Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (2 of 8)

[huwrj]

Robert Wright doesn't understand evolution. For example, he thinks that the human eye evolves from stem cells. The human eye is made from stem cells programmed from DNA, DNA providing the instruction codes of what to build and grow. That's not evolution. Also he thinks humans are 'higher' forms of life and that evolution has a design goal. Monkeys are just as high forms of life as us, they are successful doing what they do, living in trees, they are better at that than us and occupy that niche.

[Rome]

@evilsatanbox - not sure I would agree, Robert Wright did a pretty good job with him too, especially on consciousness

[steelundergrounder]

@Rome yeah I think so too :)

[TheNewCrankyWorkshop]

Evolution goes in a direction, therefore it must be directed? Where did this guy come from?

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Why are there all these pissed off comments about Wright? I'm a fan of Dennett but I also like Wright and isn't the point that we want to have open discussions and an exchange of ideas? It's not very encouraging to see these kinds of comments because I'm interested in that, and yet when it seems to happen with someone people really like (i.e. Dennett) people start getting a bit nasty. Isn't that what we dislike about creationists and religion in general?

[ManyInfiniteComments]

The probability of intelligent life depends on the stability of the environment within the planet followed by the solar system, galaxy, and universe each with increasing or decreasing stability. Robert Wright tries to quantify the probability of intelligent life restricted to evolution without environment restrictions which is a key component to the design of the evolved form of every specie. i.e. if dinosaurs were not wiped out it would have been a different story...many possibilities.

[dejawolf]

robert not wright. robert wrong.

[stevebritgimp]

Robert Wright is rather mirage-like here. Don't like philosophical stuff. The point around halfway when they talk about whether design is possible (either because or despite how embryos develop, depending on where Wright's swirling mind is), well maybe it is - but is it testable. 'That becomes empirical' there you go. It isn't testable. What would design look like? What would a lack of design look like. We can be happy that design is absent, but Wright doesn't want to go there.

[Freethinker12341]

@Ozscii i dont think robert wright is a theist.

[narragansettharco]

Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!

[nemirn]

I never knew Santa Claus was so smart!



[SublordUtilax123]

this isn't an interview... robert wright talks waaaaayyyyy too much

[pprimmuss]

This is suppose to be an "interview", but he is clearly not concerned with conducting an interview. Instead it's clear he's trying to debate Dennet, all the while using the interview platform as a way of controling the direction of the discussion and maybe leading Dennet down a trap, or rabbit hole, or where ever this idiot's thoughts reside. Truely pathetic.

[rodneystar]

@pprimmuss this idiot? that idiot is robert wright, 27th on the foeign policies website top 100 global thinkers... conversing with him like this is a great way for dennet to get his ideas out and the feedback helps the viewers. we need to encourage argument and debate, not discourage it plz.

[bayesianconspiracy]

@rodneystar

Wright may be smart, but essentially all he does in this interview is play "gotcha" with Dennett... it's a very irritating way of conducting a conversation.

[jllorigins]

Robert, let the man speak!

[lukeism2]

robert wright is usually quite... BRIGHT... but he's boring the shit out of dan

[bassface17]

Seems like Robert Wright is interviewing himself and Daniel Dennett just weighs in every now and then.

[fedorowns]

Christ, this Robert Wright guy is fucking unbearable. Poor Dennett.

[shibapa]

Dan Dennett is so smart. I love the way he patiently, modestly, thoughtfully explains his point of view. He seems like he'd be a great guy to talk to over coffee.

[jameshighmore]

6:25 - the sigh says it all.

[flabbyhabbybabby1]

Who the fuck is this guy?! Even though I always like to listen to DD, I might not be able to watch the rest of this interview because of this creepy bastard. Plus, his upper lip never moves...and that's only the 6th thing wrong with him.

[fsx23]

Do the religious understand logical fallacies?

[DJActivitY]

The universe had starting conditions, if you could replicate that you could replicate life on earth, you would also know how the universe will end. The problem is, all the evidence was lost in the big bang. We know that there were starting conditions for our universe, therefor the ending was determined at that point. There universe is deterministic.

[madJedi1]

gettin beter now! they clearly dont like each other!! lol

[tomballardesquire]

Because you can imagine it doesn't make it so. Dennet concedes at the outset that you can't prove a negative, so I really don't understand why wright spends so much time trying to show that Dennet can't disprove God's existence.

[humphs75]

That was exactly my reaction. The design argument always boils down to the same thing -- an otherwise bright person (or not) going to elaborate lengths to show that one phenomenon or another is "some" evidence, no matter how slight, of design.

[humphs75]

You could also say that evolving differential functionality is "some" evidence that a super race of alien creatures designed a particular arrangement of matter on earth in such a way that it would ultimately lead to the development of homo sapiens through an apparent process of natural selection. The point is, though, why go to these lengths to support a fantastical progenitor when a purely natural process suffices to explain evolution?

[humphs75]

The answer is that people like Robert Wright are obsessed with defending Bronze Age supernatural myths (which was the only way people could understand the natural order) because they are so invested in it for one reason or another. As the saying goes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[sjh7132]

Did he say "Watch and animal grow from a single germ cell" ?

[plethora19792008]

Dennet pwns this guy!

[bigtopofun]

i just need to scream right now, I have only watched like 3 mins into this but... ROBERT WRIGHT!!, PLEASE STOP APPEARING ON DEBATES YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT!!, Dennett is to intelligent for you, you cant use your stupid word-quirks on him. And yes, this is a debate camouflaged as an "interview". Stupid

[flight75]

This is painful... Why doesn't the interviewer just shut up?

[fromthesestones]

@flight75 -- What? This is more like a lazy afternoon at coffee shop discussion. I much prefer this to the "Hitchens Club" sophistry matches that have become so popular on youtube.

[erin214]

agreed. actual discussions like this, free of the sarcasm and immature jabs, are far more enlightening. and tolerable.

[shade1978x]

Yeah, the interviewer is terrible. I've seen him do interviews with other people and he basically tries to constantly upstage the person who's supposed to be emphasized in the interview. He puts the spotlight on himself and always talks more than the interviewee.

[greatsea]

This is not intended to be a "spot light on the interviewee" type interview. This is more or less a spotlight on Robert Wright's disagreements with Dennett. There are plenty of youtube clips giving Dennett more air time. For all of its apparent awkwardness, think this 'interview' does what it was supposed to do.

[shade1978x]

I agree.

[greatsea]

But in a sense that is kind of what I was looking for. A discussion between Wright and Dennett where Wright satisfies himself rather than an audience. It is like we are overhearing a lazy afternoon discussion at a coffeehouse where Dennett has consented to being cross-examined by a new kid on the block who has genuine questions for him. Not saying you @shade1978x were doing this but I think this interview is being unfairly judged for not being something it was never intended to be. I like it.

[Timurito1]

The "interviewer" is tragic.

[Raherin]

What a douche bag. This is not an interview. This guy is trying to get his say in and Dennet barely gets to speak. Horrible.

[Stardusk]

You can tell Dennet is tired of this shit.

[shallbeagain]

Both of these are good thinkers.

Wright is just more agnostic than Dennett, but he is in no way religious.

[RhapsodyOfHammerfall]

'I declare victory' ? Nah man. Mr. Dennett is tired of the subject, you can see it.

[justanutadude]

This actually gets WORSE is this an interview or a debate? Dennett looks like he's sorry he every agreed to sit down with this guy!

[CambridgeHeights]

@justanutadude It's an interview. A debate is a formal competition. You don't have to suck up to the interviewee every time. You can actually challenge them.

[Faboba]

@CambridgeHeights Oh, sure. But then there are degrees of 'challenging' which might be counterproductive to an interview. Wright comes across throughout as needlessly eager to try to get Dennett to make certain concessions which Dennett rejects (patiently and ("I'll say it again slower, I guess")) suggesting he sees it as a competition. One piece of evidence for this is that he declared 'victory' after the interview in an piece entitled 'Planet with a Purpose' (seriously; google it).

[Faboba]

@CambridgeHeights Incidentally, an excellent series of 'challenging' interviews (in the best sense) is to be found in Sue Blackmore's book Conversations on Consciousness, where she's just just as interrogative whether she's talking to Dennett, or Searle, or Block or Chalmers. If you liked the philosophy of mind sections of this interview, you'll love it.

[EvilSatanBox]

Man, check out how Dennet kicks this guy's ass at 3:00. Forces him to almost completely renege on what he just said. Great philosopher. Thanks for posting.

[Synaisthisi]

These Theistic Evolutionists are a bit funny. But his argument to me is weak,. Dennet is correct.

[ananiasacts]

To suggest that N.S. itself could have been designed suggests to me a very deep misunderstanding of what it is. It's like thinking the prime numbers are arbitrary in some way. Natural selection is a consequence of the physics and geometry of our world in the same way that prime numbers are a consequence of counting--you get it for free whether you want it or not.

[archetypique]

Blah blah blah... I've never seen an interviewer speak more than his interviewee.

For crying out loud, let Mr. Dennet speak and shut up!

[Dollbreaks]

Dennet seems annoyed at times, especially with Wright's wording.

[Peppercoin490]

Dennetts probably referring to intentionality, which is, basically, the ability an agent has to make decisions. We are intentional agents because we can 1.) Assess the desires and possible intentions of others, and make decisions based on what we believe the other is thinking. We have a multitude of decisions available to us to make if we want to avoid a predator. Do we climb the tree, or hide in the grass? The recognition of the availability of choice is what he means be "free will".

[cyberdaemon]

An agents and avoiders ? Wtf is he talking about ? That someone can avoid something that most of people can never ever do ? Like matrix agents ? :D maybe im thinking too magically , but this agent thing smells for something :D

[khayyam847]

Wright... *cough* dick! *cough*

[eswyatt]

Yeah but all his religious friends will tell him he bested Dennett. One thing they do well is declaring victory for themselves.

[eswyatt]

I'm almost sorry I wrote this now that I've seen the rest of Wright's interviews with Dennett & Pinker. He seems to be trying to steer everyone toward a kind of 'parallelism' (understood within limits of my PHL 101 training). Of all the 'theists', they are the most harmless. He does as good a job as any (cf. Dinesh Soza) of advocating this baseless idea. And his ultimate failure to convince shows the strength of Dennent's pragmatism. (again, to my limited understanding he seems pragmatic).

[eswyatt]

I guess what I'm saying is that if God's got to be somewhere, I'd rather having him kickstarting the big bang micromanaging history.

[eswyatt]

CRAP! I meant: . . . I'd rather have him kickstarting the big bang than micromanaging history.

[SidedPanic]

Yes, and every major denomination of every major world religion has their idea of a god doing just that (kickstarting the big bang) - i do not know of a single one that discounts evolution for a second, other than the right-wing religious types who belong to no one.

[TheStig000]

Islam and Christianity both discount evolution as false.

[SidedPanic]

Simply incorrect.

[TheStig000]

If you read the books they regard as "Holy" it disagrees with modern science in black and white. Don't fuck with the issue at hand, it's obvious if you read their books.

[SidedPanic]

The only 'books' that could be seen to 'disagree with modern science' regarding evolution are that of genesis. Genesis is a (very abstract) poem, if you didn't know that, you simply haven't read it or your extremely ignorant. It comes in multiple volumes that factually conflict and there are contradictions within these volumes - because it isn't literal.

Sadly misconceptions, no matter how bizarre, accumulate e.g the 1st movement of beethoven's moonlight sonata is always played half as slow.

[TheStig000]

And numbers and revelations and nearly every other book in the bible that contains miracles or any scientific claims. And exodus too. Maybe you should go read them, you seem to be ignorant about what these books contain.

[SidedPanic]

We were talking about evolution you moron, and you have the intellectual arrogance to challenge my theological knowledge? Don't waste my time with stupidity, i'm not even christian so I see no need to justify the whole bible to someone who'd need there own name spelling out to them.

[TheStig000]

I guess I'll leave it at that because you clearly have fallen for the "it's not literal" nonsense the "moderate" christians spew at you. There are plenty who take genesis literally, weather you like it or not.

[SidedPanic]

Some people are racist and most vote republican, that doesn't mean the republican party is worse for anything more than their bad politics. The catholic church's worldview, along with every other christian denomination, does Not contradict any modern evolutionary science - it's irrelevant in this argument, however worrying the number of americans who tend towards creationism becomes - it still says in every edition 'a la breve' on beethoven's score, just no one takes any notice.

[TheStig000]

We're talking about their book, not how they reconcile it with modern science and facts. If they wanted to take it literally they could, there's no warning sticker on the front that says it's fiction or "poetry" or "metaphorical." Nowhere does it say anything like that.

[Malbrojia]

No you moron, you were talking to theologies as the relate to evolution when you said: "every major denomination of every major world religion has their idea of a god doing just that (kickstarting the big bang) - i do not know of a single one that discounts evolution for a second".

So your Theological knowledge comes into question because the relationship you posit is FALSE! Even those who accept evo basically do so with huge DISCOUNTS making it into a hollower version.

[SidedPanic]

'No you moron, you were talking to theologies as the relate to evolution when you said'

Wow, isn't that just greatest way to open an argument.. grammar aside, you're still talking rubbish. You don't seem to even understand what a denomination is, they're institutions not theologies. Please name me just one that does discount evolution and i'd be more than happy to retreat.

[YourBooksAreWrong]

Book of Genesis is a metaphor eh ? So God sent himself down to earth in the form of a man to be tortured and killed to release us of the sin of a fictional character in a metaphorical story.

My god, that is the dumbest fuckin thing i've ever heard. You don't actually think that's a defensible argument do you ?

And who decides that Genesis is a metaphor, but the rest of it is factual, or at best, reasonably accurate.

You guys astound me with your rediculous comments.

[SidedPanic]

'you guys'? I am neither christian or theist so I am intrigued as to who I am being grouped alongside.

As for Genesis, Genesis has nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.. that is completely irrelevant. Also Jesus isn't 'fictional', embellished I'm sure, but you're completely ignorant, to all current scholarly knowledge, if you are asserting that someone just sat with a pen and paper and created a character.

[YourBooksAreWrong]

Genesis has nothing to do with Jesus ?  The whole point of jesus dying on the cross ( which is the central point to the christian faith ) is in answer to the genesis story of sin.

Ever heard of Apalonius ? he was preaching in jerusalem around the time of jesus and it was documented that he was born of a virgin.. was the son of god, was crusified.. and rose again and ascended into heaven. their stories are almost identical.

[Malbrojia]

My bad, you already got him. I didn't make it down that far before I posted.

[SidedPanic]

Just because mormonism incorporates Jesus and the whole of the bible, that doesn't mean that a passage in the bible should be held account for some gripe you've got against mormon literature. The same goes for the New Testament (Chirstian) and the Old Testament (Jewish and Christian).

[YourBooksAreWrong]

no one has any idea what you're talking about

[YourBooksAreWrong]

I didn't say Jesus was fictional, i said the story of Genesis is fictional. it is. clearly. Which begs the question " if the story of jesus is factual or even remotely possible.. why would he sacrifice himself to save us from the punchline of the genesis metaphor ? ". It's just rediculous.

You either take the bible as literal.. or you take it as hearsay. you can't pick and choose.

The story of Jesus is almost undoubtably meshed with Apalonius anyways.

[Malbrojia]

A) hes grouping you not by Christianity or Theism but by ridiculous comments, duh.

B) That genesis has nothing to do with Jesus is a ridiculous comment! Genesis describes the creation and subsequent FALL of mankind via ORIGINAL SIN. Jesus was tortured and killed as a ransom for man's sin. They are directly related.

[SidedPanic]

He already got me did he? I'd love to know in what way, I'm surrounded by morons.

A) No he wasn't, but your obtuse wit is admirable.

B) Glad to see you've corrected your friend's spelling, but other than that I'm sensing repetition of stupidity. The Bible never once mentions original sin, that's purely late Augustinean interpretation. Even then it's irrelevant as Genesis predates Jesus, it'd be like bad-mouthing a dead man for his great grandson's actions, plus Genesis is Christian AND Jewish.

[Malbrojia]

As everyone dies because of Adam, so also everyone will be made alive because of Christ.-- 1 Corinthians 15:22

Gen predates Jesus.. sure. All causes predate their effects. Whatever you want to call it (if not original sin) Adam and Eve brought sin and death, thereby causing the need for Jesus to "die for 'our' sins", thereafter becoming the savior of mankind. That's a pretty standard interp. and I gave you one script. to link them. I don't want to argue about this uninteresting fiction.

[SidedPanic]

That isn't Jewish interpretation, why is the Christian faith is the sole interpreter of such literature? Even the islamic faith has similar passages to genesis and no way would they derive original sin and jesus' sacrifice for human sin from such literature. To repeat: just because mormon writing incorporates the bible, that doesn't mean that a passage in the bible should be held account for some gripe you've got against mormon literature. The same goes for the New and the Old Testament.

[Malbrojia]

Jewish interpretation of Gen is done without reference to Jesus or the Newtestament... of course it's different. Jesus isnt thier messiah/savior.. neither to muslims. The only point is within Xian doctrine Gen. and the fall of man are directly related to jesus and his death. I already showed you why with Corinthians 15:22.

Romans 5:12 --Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

Adam=Fall Jesus=Save to Xians

[SidedPanic]

What on earth are you talking about? This is completely irrelevant. I would like you to re-read this whole thread, so that a) you understand the root of the conversation and b) so that you can identify who's comments from the several contributers were the weaker or stronger. You've arrived at a complete tangent to the topic at hand and have just ended up thrashing round in the dark trying to inflict injury on a person's argument, just because it wasn't petty atheist militancy.

[Malbrojia]

Now you dont know what im talking about after so many replies on the matter? Retreating? Im just addressing your early stupid statement. The one by which you were grouped as an idiot, the one you mistook for being grouped as a theist. Its was the the topic that I hadnt realized was already addressed when I 1st posted by someone else. it was a tangential point, one you seem to be conceeding. Thx for playing, you lose.

[SidedPanic]

I wrote what I wrote to stop you continuing to stack arguments in the sky and by your post that accompanied this reply in my inbox I think it's quite clear you didn't have the foggiest as to the foundation of the conversation.

To recap: I noted universal acceptance of evolution within all major religious institutions. Tangent - The bible is brought into question with regards to evolution. I note that only genesis discounts evolution and that if you just read it, it is clearly allegorical.

[SidedPanic]

..you then storm in, saying that the new testament has (apparently literal) direct links back to the old, and despite your inability to articulate the point, you inadvertantly trying to say that this at least voids the authenticity of the new testament. This is simply rediculous, it's just a purposefully obtuse view of theological interpretation to bolster your argument - it's quite frankly, petty. Even the intelligent design community are not insistent on a literal interpretation genesis.

[devante11]

@Malbrojia

So why did your god not predict, the downfall of man and not create then?......seems to me your god had no idea what would happen, and has been juggling with all his mistakes since he made man, hardly suprising seeing the creator is imperfect....you only have to look a creation

[Malbrojia]

@devante11

Totally agree. When did it become my god? I'm as militant-2-fist-fighting-Athei­st as they come. You must be misreading the conversation.

[devante11]

@Malbrojia

Actually this is just a fine example, of people fighting who is true or not, saying no im true, no im true, no different than in bible days of fiction :) humans repeat history