Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (3 of 8)

[huwrj]

Dennet: "I can see where you are going. By wedding two bits of magic together you are going to say it's not magic." I LOVE IT. Perfect.

[simpuwjack]

what is it about wright's odd way of talking? he oozes patronism/snobbishness etc. he tends to cut off the other with 'right, right'/'ok('falling intonation indicating disinterest/non belief) too much. I'm happy he's 'interviewing' some of my favourites, but i wish it'd been someone more listenable...

[SwiftyMcVeigh100]

I am A Christian so obviously I think Dennett is wrong about important issues but hes clearly a very sophisticated, smart guy and I respect that.

[CambridgeHeights]

In theory it is possible to determine everything that is going to happen, even far into the future. The universe is like a billiards table that has already been set in motion and is following the natural laws. The actions that you will take tomorrow, for example eating oat meal or not eating oat meal, have already been determined and could be predicted in theory (though not in practice yet).

[frilansspion]

@CambridgeHeights quantum mechanics aside, would you agree that any particle-exact "simulation/calculation" of a system (such as our universe) couldnt be done except by an equally or more complex system - i e at least an identical universe set off at the exact same state - and only then in realtime? I dont know if Id call that theoretically possible. =) or what was your theory?

[CambridgeHeights]

@frilansspion everything in the universe? That would be tough. But to determine everything you will do would be a piece of cake...theoretically.

[frilansspion]

@CambridgeHeights what, as in you determine your future by just simply deciding what youre gonna do? hehe. Im sorry Im not sure if youre trying to make a comical point or if youre still talking about a perfectly accurate prediction of the future. sorry if Im just a bit daft - could you elaborate?

[ManyInfiniteComments]

Dennett makes great points on determinism. Even if this universe was predetermined (set in infinite nonradom wave of expansion/shrinkage...etc...). We have no way of knowing what the far future lays ahead except our immediate dangers/problems. Intelligent life as it has currently progress is better equipped to deal with increasing unknowns (unknowns is not the same as the Future), and our language does a poor job distinguishing between the two.

[SilveradoNL]

I think Wright is interviewing Dennet just to learn stuff.

Robert u could have actually done some studies.

Especcialy natural selection, it accounts for more in the world then u might think.

Or buy a DeLorean DMC-12 to go to the future with, and catch up with your ignorance.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@SilveradoNL Robert Wright is a sociobiologist, he knows about natural selection.

[lolbutsrsly]

well if you throw a brick at it, it can duck....if theres a lightning stroke, its toast...

[wongowonga]

Legend!

[cda1117]

Dennett talks around "inevitability," but he only does so by using his own version of the word. In the sense of determinism, this is a question of whether the interactions of the most basic forms of the universe mechanistically WILL result in a particular action at any given point in time based on a set of laws. He doesn't tackle this issue at all.

[frilansspion]

@cda1117 (sorry know this is very old) yes he does, philosophically? his point is that we will end up with _one_ future regardless of the universe being deterministic or not. since we cant predict it anyways and not even the universe itself can know where its going of course _until_ its happened, there is nothing there to "change" yet? so in reality the outcome is "the same." its obvious in a way but it sinks in I think. (and no he doesnt argue about the laws of physics here)

[MultiUniv3rsal]

The interviewer has a flimsy grasp on determinism. It looks like DD is annoyed with all these sophomoric questions :)

[Salocin27]

and therefore she is a witch!!

[niginit]

There are people many people, who constantly search for gaps, and believe they will find the truth of everything in them. Then there are those who look for facts, and they are called scientists.

It's a short, sad story, but it's true.

Follow the facts, you will find the truth. Follow gaps, you will fall into them.

[mrmelkor1]

I love how nervous Robert seems throughout this whole interview.

[MrDanielHen]

@mrmelkor1 No, that is just how Robert talks.

[plethora19792008]

"No hidden variables in a physical universe but..."

What a douche Robert Wright is.

Dennet put him in his place.

[markthnark]

Wright is creeping looking for the very tiniest of gaps, and sometimes even inventing gaps that arent there. Once illunited he inserts this latest, more difficult to define God into them.

I think Superdiza, is on the same trip...

[markthnark]

apologies for the appalling spelling....creeping AROUND....ILLUMINATED.

[superdiza]

From an enlightened prespective, this entire talk is not about answers or solutions, rather about boosting the mind's immune system to traditional monotheistic belief system, locking the consciousness in a loop.

The Causative chain of even is but a process that is define as such. not seeing the elements or the processing does not negate it. it negates it self, when the illusion of time disappears.

talking about "the problem" in these terms perpetuates this perception.

Watch "Alan Watts Time".

[shallbeagain]

Dennett stands over hundreds of great philosophers on this brilliant taking apart of "the future" and inevitability.

[superdiza]

This is stupid. Come interview me, and I'll release you both from your loop and show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I have the answers!

But most people are not ready.

Too intellectual.

[mosostow]

If you believe you know something that transcends intellect, then it's very likely you are delusional.

And if you really do have this type of knowledge (which I doubt), it's very likely it's ultimately irrelevant and impossible to articulate since the very process of communication requires the intellect.

Either way, you can see why nobody would really be interested in interviewing you.

[superdiza]

As I said, most people are not ready.

they want to negate knowledge, without listening to it first, pre-branding it as heresy. (Satan is possessing the witch)

Then they doubt it's very existence, or the claimer ability to communicate.(closed mind making self prepetuating claims to it's belief system)

Finally, they declare their own opinion, using psuedo-crowds for self justification.(not knowing who you are, building the ego through it's association with consensus and crowd politics)

Sheep.

[sphericalpyramid]

Au contraire. "Intellect" is synonymous with the rational element of the brain, which is so bludgeoningly advertised by the so called "skeptics." This is strictly left brain thinking. One element associated with the right hemisphere is the element of intuition, which I would argue in many cases transcends intellect. The two are not incompatible; in fact are quite formidable when in tandem...which is why such thinking is demonized by controlling institutions, science included.

[mosostow]

I don't think intuition transcends intellect. I would argue it's an integral part of it. But this type of debate can lead to a slippery slope of arguing semantics.

Ultimately, I am saying that any feedback our brain receives from our environment is intrinsically tied to the reality that supports it, including the holistic right-hemisphere.

Anyone who claims to perceive something beyond reality or intellect is most likely deluded and attempts at articulating it ends up sounding like white noise.

[sphericalpyramid]

Interesting. I take it you're not a spiritual person. For a spiritual person, experiences that transcend the intellect are commonplace. It seems to be a very touchy subject among the rationalists, who seem to think that something has to be tangible in some sense in order to be considered real. But think of emotions. Emotions are irrational in their very nature, and cannot be fully explained by the intellect, yet can indeed overpower it. Deluded? Not at all.

[QuixoticTendencies]

@sphericalpyramid Just because emotions are irrational doesn't mean they're intangible. And what the hell is a "spiritual person"?

[Animalll2003lll]

9:57 lol

10:10 LOL

I agree with him (I think he's most likely to be right from what I know and have read), but that wasn't very well argued.

but it's true that Wright is a bit annoying I can feel some competition between the grrreat minds lol :S Wright is kind of all over the place lol.

[ananiasacts]

No. No hidden variables ANYWHERE you stupid twit interviewer.

[hymnofashes]

I like how Dennett just swats aside hundreds of years of philosophy. And he's RIGHT. And he does it OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Who says there aren't geniuses in the modern world?

[Darthwillburr]

Bringing Quantum physics into the argument of freewill is pure stupidity, acausual properties of some quantum particles does not infer chaos. It is just something we do not understand at THIS stage in physics. Just because we don't know what these particles do , does not infer some kind of indeterminacy in the quantum universe that has any bearing on our conscious minds. It's a great leap of bullshit faith to think so.