Daniel Dennett - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews

Richard Dawkins interviews Dan Dennett for "The Genius of Charles Darwin", the Channel 4 UK TV program which won British Broadcasting Awards' "Best Documentary Series" of 2008.

Buy the full 3-DVD set of uncut interviews, over 18 hours, in the RichardDawkins.net store:
http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&...

This footage was shot with the intention of editing for a television program. What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content).

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Richard Dawkins
• Dan Dennett
• Daniel C. Dennett
• Daniel Dennett
• Charles Darwin
• Evolution
• Science
• Reason
• Atheism
• Biology
• Philosophy
• Philosopher
• Conversation
• Interview
• Natural Selection

[meanderband]

poor Richard, that producer is being a complete noob...

[baillou2]

@TheCleverAncestor Darwin's Dangerous Identical Twin!

[Inb4Reach]

Dynamic production fail. It's just distracting in the end.

Keep the camera grounded with both gents in frame for talks like this.

[dopeasfuckk]

i was hoping Dawkins would pull out his 9 mil on the camera man and set up a tripod.

[dopeasfuckk]

@stikowsky scientists can stipulate consciousness... such as functioning senses, nervous systems...etc.

[dopeasfuckk]

@glic7236 I think he meant that science proves that consciences must have arisen from non living material, but yes, nobody understands how.. that's the next question

[glic7236]

Dennett is blatantly wrong about how science has "shown" how creatures with souls arise from non living material. Nobody understands how life originates.

[stikowsky]

BUTTT mr .. how do you know if something is conscious?.. thats a non-scientific question

[TheMadBeach]

Can we please stop planting the oats now?

[portwes]

@sorsocksfake Good analogy! Maybe I'll use your thoughts in the future . . .

[sorsocksfake]

@portwes Perhaps religion is like a painting. Science is like a photograph. Painters may hate photography, an often soulless thing (though it has become an art itself)... and a painter may claim his painting tells more, and the photo makes his painting look like a caricature.

Yet one has to admit, photography is the more accurate of the two. And if you want to see what's really there, it's better to take the photo. No matter how much you may love the painting.