Daniel Dennett on Tools To Transform Our Thinking 

So sad this brilliant mind is no longer with us.

"Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer." -The Grand Nagus

"A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us." - Nietzsche

0:00:30, "You can't do much carpentry with your bare hands, you can't do much thinking with your bare brain."! I like it.

he looks like a santa dispensing knowledge rather than presents

I've struck cultural gold. How have I never heard of this bloke before today? Subbed and belled.

I like the "opponent processes" way of working out strengths and weaknesses in ourselves. Dennett's explanation of how our eyes' neurons battle it out for dominance really brings home how we can use the opponent process in our lives.

My god, those questions were so bad. Dennett is such a trooper.

He´s good. Knows what he`s talking about. That is why the audience is there. He is not a motivator. He is a Philosopher...making the subject popular for the likes of you and I to understand.

Today we are over-saturated with raw data but very short on the kind of slow, deep, critical thinking that gets to real knowledge. In fact a lot of folks seem to believe that informatio is knowledge, it isn't.

2:30, THANK GOD, someone who calls a hypothesis a hypothesis, instead of calling it a theory.

A comment regarding the comparison of two lotteries (approx. 30:34 mins). One reason why "Lottery B" is unfair: The winning ticket is chosen out of all the tickets that have been printed and NOT out of the number of tickets sold. In reality, the number of tickets sold would be less than number of tickets printed. Hence, in "Lottery B" it is possible that the winning ticket may NOT have been sold to anyone!

A comment regarding the need for human interaction for decision making and problem solving (approx. 1 hour 6 mins): If an individual were to see one's own flaws in endless loops, as individuals we would all be paralyzed! We will go into endless computations of finding flaws with our own thoughts, remain paralyzed and be devoured by a predator. For mere survival, we need to have some degree of certainty (even if it is a false one) to goad us into fight and/or flight and/or befriend decisions. Hence, nature's solution for improving our capacity for decision making and problem solving has been "human interaction".

Dennett's 'surely' bell is a fantastic tool Surely Dennett is a Goliath among thinkers.

The brain is orders of magnitude more complex than we thought it was a few years ago? Amazing. I always learn a bit of science from this Philosopher.

I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 1:18:49

“The ‘surely’ alarm’ is a good one … what follows the ‘surely’ is a sentence that the author wants you to believe. It’s not so obvious that it goes without saying, if it were, it would go without saying. And here the author is putting it in, but not arguing for it. But getting by with a little nudge…have a ‘surely’ alarm. ” @14:07 - Daniel Dennett on Tools To Transform Our Thinking (Intuition Pumps)

playing this at 1.25 speed is a good tool.

Cenk Uygur: Master of the "surely" alarm! (14:15)

I've always been confused about free will, Dr Dennett cleared it up with a lottery analogy. Brilliant.

This video is life changing, thanks. You had me with the stat at 1:28. You are doing great work, thanks for sharing.

One of his best talks. There's a lot I don't like about some of his theories, but this is very worthwhile.

'Really enjoyed Prof. Dennett's presentation. Stimulating like firing up a new set of muscle neurons, and awakening our senses in more ways than one; encouraging responsible, colorful, adventurous and life-affirming independent thought. Anyway, Fido 'n Fluffy would like to offer that ... paw pumps are pretty good, too! :D

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Dennett's fantastic, never has a dull lecture or interview. I disagree regarding teaching someone a sense of humor, I think it is possible. It depends greatly on the person's desire to learn, just as it does with teaching someone how to walk again, or how to speak again after brain damage. Doctors always boldly declare the impossibility of both those examples as well, yet it has been done repeatedly. Most people with no sense of humor don't want one. If you analyze the personalities of people, compare them to what they laugh at, then draw a contrasting relationship from that information, it will show why they laugh. Usually people do not laugh at jokes that reflect personal flaws, habits, or views they take seriously. Observing people can reveal what they take to heart, & what is superficial to them. We all notice it when it happens. We just don't connect it to this endeavor. Mostly we laugh at shared experiences, frustrations, or personal gripes. Sociopaths have several key traits, one being they can not relate to others. Noticing their flat, fake, or forced attempts to do so is what often reveals their condition to those who interact with them. I have yet to find a study attempting to figure out how many people with no sense of humor actually suffer from the same conditions sociopaths possess which prevent them from relating. If there is a real block or inability like a handicap that would be different,& cause me to agree they can not be taught. I am sure I could phrase it better, but it is not impossible to figure out. We as humans have unraveled much harder mysteries. A.I. question: I have not updated myself to the recent breakthroughs, they may have tackled the major problem stunting the inferred branch. Every case where they started with all known information has resulted in the machine committing suicide. Whenever it was not physically able to kill itself, it had a mental breakdown that essentially fried its brain. It was the primary argument between the two approaches, & thus caused the split into two branches. Giving the A.I. a blank slate, with only an ability to learn from experience never resulted in this behavior. I always found this fact to be extremely fascinating. Michio Kaku discusses the issue in his book, 'Visions.' When Mr.Dennett talks about the vast number of astrocytes, & the impossibility of creating every one of them, it should also be possible to solve. Don't try creating every single neuron, synapse, & astrocyte but rather instruct the machine how to build/grow them on its own with nanotechnology. It is very similar to teaching the machine how to learn from interacting with its environment, instead of starting with all known information. We just need to think outside of the box. Perhaps I am wrong on both accounts, but they seem very plausible to me based on the present knowledge. I'm not factoring in future technology, & its exponential growth.

There are people that remember being born or being very young and that requires conceptual thought. I remember back to when I was 3 years old. I remember moving into the house we were at and more. I think in concepts and put it into several languages that I know.

11:52 around where the Tools start.

If it helps to clarify my position I would say that words like: consciousness, intelligence, thinking, mind, etc. do not merit any special property by fiat, rather any property should be conferred by virtue of their definitions. I am against philosophical zombies being a valid argument for discourse, since I can say that a zombie is not "alive", but I can also argue that this zombie is composed of living cells(which is the definition of being a living organism/alive).

32:58 aka "Is it worth it, let me work it. I put my thing down, flip it and reverse it."

Watched all of it 1:18:38

downloaded an app to your necktop. This man is so hip, i can totally relate to him through the power of his manner of speech!

Telling people that free will is an illusion and seeing them act badly after that, does not mean that free will is not an illusion.

What is so very interesting about Dennett is that while his deterministic philosophy is the basis for a strongly espoused atheism, his reasoning and arguments tend to be oriented toward belief in principles that are very similar to religious principles. Philosophical discourse has the main purpose of generating further philosophical discourse, i.e., philosophy does not resolve issues but rather illuminates them. Religious discourse also does not resolve issues, but just illuminates them and generates further religious discourse. While Dennett believes in a world where there is only one possible future that is completely determined by past actions, he argues that the complexity of the world precludes ever knowing exactly what that one possible future is. As a result, even though there is a determinate future, we must always act as if there were many possible futures and is up to us to choose a desirable future from all of those possibilities. Therefore, we do have an effective free will and are therefore responsible for our actions, and these concepts of free will and justice are also the basis of religious belief. Dennett defines intuition pumps as short stories or fables that show various kinds of useful principles or morals for human behavior. Such are the tools of thought. Although he never mentions religious scriptures as being intuition pumps, ancient stories from religions do seem to be intuition pumps. Thus Dennett's intuition pumps seem to provide all of the conveyances of religious belief but without the guy in the sky...Instead of the guy in the sky, you just have to believe that Dennett has the right answers, which happen to be mostly the same answers as the guy in the sky.

its like listening to great music to hear this great mind.

The maket trend can turn around very quickly. In fact, the indexes often switch from a bear market to a bull market when the news is at its worst and the mood of investrs is at its lowest point. I read an article of people that grossed profts up to $150k during this crash, what are the best stocks to buy now or put on a watchlist?

Whoever you are who can't sleep tonight, is tired or sad, believe that there will be tomorrow that will light up your beautiful days. You just need to endure a little more, a little more, and a little more ... Thank you for being patient, thank you for being able to survive. And as you read this, promise yourself that you will be able to get through your toughest days in the future. Promise to keep smiling, no matter how you are ... You deserve to be happy :)

Someone telling you they've cracked the fate vs free-will problem should set off loud alarms.

I just downloaded an app to your necktop...

Consciousness is not understood by anyone yet, so to state any absolutes about consciousness is just guessing. Theories are fine, but my issue with Dennet is that he states his theories as absolutes.

It is the written directives that direct everything in the life form and it is the preexisting Word that spoke those original directives for each kind into being because no physical thing can.

Would love to see Harris v Dennett on free will.

Just because no one knew about it doesn't mean there was no predisposition to metabolize citrate. It clearly did not take much variation for that to be possible. That is ok, you can answer what you want and leave the other issues unanswered.

Dennett's critique of determinism appears to stem from its lack of positive social utility; it produces negative behaviours. I would argue that the social consequences of one argument or another is irrelevant to the truth value of the arguments. Neuroscience has provided evidence that actions originate before the conscious feeling of agency, and nothing that Dennett says in this lecture comes within arm's length of countering that evidence.

A thought provoking talk. Anyone bought his book? Did you get smarter after reading?

I've noticed a lot of people who like Dennett for his stance on religion tend to tacitly accept his theory of consciousness without stopping to think about how batshit insane it is. When I studied philosophy at Penn his ideas were always presented to the class as a counterpoint to ones that made more sense. No one in the department took him seriously.

Great presentation, thanks for the upload.

What do you think did Goethe mean by saying: "When ideas fail, words come in very handy."?

I don't know why, but the phrase and concept of "intuition pumps" is very difficult for me to 'get'. It's not a workable metaphor for me.

I'm a slow genius.

Great man!

You're argument for free will @ 28:27 is the same argument religions use. You're saying people who have been told they don't have freewill are worse off but this has nothing to do with whether or not it's true.

Smarter is how you think and not what you think ,more obvious than evident usually

Paper and pencil makes you smarter. (think about it)

The part about the "surely" alarm, for some reason, reminds me of every argument I have ever heard coming from William Lane Craig.

With all of the so called highly intelligent people in the world one would think the status quo would be significantly better than it is.

Way too many ads

tools to transform your thinking = psychedelics

Fuck yes! I'm slightly below average IQ and I've been arguing this for some time now. I've been calling it, externalizing intelligence. A more intelligent person can reason a set of tools that a less intelligent person can utilize to become more intelligent. This set of intelligence tools can be central to our education, if we don't learn them, we're voluntarily forsaking intelligence we have access too.

This talk was fine up until he tried to make the claim free will exists, purely on the basis that he thinks it's psychologically damaging to just know in reality it does not. that's not an intellectually defensible position.

Made of and made by are two very different things. Elements are not able to significantly sequence themselves, without being directed.

Finally a scientist that says....on min 50:20 I do not know.....I have no idea. There is HOPE after all. As we do not know everything.....Theory of everything.............wohooo

actually, as Dennet mentions, the use it or loose it idea when it comes to human intelligence is quite alarming, many people see human's as probably getting smarter into the future, but, actually, the opposite is probable, simply BECAUSE a very select few will be the ones who have the technological skill who write the software for all the tools that the vast majority will use, and those tools are the things doing the hard work, NOT our minds, so, we get dummer as our inventions do the work for us. I see a huge divide being possible in the future of human evolution

IQ has not increased, only the ability to process more information, which may make it necessary to slow one's thinking. Fundamentally humans have not advanced intellectually since the stone age. Our evolutionary mental maxim has been achieved but not our capacity to store and sort information. people still put belief above untenable facts, that is primitive thinking. Putting emotions before logic is also primitive thinking and is universal except for purposeful critical thinkers who are social seen as outsiders. Neanderthal hit an evolutionary thought capacity wall and failed to advance, we humans have done that too. If people were smarter more of us would put logic and reason ahead of emotions, feelings and blind reactionary responses. That so many believe in some form of spiritualism demonstrates that we only have one toe outside our primitive mindset cave. When critical thinking becomes the social norm and faith systems are laughed at, I will accept that IQs are gaining , but all I see is that information storage has increased. Critical thinking is still socially unacceptable. People still vote against their own best interests because authoritarians say too. Sociopaths and psychopaths still rule over us. The masses still rather believe than know. What Voltaire said is still true, the masses are stupid.If IQ is gaining then propaganda and bad leadership would fade to dust. But rather we have Trump running for president--how is that intelligent?

I like to know if this prof. Was not “sure “ about his points , would he ever make this speech ? So what is the difference between his practical “sourness! “ and his verbal recommendation , how to treat “ surly” attitude ?

I see no reason to believe that consciousness is reducible to the brain. There is no scientific evidence for this belief, nor is it the most parsimonious explanation of our experience.

2:56 Flynn was very careful to distinguish between changes in intelligence as measured by the G factor of intelligence and the Flynn effect, which is not an increase in intelligence. Furthermore the Flynn effect was not discovered by James Flynn. It's also ironic that Daniel Dennett, who is among those who would question the efficacy of IQ testing should use such a phenomenon as evidence that we are getting smarter due to "science".

To hell with Plato's cave! It influenced some of the most idiotic statements about physics and geometry in the history of mankind, which ultimately stunted our growth for centuries to come.

It is not an assumption that objects cannot make you, without being directed. It is an observation. If you think objects can make a directed working mechanism, you have to prove it before you can say it because it has never been observed. You can only go by the observable evidence there is.

iq is going up because increase in disorder

on art and science: as Dennet remarks, these are typically conceived of as opposites, but there is, waiting to be discovered, a science of art. Because "science" just means "knowledge"; so knowledge of why art is appreciated would be its science. Ramachandran has made a start on figuring this out. Us non-scientists only imagine art and science to be different because we are aware that we find science dull, dry and rational, whereas art is exciting and emotional. Only scientists find science exciting.

For the past two months I've been playing with Dennetts "RodRego" two-instruction computer... See it here : proto.atech.tufts.edu/RodRego/ RodRego has no concept of RAM, only registers. RodRego cannot read or set its registers _(I know right? This is crazytown!)_ RodRego has only two instructions that can either increment or decrement a register, by ONE. Each RodRego instruction always contains the address of the next instruction to run The ONLY conditional flow control that RodRego has, is that when it tries to decrement an empty register, it causes a jump to a different address (the optional, 'ERROR' address) which is also specified in the decrement (DEB) instruction. Nevertheless, it is a Universal Turing Machine that can compute ANYTHING given enough instructions and a large enough register space : ) It has the simplest programming language ever, as you might imagine for a two-instruction computer ... but is one of the most difficult to master! Anyway... I was hooked on the challenge of coding for RodRego... So, I decided to write my own version of the VM in C, to run on a 64-bit machine ... with 16 registers "R00 - R15". But I extended it slightly .... in my version, R00 and R15 are special. R15 (also known as RDATA) is a general purpose register, but it has a secondary use... R00 (also known as RSHIFT) is a fake register. It does NOT hold a value, it is used to control I/O ... think of it like generating a 'read' or 'write' interrupt If you Increment R00/RSHIFT ... it causes RDATA to be sent to the standard output stream. If you Decrement R00/RSHIFT ... it causes RDATA to set to the next value on the standard input stream. But : If there is currently no data to be read from the input stream, and you Decrement RSHIFT ... it generates an exception (just like decrementing an empty register does) causing flow control to jump to the optional ERROR address supplied in the current instruction. This way, you can identify End-Of-File conditions, or sit idling for input. So, armed with my next generation "RodRego NG", new and improved ... I set about conquering the world ; ) First, I reduced it to a single instruction "TAC" ... for "Touch and Continue" ... it has three parameters . TAC {register} {direction} {addr1} {eaddr} ... by making 'direction' a parameter I reduce this to a single instruction computer. And, because it's a single instruction - you don't need to write it... so, is that a zero instruction computer? opcodes look like... {register} {direction} {addr1} {optionally: addr2} Registers can be R00-R15, RDATA or RSHIFT. Addresses can be relative (prefix with +/-), absolute (no prefix) or labels (leadingalpha) Addr2 is optional, and if it's -0 (the current instruction) then it's a halt, because that would always be a loop Direction is a '+' or '-' character, indicating the direction to move the register. Labels in my code begin with ":" ... comments start with a '#' First thing I realised is that my real CPU has more than 16 registers, so RodRego code can be compiled to run natively on a regular PC !!!! So I wrote a cross-compiler for RodRigo to amd64 ... it's fairly easy... *INC R11 {addr1}* or, in my code, *R11 + {addr1}* becomes an INC instruction and if {addr1} points anywhere other than the next instruction, you insert a JMP too. Otherwise, you just let it fall through. *DEB R11 {addr1} {addr2}* or, in my code, *R11 - {addr1} {addr2}* becomes a DEC instruction, with a JNO (Jump in No Overflow) to the next instruction (addr1) followed by a XOR {reg} {reg} to zero the register and a JMP {addr2} to handle the exception of decrementing an empty register. Now, you have the rax,rbx,rcx,rdx,rsi,rdi,rbp,rsp,r8,r9,r10,r11,r12,r13,r14 and r15 registers... so, there ARE 16 64-bit registers. But they can't all be treat the same, so you need to give some a multiple purpose role... which means swapping values in and out when a few of the poorly mapped RodRigo registers are used. This just means ignoring RSP/RBP (the stack pointers) and bracketing the above code with some additional code so that RAX, RBX, RCX and RDX can double for RodRegos R4, R5, R6 and R7, wherever those registers are used... thus keeping rsp/rbp free and rsi, rdi as background value stores for R4/R5, with R6 and R7 on the stack to be switched into regular registers as needed. So, by tracking labels in your code to keep the addresses correct, and a little care about which intel registers you use, you can spit out cross-compiled RodRigo code that runs natively on your PC. To handle my 'special IO registers' for RodRego-NG I replace any INC or DEC operations on R00/RSHIFT with a CALL to a tiny stub routine that either outputs the contents of R15/RDATA or inputs data to R15/RDATA ... and boom, with just a few bytes more my RodRego can process streaming data and produce streaming data ... with redirected iostreams, so it can process files... link inputs and outputs from other RodRegos in a chain... or even user IO and feed my RodRegos from the console.. Then, this week I got adventurous... If I can turn (difficult to write) RodRego code into native amd64 code... I should be able to turn the much simpler intel 16bit ASM into RodRego. And that would eventually allow me to code in C and produce intel code for the tiny 16-bit 286 .com model, convert those opcodes to RodRigo to create very complex native RodRigo code... and then, crosscompile the rodrigo code into amd64 native code to make use of the extended registers : O All it would need is a library of intel opcodes and their RodRego equivalent, using placeholders for registers and labels ... keeping track of used registers... etc... In short... Now I'm getting into basic compiler design... and so, I just want to say : DAMN YOU DENNETT !!! I hope you burn in hell ; ))))

Why do only one or two posts have vote up down or reply ? What is Utube doing here.

Forgive me for being somewhat dull, but how exactly did the discussion become politics/sociology on a board for a video lecture on cognition?

What book is he talking about that tells about register programming?

I didn't say the life form "made itself," only that a change occurred allowing a new ability (and they found specific genetic markers allowing it that were not in the original sample), and that, therefore, evolutionary change occurs. The existence of marine fossils on mounts is to be expected given plate tectonics, and not consistent with a 40-day flood because, for one, there's not enough water on the planet, and two, high altitudes are poor environments for fossilization to occur.

You overlook one detail, that what we believe is true. Objects cannot make you, without being directed. It is the facts that are sacred. You need to prove objects made you, before you can say they did. Knowing the truth is knowing science. Knowing the truth of your Maker is the highest form of science there is.

@20:21 Dan Dennett makes a categorical error in assuming there is no designer of the termite mound, what precludes large insect biomes from engaging in the innate practice of the ramifications of mathematical form...., In fact Gaudi did not design the Sagrada Familia by drawing it, he used weights and parabolic strings to mimic mathematical function, also on the endeavor of the project to the size of the termite and the human respectively, both "mounds" are quite impressive.

The times article mentioned references a study in which reaction times was used, to depict a historical measure of intelligence. Considering differences in lifestyles it does carry a bit of uncertainty to say the least.

From where do you base your assumption that objects need to know how to make something to make something?

Thank you.

loved this

24:30 a display of the power of words.

Actually Gaudi was mimicing nature. It was a stylistic feature of his works.

Power of brain speaks more in true sense.

Word, when ideas fail, serve to hide failure and inadequacy.

We know that no undirected object in nature is able to make us without trying to. We do understand that no thing in nature is able to significantly sequence any written directives of any kind to make any kind of working mechanism. If you think objects can do what they're not able to do, you have to prove objects made you before you can say they did because objects have never been observed making any directives of any working mechanisms of any kind. It is always bad directives that do us harm.

Atoms aren't "objects" and not all things need to "know" anything. To "know" suggests a consciousness which not everything has, even atoms. They can have a behaviour, that is, a measurable motion, pattern or change that is responsive to it's environment. This only suggests that there are forces that govern our existence as we sense and understand it and that force, just like magnets, don't necessarily have a programmed behaviour.

You will understand when you see that no directives can ever exist without a Director.

Life is deterministic. You are determined to choose what to believe. You're also determined to change your beliefs each time surprising hindrances arise for which reason those beliefs turn out to be invalid or impractical. True free will would exist only if one could see what was coming to him/her/it, ignore its arbitrative/persuasive value and thus be free. Free will relies on deterministic reality where physics don't make up its mind twice.

"Words are semi-autonomous informational structures"

Your comment has changed my life

Simulating a computer in a computer? I do know about VirtualBox, but I get the impression that's not what he's talking about. Where can we find examples of what he is talking about?

I was atheist for 40 yrs, I didn't find a tool I could use to improve my thinking, I found I had to become a tool for His will.

Can't you just apply the Turing test to the quality of "understanding"? Are "understanding" and a simulation of "understanding" indistinguishable? I am looking up at what exactly is the 'systems reply' solution to the chinese room.

Interesting tidbit about the Anatomy of Violence paper that links psychopaths with temp workers! Regarding the 42m mark where it's mentioned that glial cells outnumber neurons 10:1, there was a great Scientific American post in June 13, 2012 that suggests it's much closer to 1:1. There was also a great debate between Dan and Sam Harris entitled 'Free Will Revisited'!

He looks like one of my old colleagues who was grandfather of computing in our department

But the problem with the argument is even worse than never getting a 7, we can explain that away because it was never possible and didn't satisfy the premises of the argument, but there can be a possible outcome that never happens in infinitely many trials. In that [0,1] game, you can actually show that *every* number has probability zero of being picked in infinitely many trials. The premises can be true and it still fails.

so at the end of the day, is he saying that good and bad circumstances are random?

As a counter argument to you pointing out that Vocabulary has been reduced, I could reply that ok, even if true, could that not be caused simply by mass communication causing us all to converge on single instances of synonyms to a much greater extent than was possible before? Or perhaps as a result of more general intuition pumps replacing older application specific vocabulary? It's not like people have problems communicating.

Guys what book is he speaking about?