Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (7 of 8)

[davidbkopp]

I don't see why I'd need to spend big bills on cryogenics to freeze my brain for some later revival. If they get to that stage in 3/400 years it would be archaic compared to yet 1 hundred years more when in any case they'd be able to tell from analysis of some persistent radiative me that I wanted to be reassembled if the technology allowed. Just remember to make a mental note of it before you die, and don't forget to specify how much research you'd like done before they try to bring you back!

[huwrj]

And then Wright says we just agree and have to disagree as if they are both right. No, Dennet is right and Wright is making up nonsense about consciousness being separate from the brain which is not supported by science at all.

[huwrj]

And the most absurd argument of all from Wright: we have a word for consciousness and we also have a word for the brain, therefore they must be two separate things. ABSURD!!!!!!

[huwrj]

Wright commits the 'argument from popularity' logical fallacy multiple times by saying that lots of people agree with him and disagree with Dennet, as if that is an argument. He also makes a straw man logical fallacy by saying that Dennet and the New Atheists don't believe there is such a thing as consciousness, which is absurd and a misrepresentation.

[arpakyna]

"Dr" Dennett feeds on psychological defenses he creates in other people. That's why he's got such a big belly. The monster.

[mellamosean]

It really doesn't seem like Dennett is fully addressing what Wright is saying about consciousness. For example, I would guess that Wright thinks that you could never know the inner-dialogue occurring in Dennett's brain. I think that Wright is wrong, but I don't think Dennett is giving good reason for anyone to think that Wright is wrong.

[CambridgeHeights]

Watching other people die is not the real issue. Sure it's sad, and sure you will miss them, but you will still continue to experience reality. When YOU die, you lose everything. Whatever happens in the universe after you die is irrelevant. It's all nothingness, like you never existed in the first place. That is a scary idea for some people, and that is why the idea of an afterlife is so popular. It's not to comfort little kids.

[andrewn630]

Arithmetic. We didn't invent it, we didn't make it, we found it. It is eternal, a priori.....just great stuff. 

[modularfish]

@andrewn630 You could see arithmetic as something eternal and magical, or you could see it as something very specific humans do without individually choosing its meaning. For us, as humans, it is universal. For the universe, it is just something humans do.

[hafadai43]

"Do you manage to be a good person?" What kind of question is that? It's completely subjective

[bassface17]

Wow I just realized how silly this video is. I don't even know what they are debating about.  Cant they just wait untill they build computers smart enough so they can program them for conciousness to arise. This would give us wayyyy more insight.

[buckfushes]

Not really into the whole 1st amendment thing?

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

I don't think the subjectivity argument is that bad.

Tell me what ultraviolet looks like.

What does red look like to a bee?

thought experiment

Say we were to literally dissect a bee and hook up the neurons to our visual cortex.

Leaving aside any incompatibility issues, would it work?

I'd say no, you need all the hardware. And even when you have all the hardware you can't compare what's going on in one to another that works totally differently

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

@ 8:35

LOL It's the "Max Headroom" scenario

[TheConciseStatement]

No Wright, evolution, biological and then social, does not suggest purpose. Morality is in the end probably just the next advance in evolution's accumulation of survival techniques, where the net worth of the happiest, most harmonious species willing to co-operate and live together equates to the greatest chance of staying alive. As Hitchens says, if they didn't know what they were told before they got to Mount Sinai, they wouldn't have got that far.

[DemokritosAbdera]

I love Wright evasion, well you can know how my metabolism works, and observe and explain my metabolism.

But you can never have my metabolism?

The proposition its absurd as Dennet point it out.

[markthnark]

That is whats called a non-sequitor. In the 3rd century BCE we couldnt explain lightning. People thought it was fire cast down by the gods. Now you dont believe that today? Just because something is not yet fully understood does not mean that the only possible alternative is something supernatural. Indeed of all the gaps in our knowledge that have been filled in over the centuries, and I hope you would concede there are many, none have been filled with anything supernatural. contd

[markthnark]

contd. Taking this to its logical conclusion it seems that all gaps will eventually be filled and not with any supernatural explanations. As for not being able to explain morality, please suggest one element of morality that you belief cannot be explained, and I will attempt to refute you. If I cannot to your satisfaction then you win......bring it on mysterion!

[beriukay]

Hahaha, you don't know what music is? Were you born deaf?

[beriukay]

Irrelevant. Do you have no capacity to comprehend music or are you arguing a point you don't believe?

Moreover, do you actually believe that not knowing everything about everything makes everything magically delicious? That's a battle the religionists have been slowly losing for thousands of years. You are ridiculous to claim perfection as a standard, and then claim that someone is arrogant to fall short of your standards.

[markthnark]

I cannot agree with your perception. I find Dennetts tone re-assuring and comforting. He demonstrates greater listening skills and respectfulness than Wright does. You are entitled to your view, but I wonder what motivates it? Objective analysis, or subjective denial?

[continuo1685]

Actually, you can agree with my perception, but you will not. Your choice of words attempts to conceal that you are, in fact, operating on a subjective level.

You imply that I am subjectively denying something. What am i subjectively denying?

I think your comment reveals your own struggle with subjectivity & objectivity. They aren't separate. Thus, my motivation is neither subjective nor objective but rather both. Subjective experiences inform your idea of objectivity.

[continuo1685]

Plus, at 2:45 Dennett talks about good and bad. How can he know what good and bad are and then claim "above average morality"? Seems a little over the top and speaks to his overall tone, which I was commenting on in my original post.

[beriukay]

Have you never even heard of Lake Wobegon? His "claim" of "above average morality" was a joke.

[beriukay]

Why are you deleting all your comments? Are you uninterested in actually conversing with people who disagree with you?

[WordsArentReal]

In order to understand this you have to realize that I am not talking about linguistic, or definitional consistency; I am talking about existential consistency. A non-self-consistent rock is not a rock. It is but it also isn't, and not because I am playing a word game. It is not that in one sense it is a rock and in another sense it isn't; it is a rock in exactly the same way that it isn't one. Also, It doesn't exist. It does, but it also doesn't, and not in some wiggly quantum way.

[WordsArentReal]

To say that humans invented self-consistency is to say that humans existed BEFORE air, length, breadth, gravity, all of physics, narrative cohesion, and cause and effect, and humans, because all of those things require self-consitency to exist.

[WordsArentReal]

So...before humans things were definitionsally dissociated from themselves?

The last T-rex was not, in fact, a t-rex. It was, while being a t-rex, various things that were not a t-rex, and, furthermore, definable as a not-T-rex. Self similarity is a property of things; it is not a societal construct of any sort. There are MODELS of self-similarity that are societally constructed, but that is a different proposition.

[LordOmberus]

That is incorrect. There would not be "Two" objects, there would be an object and another object with no association beyond a purely physical one in the form of a tiny amount of gravitation.

The concept of "Two" was invented by man.

[rickenione]

So was the concept of "object", I fail to see your point.

[WordsArentReal]

All of math is a simple extension of self identicality. Any consistent mathematical statement is synonymouos with x=x. We have codified certain methods for solving problems quickly/at all, but unless you are prepared to say that humans invented self-consistency, then you cannot claim the humans 'invented' arithmetic.

[LordOmberus]

Then it is good that I am perfectly prepared to say that we did invent self-consistency.

[hymnofashes]

"Let's talk about transcendent."

"Oh no."

HAHAHAHA

[LordOmberus]

With apologies to Mr. Dennett, Arithmetic is not something we discovered, we did indeed invent it to describe the physical reality which we observe in a manner easily understood by our brains.

[druszaj]

Before human beings, if one object was beside another object it would make two objects. We didn't invent that, it's always been there.

[Malbrojia]

Correct. And if another intelligent species on a far away planet were to try and "invent" mathematics they would simply be discovering the same things we have. They will most likely represent the symbols differently and may not use base 10, as those are historical contingencies we do invent. There is a sense in which math is right independent of our knowing it. Shakespeare's plays were INVENTED, Newtons calculus wasn't (see Leibniz, they both DISCOVERED it independently)

[Myndir]

If arithmetic was a description, it would be directed to a specific reference. Arithmetic is not directed to a specific reference, therefore arithmetic is not a description.

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus No, we discovered it. We may have invented techniques and methods so that we could understand it the best way possible, but the principle was always there.

[LordOmberus]

@frightenedsoul

Do you understand the speed of light to be written in arabic numerals on the fabric of space and time then, or is it more appropriate to say that we invented numbers so we could quantify the observable universe?

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus You seem confused. We invented the language of mathematics, which include numbers, but the principle itself was always there. Much like gravity has always been there. We may have come up with a word for it, and ways in which to understand it, but it was there all along to be discovered.

[LordOmberus]

@frightenedsoul

If I seem so, I am not. I am not disputing that the laws of physics always existed. However, the idea of describing them mathematically is a human invention. Absolute numbers do not exist in nature. "Principles" cannot exist in and of themselves. They require conscious beings to invent them.

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus Yes, we came up with the numbers to describe mathematics, just like you said, but suppose in 10,000 years humans go extinct along with all record of our existence. Fast forward a million years and intelligent life through evolution comes again. That species would discover mathematics just like we did. They might come up with different symbols and ways to explain it, and they might call it something other than mathematics, but it was still there all along to be discovered.

[LordOmberus]

@frightenedsoul

That would be purely coincidental. It is entirely possible that mathematics is the best way to describe physical phenomena, but this isn't necessarily true.

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus Well at this point i would just have to disagree and leave it at that. I think 100 out of 100 times, a species that is equivalent to our intelligence would discover the laws in much the same way we have, because the patterns of our world point to them. The patterns are already there, mathematics is just a way to interpret and understand them.

[LordOmberus]

@frightenedsoul

To say that mathematics are the best method possible is merely short sighted. To say that OUR mathematics are best is simply egotistical.

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus I never said either of those two things.