Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds?

http://www.ted.com Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, politics and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on TED.com, at
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• TED
• TEDTalks
• Talks
• dan dennett
• mind
• minds
• brain
• consciousness
• philosopher
• philosophy
• theory
• rationality
• self
• argument
• cell
• biology
• neuron
• neurons
• neurology
• neuroscience
• science
• thought
• think
• reason
• experiment
• technology
• compute
• subject
• change
• psychology

[SubjectE]

The sudden increase in volume when the TED logo appears nearly knocked my balls off jesus.

[1simonmatthews]

@jbinker As for the supernatural, I'll explain again. There is no such thing as the supernatural, since if something exists then it must be natural. However, since our perception of reality is limited to our own subjectivity, we may never be able to perceive the true nature of the universe. Such things would seem to us as indistinguishable from the supernatural, even though they are not. So again, your last sentence demonstrates a complete misinterpretation of my point.

[TheBiAtheist]

@JosephHuntington Well aren't you just special?

[JosephHuntington]

I debated Dr. Dennett (Harvard, 2002) and he won. But now he wouldn't, I'm pretty sure.

[EnnoiaBlog]

I am also a philosopher, though nowhere near as well known as Dan Dennett. One of the first things we were taught as philosophy majors was Logic. We have it beaten into our heads, and rightfully so. I can spot a fallacy now, a mile away! But what I cannot do, however, is prove the primacy of logic. Why should the Logos be favored over Ethos or Pathos? Why should my truth tables be considered more 'weighty' than your 'feelings' (pathos)? Why should rhetoric be better than force? Dan can't say.

[Gnomefro]

@GCthegreat1ify What they usually don't do is experiments. They are "theoretical scientists" if you will, with vastly more focus on argumentation theory and logic than most practical scientists. To combine such expertise can be incredibly powerful at times, similar to how pure mathematicians can often be a huge asset to experimental scientists.

[wamtm]

honestly is his guy really saying anything in the first half of the video? Please just get to the point

[GCthegreat1ify]

@HueyTheDoctor87

Yep...he's proposing what has been known for a long time, mainly focusing on visual perception. We already know that we in fact at any given time see very little, it's our brains that do the heavy duty work of creating reality as it is day to day. Philosophers never explain things, it's not "their field"

[MrPEDOCTOR]

Nice ... i love it.

[1simonmatthews]

@sexyloser Yes I've seen Lawrence Krauss' lecture on A Universe From Nothing. It's a theory that leaves many questions unanswered for me, though that may just be because I didn't understand it fully. However, I think I will look further into his work. Thanks :-)

[sexyloser]

@1simonmatthews Look into Lawrence Krauss' work in quantum physics. He has research that suggests that energy can arise from nothing.

If you're not that scientifically literate, then you should pick up his book coming out next year, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012). It will explain his research in layman's terms.

I highly recommend looking into one or the either.