Philosopher Daniel Bennett passed away, age 82.

From his NYTimes obit:
An outspoken atheist, he at times seemed to denigrate religion. “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” he said in a 2013 interview with The New York Times.

According to Mr. Dennett, the human mind is no more than a brain operating as a series of algorithmic functions, akin to a computer. To believe otherwise is “profoundly naïve and anti-scientific,” he told The Times.

For Mr. Dennett, random chance played a greater role in decision-making than did motives, passions, reasoning, character or values. Free will is a fantasy, but a necessary one to gain people’s acceptance of rules that govern society, he said.
=======================

That should be sufficient to cause Henry B an involuntary fit of apoplexy. ;)

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to Mr. Dennett, the human mind is no
> more than a brain operating as a series of
> algorithmic functions, akin to a computer.

Kinda like mathematics then, eh?

Not enticing or romantic or noble in any way then? :P

That is not to denigrate numbers but more to enhance one of my favourite parts of the human being - well - some but not all of them.

There are people I love for their brains.

Some ideas may turn out to be true but meanwhile are not very inspiring.

That's my riff on Packer's saying that sometimes the truth is not very useful. Of course it isn't, if it's not on your side and you have an agenda.

Dennett was much more complex--not in a good way--than you present.

Henry cited him several times as a believer not in determinism but in free will. What you have done is to reiterate my point from a few weeks ago: Dennett was a fully committed determinist. Henry's denying that fact was disingenuous, to put it gently.

But what made Dennett so bizarre was that although he was a determinist, he still believed in free will. He thought that despite the deterministic nature of reality, somehow somewhere there was an extra-scientific space in which some homunculus made conscious decisions. In short, Dennett was a "compatibilist," someone who thought that determinism was still compatible with free will.

It was a curious position and one that he could never defend. He could not explain where the bottom turtle was nor what held that turtle aloft in its realm beyond gravity. Dennett's view was something like "the universe functions exclusively through physical law and yet the implications of that are disturbing, so I choose to believe that people still make their own choices."

Dennett was a very serious man who could not make that final commitment to his own logic.

If one views humans as mere automata then any notion of free will shall quickly be undermined, whatever Dennett himself believed. This line of thinking has become far too dominant of late. There are even a few types around today who would like to hack into human DNA and minds (Elon Musk's Neuralink is heading that way).

> If one views humans as mere automata then any
> notion of free will shall quickly be undermined,
> whatever Dennett himself believed. This line of
> thinking has become far too dominant of late.

You know what is missing from your posts here and immediately below? Any concern for what the truth is.

As you do with Malthus, Orwell, Tocqueville, and all manner of historical questions, you reason from your preferred answers backwards to what you think the facts should be.

That's not the way serious people think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2024 10:16PM by Lot's Wife.

>According to Mr. Dennett, the human mind is no more than a brain operating as a series of algorithmic functions, akin to a computer

The trouble with viewing people as mere machines is that they will end up being treated like machines. The ethical issues resulting from such an attitude are far more wide-reaching than most people realize. It undermines notions of free will, choice and personal responsibility.

> The trouble with viewing people as mere machines
> is that . . . it undermines notions of free
> will, choice and personal responsibility.

See? Your epistemology is utilitarian. You judge reality by whether it comports with your preferred world view.

All we see are Rorschach inkblots. Shouldn't we see what we want to see?

He's a real nowhere man...

Mormonism would work but for the pathological Neverland stuff.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See? Your epistemology is utilitarian. You judge
> reality by whether it comports with your preferred
> world view.

Except that what you are referring to is an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. It is dangerous to see people as mere machines or economic units. Such a mindset cheapens both happiness and suffering, and means that humans are seen as expendable. If human beings are machines, then where does that leave the disabled or elderly? Anyone who pretends to care about vulnerable groups should reject such notions. Their value to society goes beyond mere function.

That last sentence of yours refers back to yourself.

> Except that what you are referring to is an
> interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

Really? Can you give us examples of where a determinist like Sapolsky substitutes "interpretation" for scientific observation? Exactly which argument in which chapter in which book is wrong and why?

Or can't you be bothered to get up from your armchair?


---------------------
> It
> is dangerous to see people as mere machines or
> economic units. Such a mindset cheapens both
> happiness and suffering, and means that humans are
> seen as expendable.

But what if human cognition IS mechanical?


---------------------
> If human beings are machines,
> then where does that leave the disabled or
> elderly? Anyone who pretends to care about
> vulnerable groups should reject such notions.
> Their value to society goes beyond mere function.

See? The instant you condemn research because you think "it is dangerous," you announce to the world that your social values are more important than empirical reality.

Wittingly or not, you echo the Catholic officials who condemned Gallileo for science that challenged their heliocentric model of the solar system on the grounds that it would undermine public morality.


--------
> That last sentence of yours refers back to
> yourself.

Seriously? "I know you are but who am I?"

How can my values inform my position on a topic on which I do not have a position? I have not answered, nor have I the science ever to answer, the deterministic question. All I have done is to indicate flaws in the arguments raised against the theory on this board.


---------------
Everything would be so much simpler if you just gave us a list of topics whose social implications are too dangerous to admit scientific investigation. Think of the good that would do. You might even stop someone from walking off the edge of the earth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2024 02:51PM by Lot's Wife.

May I recommend some Sapolsky?

I hear it's delicious this time of year.

RIP Mr. Dennett. Thanks for all the things you made me think about. Thanks for your contributions to the big discussions.

BoJ's description was pretty good. Now I don't need to google him.

Hahaha!

And that slacker Dagny won't even tell me that Mandisa died.

Off to Google I go.

I had to slink off to Google for that one too.
She was too young.

Dennett was a great thinker.

I've been critical of him because 1) he was misrepresented as opposing determinism, which was untrue; and 2) he believes free will and determinism are compatible, which strikes me as nonsensical.

On other topics, however, he has been revolutionarily clear and insightful. The world is poorer without him.

I absolutely love Dennett--one of the clearest thinkers of our time.
But in my ever so ever so humble opinion, incorrect in his dismissal of qualia, and incorrect in his assertion that not only is determinism consistent with free will, but that determinism is a necessary condition for free will.

It was while reading his "Consciousness Explained" (now there's an audacious title) that I decided to add philosophy as a second major and changed the trajectory of my education, life, and career.

Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is the best philosophical analysis of Natural Selection ever written. It truly was a magnum opus.

His rather variable articulations about consciousness (e.g, his book Consciousness Explained) were rather maddening since he often contradicted himself.

He was a giant mind in the world and will be missed.

HH =)