward divinizing mysterious phenomena as a commonsensical basis that we have, in fact, not outgrown the need for, despite the party line you're towing here. This is because our empirical understanding of the world is 'reactive' in character. I.e. A will do B when placed in condition X. But as to what "active" power lies at the bottom of all this, we're empty-handed. Why do two electrons repel one another?

[NeoConvert]

(continued here)

What active power is Newton's law describing the behavior of? Truth is, we have not moved an inch beyond various formulations of the cosmological argument in all our scientific understanding. A power is always presupposed that the theory itself cannot account for.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

2) Your appeal to the mere present "impracticality" of finding a material explanation for mind will not suffice. It is a matter of principle, not practice. Intentionality is the essence of the mental and intentionality is, simply, non-derivative, despite Dennet's sophisms about its gradual accumulation. And there is just no sense in talking about some quantity of matter ever becoming "about" something. Besides, even supposing so presupposes a subject (i.e. a mind) for whom it is so.

[NeoConvert]

A bit of expansion on (2) here:

The mind is essentially representational.

Suppose an ant crawls through the sand and traces the following shape: WINSTON CHURCHILL. (Imagine it in cursive, of course.)

Has the ant made a sign for Winston Churchill?

No. Not unless there is some subject/mind to see it as such. It is merely a physical arrangement of matter. It does not take on its representational quality unless there be a mind to see it as such.

Any material theory of mind fails.

[dashpowers22]

@NeoConvert You can describe the mind without using any representational heuristics. Anthony Chemero's recent book "Radical Embodied Cognitive Science" is a good place to look for just such a description. He uses a dynamical systems theory (DST) approach to describing cognition. There is also, of course, work by J.J. Gibson that eschews mental representation talk for talk of the direct perception of affordances.

[dashpowers22]

@NeoConvert I see a lot of asserting here but where is the argument?

[dashpowers22]

@NeoConvert Also, you should check out the semi-recent paper "Nano-Intentionality" by Tecumseh Fitch.

[NeoConvert]

Just a help note... the proper order of my previous three responses is:

1) "I realize you're continuing...

2) A) Neither you nor I...

3) Sorry? It did what?

They were typed in response to you're previous three, in that order, but they do not appear to be showing up that way. Please, nonetheless, read them in that order so that the response can be made sense of and effect its full force.

[NeoConvert]

Once again,

My (1), in response to your 1/3

My (2), in response to your 2/3

and My (3), in response to your 3/3

I'm really annoyed at YouTube's seeming inability to keep a thread of discussion chronological. It's absolutely enervating.

[theinquisitor]

Sorry about the delay in replying Neo. I tend to procrastinate. I can understand your suspicion about the thumbing down, given the way most people behave on youtube (on either side of this debate). I've thumbed up your comments that had some negative values.

Regarding the chronology of comments, if you have a multiple comment reply, try replying to your own first reply with the second comment, and reply to the second with the third, and so on. This tends to keep them in the right order (cont)

[theinquisitor]

(cont) Now on to the argument. Just to clarify, if I'm understanding correctly, you have two main objections. Firstly, you object to the idea that any physical system, like the brain, could be the source of consciousness and intentionality.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that evolution is not supported by evidence. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to proceed to try to respond to these points. (cont)

[theinquisitor]

(cont) Regarding the first objection, I freely admit that consciousness has not been explained by science, and I frequently find myself astonished by the fact of my own self-awareness. There is no current explanation for how this can manifest from the laws of physics as we know them. I'm curious about what other explanation you would suggest to explain the mind, although I realise that it's not necessary to have an alternative to point out flaws in an argument (cont)

[theinquisitor]

(cont) The absence of a current physical explanation for the mind doesn't make a potential physical explanation necessarily impossible, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what you're suggesting.

Regarding your objection to evolution, the evidence for it is overwhelming and complicated. I'm curious about what your sources of information are about the the evidence for evolution, and whether you've read any mainstream books or articles on the subject. (cont)

[theinquisitor]

(cont) If you're interested in an explanation of the evidence from the mainstream scientific perspective, one of the most comprehensive sources I can point you to is talkorigins. Particularly their article "29+ evidences for macroevolution", which can be found with a google search. It's interesting that you mentioned biochemistry, since that is the source of the most compelling evidence.

Anyway, I suggest pursuing one of these objections at a time, but feel free to respond as you wish.

[NeoConvert]

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the mind." Are you sure what you mean by "explain the mind"?

Here's an "explanation for the mind." Mind/consciousness is irreducible to anything else. It's ontologically basic. You have one because you are created in the image of an eternally self-conscious, personal, being. Subjectivity is irreducible because the world has a subject as its very source.

What? That's not scientific? What you really mean is that it's not "naturalistic." Who cares?

[NeoConvert]

First, no.

Rather, I object to the supposition that you can even make sense of the phrase "physical system... source of consciousness and intentionality." It is incoherent. It derives from a metaphysical assumption which demands it. Independent of that metaphysic, it's entirely unmotivated. The "explanatory gap" is abiding testament to this.

Second, no. One can invent infinitely many stories compatible with a given data set. Who cares? As per E-theory, it lacks just where it needs.

[NeoConvert]

I realize that, I think, but my aim was to apply one comment to each of your successive trio. Had my aim been to keep mine together, in order, I think you'd be right. But I was trying to offer a retort to each of yours, in order, and the order was reduced to chaos. Entropy you know.

[theinquisitor]

Neo, I get the impression that you're being a bit defensive about this. I suspect that's due to the kind of response you've gotten in the past when talking to those who don't share your views, so I don't blame you.

But I'm really just interested in an alternate perspective, not merely an opportunity to tell someone they're wrong. My questions are an attempt to better understand your position, not an attempt to destroy it.

[theinquisitor]

Anyway, I'm not too well versed in philosophy, but I think I agree with the idea that the mind is ontologically basic. It's primary, everything else follows from it.

My problem with your proceeding statement about an eternally self-conscious personal being (a deity I presume), isn't so much that it's not naturalistic or scientific, but that it's an assertion given without justification, and it doesn't explain the mind, it merely posits another mind. Another thing to explain.

[theinquisitor]

Anyway, I'm sorry if my phrasing is incoherent at times, but I'd be interested in your expanding on the argument about the eternally self-conscious personal being (shall we say a god to be succinct). What reasons or evidence can you provide to justify this position, and how does it address the problem of explaining the existence of minds by proposing the existence of a superior mind. Doesn't that leave us with the same thing to explain, why does any mind exist at all? Thanks.

[NeoConvert]

The sorts of claims that require evidence and the types of evidence that will support certain claims are heavily dependent on one's basic metaphysical commitment. It is one's 'prior' commitment to a materialist metaphysic that generates the problem of "explaining" the mind in terms of material. You have to get "mind" out of what exists in your world... matter. I don't.

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

"Doesn't that leave us with the same thing to explain?"

Not necessarily. You have previously admitted that some categories are basic. This can't be squared (without further qualification) with your present insistence that all things must be explained in terms of something else.

Given your concession that mind is basic, now ask which sort of universe "makes better sense" of that basicality.

Mind has NONE of the properties we attribute to matter.

In whose universe does it better fit?

[NeoConvert]

Let me add that it's most definitely not an assertion given without justification. But we must remember that different sorts of justification are going to be called for by claims that occupy varying positions within one's noetic structure.

I might "justify" my believe in a God created universe in any number of ways that it is absolutely naive of you (and you know it) to pretend do not exist.

I could argue from reason, logic, universals, abstract entities, induction, morality, or even Christ.

[NeoConvert]

If you'll tolerate my to be terse, and not leave my personality at the door of an intellectual discussion, I'll assure you I'm not being defensive. I don't think civility and verve need be antitheses. The topic excites me, and I think you're position is ludicrous. It's going to come out. I'm not having a go at you. Deal?

[NeoConvert]

** "tendency to be terse...."

[NeoConvert]

B) is not explained or illuminated AT ALL simply by saying "it must have been selected for."

For we all know that properties are not selected for until they exist. Therefore, it begins to seem as if not only is Dennett's final statement vague, ambiguous, unhelpful, etc., but rather, it is actually a sort of definitional impossibility.

NS "could not" (in the nature of the case) give us an account of how intentionality came about.

[theinquisitor]

Neo, I'm not entirely confident in my understanding of his position on the evolution of intentionality, but I'd like to address your statement that "properties are not selected for until they exist".

This is of course true, but it's important to point out that natural selection is only part of the process. The other is variation, caused by mutation. These two processes combined allow changes to accumulate over time, necessarily changes that are advantageous to survival... (continued)

[theinquisitor]

(continued) If the mind is the product of a physical system, the brain, and ultimately the genes, then darwinian processes provide a pathway through "design space" from the most basic nervous system to the human brain. The intermediate generations need only vary by an infinitesimal amount, with any advantageous variation being propagated by improved survival and reproductive success. Given the assumption that the mind is a product of the brain, the evolution of the mind logically follows.

[theinquisitor]

(continued) To address the question of how intentionality came about, from a darwinian perspective, it came about because it was beneficial to survival. So any chance variation that happened to increase this perception would be preserved and propagated. Whatever the mechanism of this mental process is, evolution will necessarily stumble into it sooner or later and cling on to it because of it's benefit to the survival of the genes that cause the intentionality to arise.

[NeoConvert]

Sorry? It did what? What is "it"? Intentionality? What's THAT? Explain to me how any set of physical events can coherently be said to be "about" anything else. Mechanism, you say? We're not talking about pin-ball machines, my man. We're talking about intentionality. Please explain in what sense intentionality is "mechanistic," for I can make no sense of the idea...

(and neither can you, which is why you'll demur).

[NeoConvert]

A) Neither you nor I can make any sense whatsoever of the supposition that the mind is the "product" of a physical system. Philosophers have admitted this in so many words by admitting of the "explanatory gap." You are fooling yourself to deny that you can see ANY reason why ANY bit of matter should be more likely conscious than any other.

B) Even given the assumption, the mind does NOT "logically" follow. Unless begging the ENTIRE question is acceptable. You've probabilities to face.

[NeoConvert]

I realize that you're "continuing" further down, but let me insert here that A) there is absolutely no evidence for the sort if incremental changes referred to here (aside from an assumed theory that requires them, and that's not evidence), and B) it is preposterous to suppose that those INNUMERABLE stages at which mutation would have to "pit-stop" could be - miraculously - advantageous, so as to bring about the - even more miraculous! - finally formed adaptation as we know it. Eyes are eyes.

[NeoConvert]

Third,

Dennet, in his own writings is unclear at best and inconsistent at worst about the ontological status of intentionality. There is good reason to attribute to him the position that it is not a property of the mental as such. Hence his "intentional stance" doctrine. This being the case, it's utterly beyond me how he can then stand there and say NS "must" be the way to explain a feature of the mind that A) he can't even decide whether he wants to countenance or not... and....

(see next)

[NeoConvert]

Second,

Irrespective of that terminological exchange (my mistaken one), my general position still stands, i.e. that it is utterly unilluminating to tell one's audience that X-million years into the show reason-giving, -having creatures suddenly appear, and that the only way to understand this is NS, if you're then going to say NOTHING about WHY, or HOW that is so.

(see continuation)

[NeoConvert]

By way of reply, several things.

First, I've gone back to the place in the video in question. It appears to me now that I failed to recall D's statement accurately. I recalled him as saying "natural selection" where in fact he said "evolution" in the closing set of statements. My incredulity was partly based on this mistake. If I claimed 'tautology,' it was for this reason. But I'm not sure that I did. I think I said 'incoherent,' But I should have said uninformative, tautological, etc...

[NeoConvert]

Hold on now!

(paraphrasing here, final seconds)

"the only perspective from which we'll be able to understand how natural selection produced reason-having creatures is the Darwinian perspective"??????

I suppose everyone was so ready to clap at they-know-not-what by the end of this talk that they completely failed to appreciate the incoherence of that final gem.

Saw this man "live" at the APA in Chicago, and he was as unimpressive there as he is here.

[deathbyluxury]

I'm sorry to have intruded on your existence so late, but I have reason to understand that you are still an arrogant theist (even a month after your blatant exhibition of a mind divided). You are a shining example of what a virulent meme God can be. It (the God meme) produces profound displays of cognitive dissonance even among sharp minds such as yours.

[NeoConvert]

You will perhaps learn at some point that tossing around fashionable words (e.g. 'meme,' 'cog. dis.' etc.) amidst nothing more than a standard "argument by assertion" is not actual intellectual engagement.

You have not really said anything.  But if people like Dennett are your "teachers," then this is unsurprising. For my original observation was to the effect that he had done likewise.... i.e. said nothing.

[deathbyluxury]

Intelligent people who believe in God (the "reigning superintelligence") tend to associate their own minds with said fictitious mind, and therefore limit their ability to absorb true knowledge, thus stunting their intellectual growth. Your arrogance does not put you above Dennett; his intellect is far beyond yours. Your arrogance only reinforces and supports your present inability to think critically, and to apply the scientific method.

[NeoConvert]

You of course - as a critical thinker - most definitely know the difference between mere psychologizing and actual argument, however, and therefore you wouldn't dream of labeling what you've offered here as anything like argument.

[deathbyluxury]

I, being a critical thinker (guilty as charged), have a thirst for evidence to support or falsify things I find questionable. That said, I find your intentions questionable. The evidence to support this claim is plainly shown on your profile under "Recent Activity" which contains a list of comments from you which either (A) argue for argument's sake, and/or (B) argue unfalsifiable claims.

[NeoConvert]

Then you'll "have a thirst" to explain to me what would falsify the hopelessly arid statement by Dennett which I've voiced my disapproval with in this comment thread.

There's a history of this sort of presupposition masquerading as hypothesis in Darwin's little click, you know.

[deathbyluxury]

Well, then I guess we're both guilty of a little blissful ignorance. I quite like the theories of memetics and evolution, and I have no reason yet to find them questionable, and therefore no thirst to falsify them. When I was a "Goddidit" guy, I had much desire to falsify such theories. I couldn't, and I eventually ended up an agnostic atheist. And I am not a professional in the field of science (yet, I like to think), so I don't have the tools to falsify these claims (yet) anyhow.

[deathbyluxury]

One eloquent comment shows that you think Eminem's rap on a specific freestyle is written, and not off the cuff. You bring up no solid evidence, just a claim, which is tantamount to your other arguments. I could attack a strawman by saying that such an argument is pointless, because anyone who listens to Eminem and his ilk is probably mentally deficient.

[NeoConvert]

That wouldn't really be a 'straw man' would it. It would be, if anything, ad hominem.

But let me nonetheless humor you here. Would you like some solid evidence that Em's verse is written? I can offer it. Of course, evidence is going to be a domain-specific, so unless you know something about the field, your reaction to the evidence might be more or less relevant.

If you have no interest in the domain, then it's you who are arguing for argument's sake, not me.

[deathbyluxury]

I actually have interest in the domain of hip hop in general. As an electronic music producer, I have an affinity for the electronic arts, but I am more interested in the beats than the lyrics. My rationalization is that I [think I] am a clever linguist, and I don't require a backbeat to support this (not to mention I don't have much of a voice). I am not a fan of Mr. Mathers, so I don't care if he flows or memorizes. And actually, that was an ad hominem/straw man argument for argument's sake :)

[deathbyluxury]

Furthermore, to address your proposition that people like Dennett are my teachers: I am my own teacher, as are you. But there's nothing wrong with admiring a bright mind with bright ideas. I find nothing admirable about arrogance where it is not due (i.e. rating a brilliant mind such as Dennett as unimpressive, when you have not shown evidence to support your hypothesis of a superior intellect). Humility is key, and I thought that was a major tenet among theists.

[NeoConvert]

I do not agree that he's brilliant.

I think he's sloppy, uninspiring, and unimpressive. So your point it moot here.

[deathbyluxury]

Furthermore, as a non-professional atheist observer, I have to resort to what I rationalize *can* be falsified more or less, to arrive at my (sometimes fleeting) conclusions. Until I'm a molecular biologist, or what have you, I have to remain as an annoying commentator from the sidelines. Just like you!!

[NeoConvert]

Doesn't take a molecular biologist to realize that E-theory is the product of an otherwise untenable presuppositional explanatory framework foisted upon a set of data that in no way warrants it.

But neither does being a molecular biologist keep you from seeing this. Heck, Denton saw it just fine. His book's fantastic.

[theinquisitor]

@NeoConvert & deathbyluxury, I think it would be fruitful to focus on the original point of contention. That is, Neo's statement that Dennett was being incoherent when he said that the darwinian perspective is the only way to understand the evolution of minds.

I'm curious about what you find incoherent about this? I realise it could be interpreted as a tautology, but I think the point he was making is that there has to be a trajectory through "design-space" to get to something like a mind.

[deathbyluxury]

I agree that NeoConvert's statement needs to be addressed. I think our conversation, while entertaining, was anything but fruitful. It started out with ad hominem rhetoric, and quickly deviated from the point of contention because of it. I am interested to hear NeoConvert's claim clarified. I am in agreement with you on Dennett's statement could be construed as tautological, but this is the only argument against it I can think of, and an ineffective one at that unless his assertion is backed up.

[deathbyluxury]

I hope that, one day, you will realize this. You could have a wonderful career in science with such a bright mind - a career where arrogance can actually be justified.

Good day. :)

[Animalll2003lll]

bam. so sharp. this is music to my ears. it's just to sharp and relevant.

[NeoConvert]

What, in particular, was sharp?

[Animalll2003lll]

...the idea that culture is also subject to natural selection. dude you seem pretty hateful; are you religious :) ?

[NeoConvert]

Well if I seem hateful, I suppose that's a failing on my part. But I don't believe anything I've said here can reasonably be construed that way. I presume then that you have some interest that is to be served by suggesting it.

What I expressed was that I'm generally unimpressed with Daniel Dennett has a philosopher. If that is "hateful," you're a curious cat.

[Animalll2003lll]

yes you're on a "talk shit crusade" against dennett, and evolutionism ;) because what he says contradicts your religious beliefs.

[NeoConvert]

What he says is philosophically thin.

If pointing that out (or even having an opinion about it) is "talking shit" to you, then you are intellectually thin.

In this, he seems to be something of a priest to you.

[NeoConvert]

Furthermore,

I have made example of something that I find philosophically thin in his words. If you have some argument in his defense, offer it. Or if you find my assessment/qualm unfounded, explain why.

But don't expect me to bow my head just because you find the man to be holy. In this, you display a sort of irrational religiosity. Ironic.

[NeoConvert]

Seems like you would have answered if you had anything substantial to say. Truly disappointing.

[NeoConvert]

I cannot resist the temptation to suppose that it is yourself who has opted merely to 'thumbs down' my replies to you. This, in lieu of answering.

Of course, it might not be you. But with no answer from you, how can one resist?

[NeoConvert]

It doesn't strike me that he has at all made clear that that is the case. In fact, his very assertion that we are "reason giving/having" creatures seems to militate against it. Obviously people create culture. Once you grant that people act for reasons, then you cannot then say that culture is a product of natural selection. The two theses are in tension. One assumes teleology, one denies it.

[fordogtrainers]

But are humans creating culture by means of intelligent design?

By that I mean is it an up down design?

Do humans come to the conclusions that lead to creating culture by means on analyzing the situation and creating a language and art style that would work best in it?

[johnclavis]

Oh, if only we had that Douglas Adams computer program today...

Thanks for posting these!