Daniel Dennett discussion now on the wonderful ABC Radio National (the pride of Australia, surely?):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszo ... 373189.htm

You can listen to the webcast, download the mp3 or read the transcript.

thanks man

Just as I think I understand something enough to from a opinion DD comes on a throws spanner in the works.

A lovely man who I could listen to all day.

John

z8000783 wrote:Just as I think I understand something enough to from a opinion DD comes on a throws spanner in the works.

He's a little bugger like that. I find much of what he says very persuasive - but then again, I'm easily persuaded.

Cheers for the link jg.

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "Dangerous Ideas" )

I like the ABC RN PZe stie - I've delved into to a few of the archive programmes to and downloaded them to my mp3 player - they'll help pass the time on long stake-outs.

I've never really understood why people like Dennett so much.. His presentation of scientific issues is always biased, speculative and out-of-date, but it never seems to affect his reputation. For example, he promotes the computational theory of mind, even though we know that the mind certainly is not a computer, and that using the computer as a metaphor for the mind is, at best, problematic. And his reliance on evolutionary theory to try to explain every aspect and behavior of people is tiresome (e.g. is it even coherent to speak of the "beginning" of consciousness, as if organisms could exist without being conscious on some level?).

His compatibilist beliefs on free will are just language games as well - he wants to retain the idea of free will, but defines it in such a way that despite all of our actions are determined, we are somehow "free" because humans are an element in the causal chain. I don't understand his aversion to just saying that he doesn't believe in free will.

I did find that webcast a bit confusing.

Mr.Samsa wrote:...the mind certainly is not a computer...

Huh? In what sense is it not?

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:...the mind certainly is not a computer...

Huh? In what sense is it not?

There's a good summary of the issue here: 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers. One of the biggest problems with the metaphor, in my opinion, is #3 in that list as it does lead to the belief of brain modularity; the idea that certain areas of the brain are "for" this or that. Neuroscience is currently facing the same problems the geneticists faced a few decades ago, where irresponsible journalists (and even researchers in some cases) report "Brain Area X controls Function Y" in the same way we sometimes get reports of, "Gene X codes for Trait Y". The brain simply doesn't work this way.

So we know that the brain definitely isn't a computer, and the only remaining question is whether it's a useful metaphor. I still suggest "no", because it leads us to ask erroneous questions like, "Where are memories stored?" or "How are memories retrieved?". The very nature of these questions are incoherent when discussing how things like memory work.

So the brain is more like a computer network then?

Mr.Samsa wrote:I've never really understood why people like Dennett so much..

Me, me! *raises hand*

Answer: He looks like Charles Darwin

Did I win?

THWOTH wrote:So the brain is more like a computer network then?

Damn you, sir!

LIFE wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I've never really understood why people like Dennett so much..

Me, me! *raises hand*

Answer: He looks like Charles Darwin

Did I win?

Yes, you win. But what you win is the feeling of a job well done. The inner contentment that comes along with accomplishment. You have achieved zen, and all that comes with it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

THWOTH wrote:So the brain is more like a computer network then?

Damn you, sir!

But seriously, do you think we can use the network of computers as a useful metaphorical model for the brain?

A bit like the internet you mean?

John

THWOTH wrote::D
But seriously, do you think we can use the network of computers as a useful metaphorical model for the brain?

It's better, as it brings us slightly closer to artificial neural networks, which bring us closer to real neural networks (i.e. the brain). A network of computers still carries with it problems though, like the fact that there is no analogous part of the brain for "hardware" and "software", the fact that computers still have discrete modules to run tasks, etc. Part of the problem is that brains don't run according to specific input signals, like a user accessing a file, but rather they respond according to certain layouts and structures of neural networks, and the weights of these connections.

As a metaphor, it could provide some useful ways of thinking about brains or generate research ideas, but the key would be to keep in mind that it is just a metaphor and so it carries with it some necessary limitations. To steal the quote used in the article I linked to earlier:

"A good metaphor is something even the police should keep an eye on." - G.C. Lichtenberg

Ta.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It's better, as it brings us slightly closer to artificial neural networks, which bring us closer to real neural networks (i.e. the brain). A network of computers still carries with it problems though, like the fact that there is no analogous part of the brain for "hardware" and "software", the fact that computers still have discrete modules to run tasks, etc. Part of the problem is that brains don't run according to specific input signals, like a user accessing a file, but rather they respond according to certain layouts and structures of neural networks, and the weights of these connections.

If a computer were running a program that perfectly emulated the information-processing function of a brain, would the computer still be running like a computer?

The problem is with the word "like": someone has to judge what counts as similar.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
His compatibilist beliefs on free will are just language games as well - he wants to retain the idea of free will, but defines it in such a way that despite all of our actions are determined, we are somehow "free" because humans are an element in the causal chain. I don't understand his aversion to just saying that he doesn't believe in free will.

Dennett doesnt say that he doesnt believe in free will, because he believes in free will. You surely have not understood his compatibilist position if you think he does not believe in free will. You surely have not understood his position if you think being an element in the causal chain or not is of any importance for Dennet concerning the question of free will...

Dennett is one of the few philosophers who really are interesting to read and who have something interesting to say...even for scientists. He is just a great brain and I think he is rather underrated than overrated