Robert Wright interviews Daniel Dennett (7 of 8)

Very interesting debate about God, evolution, free will, consciousness and death.
Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is also a noted atheist and advocate of the Brights movement.
Robert Wright is an American journalist, scholar, and prize-winning author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history, religion, and game theory, including Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, The Moral Animal, and Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information. He is a visiting scholar at The University of Pennsylvania and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• God
• evolution
• free will
• consciousness
• death
• Dan
• Dennett

[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.

[beriukay]

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

[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.

[frightenedsoul]

@LordOmberus I never said either of those two things.

[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 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

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 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.