Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (6 of 8)

[apologeticacattolica]

I adore Robert Wright and have read two of his books with much relish. But I must admit that he's not remaining objective and calm. He's failing to patiently interface with Dennet's ideas. This is a disappointment to me since I like him so much.

[huwrj]

Wright pretends not to be, but he's actually something like a Deist or Intelligent Design proponent. He says he's not, but listen to his arguments and you will find that he has a foot firmly in that camp. And he wants to keep a foot in all camp and make it all into a mystical mush, which means he has to contradict himself.

[fjoo]

I agree with Wright that it's not possible to know Dennett the same way he knows him self.(But for a different reason then Wright).

If I were to know exactly how it was like to be Dennett as he does, then I would BE Dennett.

If I knew how it was like to be Dennett WHILE knowing how it is to be me, or with my brain through his eyes, I would have additional information / experience and would therefore know him differently.

- Though I'm sure Dennett agrees with that, it just didn't come across.

[lordmoorth]

I think they are both wrong. I can't know what it is like to be you without having your brain and being you. My brain can only produce me - itself but it is amenable to science.Simply because you can not have my subjective experience does not mean you can not predict my behavior or describe my subjective experience. Simply because atoms don't look like painted ping pong balls (or have optical detail) does not make a model of DNA made from them useless.

[loveminus0]

Wright has no interest in what Dennett has to say, he just wants to talk about what he himself thinks and how Dennett is wrong about everything. Wright pulls this in every interview/debate he takes part in. It's very tiresome. Dennett makes very clear arguments over and over while Wright completely dismisses them and moves on to what he believes or to another subject entirely.

[SciTechExplained]

@loveminus0 Nice caricature! lol

[arpakyna]

Robert Wright's note-to-self: Never assume your most innate, common sense true, self-evidently correct ideas are accepted by other people... especially if talking to an intellectual giant with extensive background in philosophy like "Dr." Dennett.

[mellamosean]

Perhaps we can even make it so this person is controlling an avatar bat body. There may be certain reasons why this is not possible in the world we live in. But I don't think we can ever truly know if that is possible or not until we have better understanding of brain functionality and its relationship with consciousness.

[mellamosean]

When my friend brought up that statement about never be able to know what it is like to be a bat, this is what I thought of. Imagine in the future, we have complete understanding of bat and human brain functioning, and we take a human and temporarily alter their brain so that their brain essentially functions as a bat brain.

[begily]

What it is like to be me, is not to be aware of all these patterns of behaviour, brain function etc.

[begily]

If I can say that “there is something it is like to be me”, that means I am conscious. But what I am conscious of in any one moment, is not all the various brain functions, internal dynamics, or patterns of behaviour that I exhibit, in which case, what the team of observers would be observing is not what it is like to be me from moment to moment.

"What it is like to be me" does not equate to the observation of brain functions, internal dynamics and patterns of behaviour.

[begily]

To say that a team of observers could know what it is like to be "me" more than I could myself is, although I think I know what Dennett’s getting at, still in a sense is incorrect. Although they could observe brain functions, and internal dynamics and other that I myself am not aware of, that doesn't capture what it is like to be "me", because I am not aware of all those internal dynamics, or all the brain functions as they occur within me...

[smileswg]

Very few people are in Dennett's league.

[Reerrpad5515]

Wright is hooked on the illusion of a personal agent. He really needs to let that little bit go, recognize, as any marginally skilled meditator does, that it is simply a construct of the brain, and all of Dennett's examples and arguments make complete sense. To say "I would be 'me' in your frame of reference" is to assume you cannot separate yourself from this agency. If he cannot make this distinction, Dennett is wasting his time.

I think you can all tell that Dennett sees this too.

[JBeezie428]

DENNETT IS THE MAN!!!!!

[ManyInfiniteComments]

Wright has a problem with reducible complexity, consciousness is the evolution of the mind over millions of years, and no matter how complex we might think we are, everything can be tracked back to its origin. Irreducible complexity is a fallacy. I do believe we might never know what a bat is in our time, but given enough time (think evolution) we could in principle as Dennett explains... know what a bat really thinks.

[secretmurph]

wright is actually a pretty insightful guy, even though he looks kind of silly in this interview at times. i really took a lot from his book "the moral animal:" although it doesn't really cover any of the topics discussed here, his perspective is very clear and rational concerning evolutionary psychology. i'm not trying to start a fight, but i figure someone has got to stand up for this guy, haha. it's hard to keep up with dennet in general, he really is in a league of his own.

[jonnylazer]

most of the people who have commented here seem to think that the sunshines out of Dennets arse.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

I have to disagree. Lets go with a hummingbird instead of a bat.

What does ultraviolet look like?

Can you describe it?

Oh well it's just more purple like than purple.

No, I just don't think we're equipped to do it. Sure we could lower the wavelength or do little dot drawings but we can never really have our subjective sensory experience of ultraviolet

[skotoseme]

"defy you to justify, having---- so far I've failed to get you to capitulate, and, I don't think this is going to work either, to be perfectly honest.."

Your syntactic coherence is breaking down, grey-haired kiddo.

[TheConciseStatement]

Yeah and lovely terms of engagement for a civilised conversation : "Let me attempt to destroy you one more time".

Perhaps Wright would find his days on a YouTube comment board more rewarding.

[otakurocklee]

I guess I'm one of the few that thought that Dennett just avoided the question altogether. He couldn't answer any of the questions adequately. The entire issue is that consciousness is a private internal experience... it cannot be scientifically detected... it IS an epiphenomenon in that sense.

If by concsioucness he means something other than this internal private experience, then why doesn't he just define it. Why does he use the word consciousness which already has a clearly defined meaning?

[JejuLee]

You might be one of the few, but the few just became the few +1; it seems he is so used to having to have an answer (teacher/professor role), that he can't admit when he's wrong. Wright's observation about "it will still be me perceiving what it's like to be you" nailed that particular disagreement for me. Dennett just waved it off.

No doubt Dennett could spin circles around me, but I know bullshit & rationalizations when I hear them...

[jonnylazer]

@JejuLee Totally agree

[VarialProductions]

emergent property i thinks

[sphericalpyramid]

"If a team of observers watched over me, took notes, observed me, etc. they would know more about me than me!"

So, by that rationale, if I watch you more than you pay attention to yourself, then I know more about you than you do. What an infinitely shallow degredation of what it is to be a human being. We are much more dynamic than that, and the contents of our inner dimensions know no finite limits. Each of us is an unsolvable mystery, much to the chagrin of Daniel Dennett apparently.

[fromthesestones]

Sorry danny but knowing what it is like to be you and knowing more about what it is like to be you than you do are inherently different kinds of knowledge.

[Raherin]

Lol, I love how Dennet completely proves him wrong, and then the interviewer/debater just changes topics. It's pretty funny. He's not even in Dennet's league at all.

[phantomofmyopera]

Thank you! I suspect the people who think Dennett isn't answering the questions have the same problem Wright seems to have, they want some comforting holy dimension to it all.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin whats funny is that you have clearly missed the point here because this isnt an interview or a debate, in fact, Wright is a journalist and writer and so I would say this is a dialogue. Whats scary is that 14 people have given your intellectually empty comment a thumbs up : ( I feel sorry for all 15 of you

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer His questioning seems to be a little argumentative, don't you think? Just because he's a journalist, that doesn't mean he can't be criticized like that.

Maybe if you listened to the questions/answers, instead of using his title to make a point perhaps you would see how Dennet is throwing his logic back at him, and making his questions look stupid.

Please.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin I have listened to all of this dialogue as well as others on his website. There are others here on youtube including Keith Ward and Steven Pinker, both of which are fascinating. Its not my problem if you are not sufficiently nuanced of mind to appreciate the subtle difference between debate/interview/dialogue. Your just a little new atheist fan boy...go suck Dennets dick

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer How exactly does the difference between the three nuances disprove the fact that Dennet is throwing his logic in his face, and making his questions look absurd?

No need to throw around childish insults that make you look immature. Surely we can discuss this maturely, or not.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin Because you have framed it as some sort of competition , where the winner is RIGHT. Now, I see this more of a conversation between two men, they exchange ideas and then discuss why they dont agree with one another. Opinions are like arseholes in that we all have them, Dennets opinions are just that...his opinions. I see dialogues like this as nearer to a spoken form of literature than to a sport where somebody is ever declared the winner.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Why is this so difficult for you? You don't like that I used 'debate/interview', when in fact the video description says 'DEBATE'? Why don't you write the video uploader also? Honestly, the words I used doesn't make a difference in the fact that Dennet makes Robert's questions look fucking stupid. How many times do I need to say that?

So, why don't you just sit in a corner and cry yourself to sleep over this? Seriously, get a fucking life you moron and go troll somewhere else.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin ahhh I see now...the title of the video says debate so thats what it is...thank you for showing me the error of my ways

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Actually, the title says INTERVIEW, and the description says DEBATE. So, there is no 'DIALOG' written anywhere. So, you've been wasting your entire time being a dick for nothing.

GOOD JOB.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin Believe it or not I manged to come up with the description of dialogue myself. Note the spelling.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer What is your point? Are you correcting my spelling?

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin mine was a typo...it happens...you just cant spell. While we are on the subject I would advise you that you dont know how to use comma's. Thats no disgrace though, as it can be difficult for simpletons to do that sort of thing, you are actually doing ok...keep it up sport !!

[Raherin]

Lol, another fail for you. You used a comma improperly.

Search in Google for "how do use comma's", and you'll see it corrects to "how to use commas". You don't need to put a comma in your sentence, you tard.

You make a typo pointing out my typo, and you use a comma wrong pointing out that I don't know how to use commas. Is there no end to your hypocrisy?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

[Raherin]

@Raherin One more time. Hahahaha

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin HAHAHAHAHA that isnt a comma its an apostrophe...and the use of apostrophe's is even trickier. You really thought you had me but have proved that you dont even know the difference between comma(apostophe's)s and apostrophes. Grade = must try harder

again, HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer I corrected myself, you idiot. Anyways, I don't give a shit about grammar on youtube. You are just a troll, which has been proved over and over in this 'discussion'.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Technically it was an apostrophe you made a mistake with. Same difference. You made a grammar mistake, while trying to be a dick correcting my commas, which almost everyone uses wrong anyways.

Anyways. Say whatever you want, people can just check the history to see your immaturity. Goodbye.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin you shouldnt put your faith in automated grammer checkers as they are very sketchy in terms of accuracy. Go and get an education and then you would know for your self. Goodbye

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer The fact that you have changed the topic to grammar, and not the topic you originally started with is an obvious cope out to not actually have an argument to give. My typing isn't even that bad.

Your goodbye message has a triumphant tone to it because you feel you have beat me in grammar, in a discussion about this philosophical interview. How fucked up is that? Feel good? lol.

You insulted me first, you change the topic to grammar first. Go check the history.

You're just a troll.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer And what does 'manged' mean?

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin similar to douche...look it up : )

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you? You misspelled 'managed', while trying to point out a typo I made, another fail for you, congratulations. I could care less if I made a typo, also.

You are just proving me right when I said you're just a troll.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer No problem. I appreciate that.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin I thought it was americans who didnt get irony

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer How about I say this instead.

Lol, I love how Dennet makes Robert's questions look completely absurd. In fact, I started to think that Robert was sort of a moron after this 'dialog', but that's ok, it was still fun to watch Dennet answer his questions, as dumb as some of them where.

There we go! I got the SAME point across, without saying 'debate'. Does that make you feel better a little?

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin I suspect the only point you have is on the top of your head you fuckin brainless canadian surrender monkey. I didnt want to get personal but you did so I did

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Lol, you told me to go suck Dennet's dick when I was being perfectly polite to you, and I asked you to stop, and you kept saying that shit. You are the one who got personal first.

Go, check, the fucking, history.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Now, one more thing to say.

"Opinions are like arseholes in that we all have them, Dennets opinions are just that..."

There we go. You are not interested in a dialog either. You are just slandering Dennet. That explains why you thought I was a fan boy, and it also explains how you really think, and how you are just as much trying to pin Dennet as the 'loser', while apparently am doing the opposite and pin Dennet as a 'winner'.

You're just a tr0ll douche bag.

[jonnylazer]

@Raherin Im sorry but I dont debate with people who say douche bag as it indicates that they are a child or an idiot. Either way I cant learn anything from you.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Good way to figure out a way to not have to respond to my pointing out your hypocrisy. Since you've already been throwing insults at me, and every other person who left comments [not on your side] why are you so offended? I'm just doing what you are doing. Lol, you are such a hypocrite.

I already asked you to stop being immature and throwing insults acting like a child, but you keep doing it anyways.

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer And, this is not a debate. You've been criticizing how I used the word 'interviewer/debater'. And, those words don't affect the meaning of my statement. You haven't actually made a point as to why Dennet might be wrong about anything.

So ya, this is not a debate, and you're still a douche because you were telling me to go suck Dennet's dick, and a few other things. This is how you debate? You get to insult, and I don't? Nice.

Guess what. You're a fucking douche bag. :]

[Raherin]

@jonnylazer Oh, and FYI. Before you go assuming, I am not a 'fan' of Dennet. I like his stuff, but I have watched a couple debates and have not read any of his books. :]

[QuixoticTendencies]

@Raherin I think Wright is quite a bit below Dennet, but Dennet's a fucking genius. I think Wright's still brilliant in his own way.

[SilveradoNL]

@QuixoticTendencies I don’t think Wright is that brilliant, decent interviewer but that is it. He is almost only asking questions that would not make a difference on the subject they are discussing. Dennet does not only answer them, with the wrong questions he throws them back, and Wright does not even notice his own failures.

[patienceking]

It seems as though Wright's concept is correct, but meaningless. My conciousness cannot ever know EXACTLY what it's like to be another conciousness, if I retain any aspect of my own conciousness during the period of observation. So I can't know exactly what it's like to be a bat unless I actually AM the bat, and not myself. But that works with anything at all. Only 1 thing IS what that thing IS. Anything that IS LIKE something else is never EXACTLY LIKE it.

[51LT0F1LT0]

No, the team would just give you feedback about your behavior in regard to their observations. They could offer logical descriptions which you could compare with your own subjective experience and perhaps come up with more complicated sensations based on your reflecting on that logical description. But they wouldn't be feeling your sensations, nor would they be giving you new sensations. They couldn't make a color blind person "see" green by observing and reporting

[51LT0F1LT0]

(But I do agree with Dennett on this: It is a horrible thought. Even if consented to and supervised, it would be incredibly disruptive and probably destructive/limiting in profound ways)

[whimsicaljoss]

Buddhism is not a "field". Also any philosophy that threatens a persons perception that they have a soul is going to be controversial. A debate between Searle and Dennett would probably be better than this.

[ricklethickets]

Searle and Dennett did debate in the pages of the New York Review of Books and it was published in book form as "The mystery of consciousness" (along with debates between Searle and other philosophers). Sadly it wasn't any more enlightening than this interview.

[SquareDates]

Mr. Wright really ennoys me.

[SinfulMessiah]

A lot of you Dennett admirers need to realize that Dennett's ideas regarding the mind are very controversial and opposed vigorously by many leading thinkers. See John Searle for example.

[ricklethickets]

Citing Searle isn't meaningful since science does not depend on appeals to authority. True, Searle disagrees with Dennett, but Dennett (among others) has pointed out many times what is wrong with Searle's view and why it is nonsensical. Searle has not made any changes in his views (as far as I can tell) in response to these criticisms. Essentially Searle is like Wright in defining consciousness as something that science couldn't possibly explain and then rejecting any attempts to explain it.

[SinfulMessiah]

It is not necessarily Searle's duty to replace the computational theory of mind. Yes it would be helpful if he did so but it is not mandatory and it certainly does not render Searle irrelevant. Where the truth lies is still unclear so I don't see how one could simply pawn off someone like Sealre as "nonsensical".

[ricklethickets]

Searle is irrelevant b/c, as I said, he has not provided any insightful views in almost 30 years, and he has never adequately responded to the refutations of his views. In the history of philosophy, Searle will at best be remembered as someone whose bad ideas inspired others to come up w/ good ideas in the process of refuting him.

[ricklethickets]

Where the truth lies is getting clearer every day and is now very far from unclear. And the consensus view is converging on a position very similar to the one Dennett has been defending his entire career.

[Omid45]

Prof. Dennett takes me to a different world of undrstanding!! really a smart guys. Enjoy things like this a lot.

[superdiza]

Mr Deennet views of him self and cosciousness shows blant ignorance of many fields, especially buddhism.

He should drop some acid in name of research as many great man have done before him.

[debauchery73]

Wright is constantly getting owned by Dennett!

[ricklethickets]

But science is about mutual understanding, not about "owning" your opponent (although that certainly is a part of the sociology of science). While I tend to agree with Dennett, I find it disconcerting that there are still so many people like Wright who systematically misunderstand Dennett's arguments. Dennett himself has written (bemoaningly) about this. I think the problem may be that we are hard-wired to misunderstand consciousness and that may be part of what makes consciousness work.

[ancalagon12321]

Dennett (slowly and carefully, as if speaking to a child): "We invent words for states and powers all the time".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Darthwillburr]

I have this inclination that wright is one of those people who thinks they know everything.

He seems to be one of those people who knows everything but cant do shit with it.

He is stuck in a box.

[ananiasacts]

It seems like he knows the definition of every word and syntax, and nothing at all about the semantics.