Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

Ok, so in the part which begins at 29:58 he's talking about the evolution of "memes" - a term which was originally invented by Richard Dawkins to mean ideas that spread in a way that is analogous to evolution. So on that one, as I suspected, you were selectively quoting him disingenuously. Clearly he's not claiming that memes exist without a medium. He's just saying something similar to what Faustus5 said earlier about the unimportance of the specifics of the medium.

The part which begins at 43:35: He gives some examples of things that he describes as being "made from information" and points that information is transmitted. I see nothing particularly controversial there.

You literally just said what he said, that some things are made from information. Not matter or energy, but information.

[Steve3007]

So, when he gave his examples of things that he says are "made of information", do you understand why he said that? Do you understand what he said about the evolution of memes?

[Atla]

So, when he gave his examples of things that he says are "made of information", do you understand why he said that? Do you understand what he said about the evolution of memes?

Tell me first what memes are made of, if they aren't made of matter or energy.

[Steve3007]

Dennett says that memes (and software, and various other things) are "made of information". I might not put it like that myself if it was going to be taken too literally, but I see what he means.

Naturally, it depends what we mean by "made". In the conventional sense of that word I wouldn't say that memes and software are made of anything. It would be a category error to say that they were. But we don't always have to use words in their conventional senses. We can create metaphors. So, in a metaphorical sense, I "build" a software application. That word "build" is actually used. But nobody thinks that I build software in the same sense that a bricklayer builds a wall.

Do you accept that words can be used metaphorically like this?

[Atla]

Dennett says that memes (and software, and various other things) are "made of information". I might not put it like that myself if it was going to be taken too literally, but I see what he means.

Naturally, it depends what we mean by "made". In the conventional sense of that word I wouldn't say that memes and software are made of anything. It would be a category error to say that they were. But we don't always have to use words in their conventional senses. We can create metaphors. So, in a metaphorical sense, I "build" a software application. That word "build" is actually used. But nobody thinks that I build software in the same sense that a bricklayer builds a wall.

Do you accept that words can be used metaphorically like this?

And this is what goes over your and Faustus's head. Dennett is speaking literally, just like the father of cybernetics was speaking literally. Again: it's NOT matter and NOT energy. Do the math.

The possibility that he may be speaking literally is so ridiculous that you guys automatically dismiss it, and criticize those who criticize Dennett.

Same thing with consciousness. Dennett was literally denying the existence of phenomenal consciousness. Which may be the most profoundly ridiculous stance in all of philosophy, so it didn't even occur to his followers that that's what he's really saying. So they criticize the critics of Dennett.

This is why this guy is so dangerous. He creates more and more insanity and people don't even realize it, he's the most successful charlatan of our time.

[Steve3007]

The possibility that he may be speaking literally is so ridiculous that you guys automatically dismiss it, and criticize those who criticize Dennett.

I'm just going by the two small snippets to which you directed me. I have no ax to grind on this subject. I'm just stating it as I see it and am not "dismissing" anything. To find out whether he's speaking literally, as you've said he is, I'd have to do more research on him. I'm not interested enough to do that.

[Atla]

The possibility that he may be speaking literally is so ridiculous that you guys automatically dismiss it, and criticize those who criticize Dennett.

Dennett is so good at this because he himself doesn't fully understand what he is saying, what the broader contexts are, what the actual implications are.

[Terrapin Station]

I am certain that you believe what you posted above, but you should not assume that I will accept it. When people state that they are atheist and that they don't believe in "souls", that generally means that they are not religious; so what, neither am I. I was not talking about religion, I was talking about knowledge and belief and where they source from.

I don't believe that Gods exist in other words.

All knowledge sources from somewhere

Sure. Knowledge arises in functioning brains.

Consciousness isn't something "magical." It's simply a property of certain materials, in certain structures, undergoing certain processes.

So it isn't magical, it is certain? Well that certainly clarifies things.

"Certain" as in "particular" or "specific."

We know for sure that human brains are the right sorts of materials/structures/processes for those properties. We can be pretty sure that very similar brains are going to be the right sorts of materials/structures/processes, too. We just don't know how different brains can be for consciousness to still obtain.

We know no such thing. What we know is that human brains affect consciousness, other brains also affect consciousness, but that does not mean that brains cause consciousness. A speed boat racing through a lake will affect the water, it causes waves, but it does not cause the water. Brains do not cause consciousness.

Brains do not cause consciousness, as if consciousness is something different than brains that is only kickstarted by them. Brain parts functioning in particular ways are identical to consciousness.

But there's no good reason to believe that very different sorts of materials/structures/processes would amount to conscious properties.

There is every reason to believe it, if these "materials/structures/processes" are part of life. I will try to explain where I think the thinking about consciousness gets lost.

So give one of the reasons that you think justifies the belief.

When I look at people trying to understand consciousness, I see a lot of people arguing about where it comes from

There's no argument in my view. There are just the facts that consciousness is identical to particular brain functioning, and then there are a lot of people who believe a lot of absurd crap that's different than those facts. Ultimately that's their problem.

[Faustus5]

If something isn't made of matter or energy then what is it made of?

He says he does not mean he's endorsing dualism, in plain English. If that isn't enough for you, there's nothing anyone can do to get you to understand what he means. You apparently aren't interested in understanding.

[Faustus5]

On the subject of evolution: It is possible to simulate evolution-like processes in computer software. Perhaps that is what Dennett was talking about.

Yep, that was exactly what he had in mind.

[Steve3007]

Yep, that was exactly what he had in mind.

Judging by the section of the Royal Institution lecture to which Atla directed me, Dennett was also talking about the concept of "memes". But it's the same general idea. Talking about a software process (in a computer or, in the case of memes, in human brains) that is analagous to the evolution of a biological organism.

Atla tells me I've misunderstood Dennett and that he's dangerous. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. I still don't fully understand what Atla is so worked up about. He said in another thread that most computer programmers "think information exists on its own". I tried to work out what he meant by that and apparently got it wrong. As yet, I don't know what he means by it.

[Atla]

If something isn't made of matter or energy then what is it made of?

He says he does not mean he's endorsing dualism, in plain English. If that isn't enough for you, there's nothing anyone can do to get you to understand what he means. You apparently aren't interested in understanding.

I understand very well that all you can do is lie here.

He said in plain English that he's endorsing the software-hardware dualism, which is not a "bad" kind of dualism.

That's the whole damn point, software-hardware is a "good" dualism if we understand that information is abstraction, and a "bad" dualism if we treat information as something distinct from matter or energy. A lot of insanity is caused by the latter view, and Dennett is endorsing this one as well, and he's also dishonest enough to call it a "good one".

You Dennett fanboys will eat up anything he says, because he's some kind of father figure, who made the evil evil people go away who were talking about some kind of consciousness, or I don't know.

His denial of phenomenal consciousness is ironically also a subtle form of bad dualism btw, one has to first divide existence into phenomenal consciousness and something else first, before one can dismiss the former.

[Atla]

Yep, that was exactly what he had in mind.

Judging by the section of the Royal Institution lecture to which Atla directed me, Dennett was also talking about the concept of "memes". But it's the same general idea. Talking about a software process (in a computer or, in the case of memes, in human brains) that is analagous to the evolution of a biological organism.

Atla tells me I've misunderstood Dennett and that he's dangerous. I don't know enough about him to comment on that. I still don't fully understand what Atla is so worked up about. He said in another thread that most computer programmers "think information exists on its own". I tried to work out what he meant by that and apparently got it wrong. As yet, I don't know what he means by it.

It has to do with your blind spot Steve, "confusing the map for the territory".

[Consul]

Dennett states it clearly that some things aren't made of anything except information. And material things aren't needed for evolution.

Quotes from his books or papers are welcome!
Anyway, being a materialist, he cannot consistently deny that there is no information without physical implementation or representation. For example, neural information is physically implemented or represented by neuronal spike trains.

QUOTE>
"Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation. It is represented by engraving on a stone tablet, a spin, a charge, a hole in a punched card, a mark on paper, or some other equivalent. This ties the handling of information to all the possibilities and restrictions of our real physical word, its laws of physics and its storehouse of available parts."

(Landauer, Rolf. "The Physical Nature of Information." Physics Letters A 217 (1996): 188–193. p. 188)
<QUOTE

[Gertie]

Faustus

By they way, this position is tied directly to Dennett's views on intentionality, his anti-reductionism when it comes to mental states, and his rejection of eliminativism, though to show how those stances are connected together would require a much longer essay.

I'd be interested if you can give a clear, coherent explanation of Dennett's position on this.

And how his anti-reductionism of mental states ties in to his claim that simply describing one's mental states captures all their qualities.