• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Daniel Dennett Dead At 82

Can’t read that because it’s behind a firewall, and I never sign up to read anything online, even if it’s a free signup. There’s always something unfree lurking in the background to get you sooner or later. Ironic, though, because I worked there for a long time. Before the firewall descended, I glimpsed the subhead, about how “free will is a fantasy.” Really, Times? Dennett was a compatibilist. :rolleyes: Now, I know there are people like DBT who think compatibilism is a fantasy, but the Times is in no position to make that judgment. I would like to read the article.
 
And I’d have to jog my memory but I doubt Dennett ever said that evolution could “only” be explained by natural selection. If he did say that, he’d be wrong.
 
pood said:
And I’d have to jog my memory but I doubt Dennett ever said that evolution could “only” be explained by natural selection. If he did say that, he’d be wrong.
Click to expand...
I probably should have found a better article but I was at work when I read the news.
 
Not sure where to put this obituary but Daniel Dennett has returned to star dust.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/...e_code=1.l00.jGYo.98RY4Qjo4OQ-&smid=url-share

Daniel C. Dennett, one of the most widely read and debated American philosophers, whose prolific works explored consciousness, free will, religion and evolutionary biology, died on Friday in Portland, Maine. He was 82.

His death, at Maine Medical Center, was caused by complications of interstitial lung disease, his wife, Susan Bell Dennett, said. He lived in Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Mr. Dennett combined a wide range of knowledge with an easy, often playful writing style to reach a lay public, avoiding the impenetrable concepts and turgid prose of many other contemporary philosophers. Beyond his more than 20 books and scores of essays, his writings even made their way into the theater and onto the concert stage.

But Mr. Dennett, who never shirked controversy, often crossed swords with other famed scholars and thinkers.
Click to expand...
 
GenesisNemesis said:
pood said:
And I’d have to jog my memory but I doubt Dennett ever said that evolution could “only” be explained by natural selection. If he did say that, he’d be wrong.
Click to expand...
I probably should have found a better article but I was at work when I read the news.
Click to expand...

Well, the article may be fine, just the. headline that is screwed up. Dennett definitely did not believe free will was a fantasy, unless it’s the libertarian kind. As to evolution, P.Z. Myers over at his blog today is calling Dennett’s views on that “naively adaptationist,” which perhaps they were, but I don’t think he ever said that ONLY natural selection explains evolution.
 
pood said:
Can’t read that because it’s behind a firewall, and I never sign up to read anything online, even if it’s a free signup. There’s always something unfree lurking in the background to get you sooner or later. Ironic, though, because I worked there for a long time. Before the firewall descended, I glimpsed the subhead, about how “free will is a fantasy.” Really, Times? Dennett was a compatibilist. :rolleyes: Now, I know there are people like DBT who think compatibilism is a fantasy, but the Times is in no position to make that judgment. I would like to read the article.
Click to expand...
I gifted it, so you should be able to read it, if you want. I'm permitted to share 10 articles a month as a subscriber to the NYTimes and I've only used one. Just sayin'. Have you tried to read it? Ok. I'm confused now. Are there more than one threads about Dennet? Yes. He was controversial. I just put his Obit here because he was a well known atheist philosopher, regardless if you agree with him or not.
 
southernhybrid said:
pood said:
Can’t read that because it’s behind a firewall, and I never sign up to read anything online, even if it’s a free signup. There’s always something unfree lurking in the background to get you sooner or later. Ironic, though, because I worked there for a long time. Before the firewall descended, I glimpsed the subhead, about how “free will is a fantasy.” Really, Times? Dennett was a compatibilist. :rolleyes: Now, I know there are people like DBT who think compatibilism is a fantasy, but the Times is in no position to make that judgment. I would like to read the article.
Click to expand...
I gifted it, so you should be able to read it, if you want. I'm permitted to share 10 articles a month as a subscriber to the NYTimes and I've only used one. Just sayin'. Have you tried to read it? Ok. I'm confused now. Are there more than one threads about Dennet? Yes. He was controversial. I just put his Obit here because he was a well known atheist philosopher, regardless if you agree with him or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, please do so if you wish. I’d like to read it. OH, ETA, you already gifted it? Great, I’ll check the link.
 
Oops, guess not. If you can gift that link I’d be grateful.
 
southernhybrid said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/...e_code=1.l00.jGYo.98RY4Qjo4OQ-&smid=url-share

See if it works this time. The Times said that I already shared this story so it won't count against my articles to share. If you can't read it, I don't know what to tell you. I've never had this problem before, at least not to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is fine. I don’t see where you put the first gifted link, though. The only link I see apart from this one you just posted now is in the OP.
 
I get it now. I started the same thread in the lounge. I'm going to share another article about Dennett, just for you. :)
pood said:
southernhybrid said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/...e_code=1.l00.jGYo.98RY4Qjo4OQ-&smid=url-share

See if it works this time. The Times said that I already shared this story so it won't count against my articles to share. If you can't read it, I don't know what to tell you. I've never had this problem before, at least not to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is fine. I don’t see where you put the first gifted link, though. The only link I see apart from this one you just posted now is in the OP.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.l00.1FyY.iBm5u6-5yQKE&smid=url-share

For more than 50 years, Daniel C. Dennett has been right in the thick of some of humankind’s most meaningful arguments: the nature and function of consciousness and religion, the development and dangers of artificial intelligence and the relationship between science and philosophy, to name a few. For Dennett, an éminence grise of American philosophy who is nonetheless perhaps best known as one of the “four horsemen” of modern atheism alongside Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, there are no metaphysical mysteries at the heart of human existence, no magic nor God that makes us who we are. Instead, it’s science and Darwinian evolution all the way down. In his new memoir, “I’ve Been Thinking,” Dennett, a professor emeritus at Tufts University and author of multiple books for popular audiences, traces the development of his worldview, which he is keen to point out is no less full of awe or gratitude than that of those more inclined to the supernatural. “I want people to see what a meaningful, happy life I’ve had with these beliefs,” says Dennett, who is 81. “I don’t need mystery.”

Right now it seems as if truth is in shambles, politics has become religion and the planet is screwed. What’s the most valuable contribution philosophers could be making given the state of the world? Well, let’s look at epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Eric Horvitz, the chief scientist at Microsoft, has talked about a “post-epistemic” world.1

1
Horvitz, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer, speaking about A.I. earlier this year: “We could be entering a post-epistemic world, where nobody knows what’s going on because of the powers of these systems to manipulate … to create alternative realities.”
That phrase, the mere fact that he could utter it, is extremely frightening. The presence of agreed-upon landmarks and sources of common knowledge — this is something we’ve taken for granted for a long time and can no longer take for granted. We have to work to try to restore it.
Click to expand...
This one was from an interview done with Dennett last August.
 
southernhybrid said:
I get it now. I started the same thread in the lounge. I'm going to share another article about Dennett, just for you. :)
Click to expand...
Oh, cool, thank you! (y)

As to the obit, it’s plain the headline writer wrote the headline and subhead off the article, which made the same mistake about free will. The article should have educated the reader to the difference between compatibilism and libertarianism. Dennett’s “illusion” take was on libertarianism, not compatibilism. As to evolution, the article is more nuanced than the headline, stressing that Dennett believed most evolution was driven only by natural selection and adaptation, but not all. Here there are many, like biologist P.Z. Myers and biochemist Larry Moran, especially the latter, who strongly disagree with Dennett, because they believe that genetic drift plays a leading role in evolutionary change. The obit does rightly note drift.
 
pood said:
southernhybrid said:
I get it now. I started the same thread in the lounge. I'm going to share another article about Dennett, just for you. :)
Click to expand...
Oh, cool, thank you! (y)

As to the obit, it’s plain the headline writer wrote the headline and subhead off the article, which made the same mistake about free will. The article should have educated the reader to the difference between compatibilism and libertarianism. Dennett’s “illusion” take was on libertarianism, not compatibilism. As to evolution, the article is more nuanced than the headline, stressing that Dennett believed most evolution was driven only by natural selection and adaptation, but not all. Here there are many, like biologist P.Z. Myers and biochemist Larry Moran, especially the latter, who strongly disagree with Dennett, because they believe that genetic drift plays a leading role in evolutionary change. The obit does rightly note drift.
Click to expand...
That's kind of deep for a newspaper article, don't ya think? I'm not a true believer in free will, but I probably don't see it exactly the way that DBT does. The way I put it is that we are all victims or benefactors of our genetic and environmental influences, so we have very little control over what we do, believe or how we think. It's not important to me if I absolutely reject the concept of free will or not. I've never been a big fan of serious philosophy. Last year I tried reading some books by the ancient philosophers and I found them boring and kind of silly. I also found philosophy boring in college, when I wasted three years as a lib arts major. ( oh no, now I'm in trouble )😜

I just came to my own conclusions based on my life experiences and my experiences interacting with all kinds of people while working as a professional nurse for 42 years. I usually avoid the discussions and arguments on free will because they never accomplish anything and they usually go on and on and on. Maybe I just don't have the will to seriously discuss these things, but I do enjoy sharing articles and ideas with other people. :)
 
That was a good interview, I’ll comment on it later. I think I noticed one discrepancy between the interview and the obit, but I’ll have to double check that. I certainly believe we are largely driven by our genes and memes. The free will debate boils down to whether we have control over anything at all, including what to have for breakfast or what job to take, and I certainly think we exercise the maximum amount of control over things of that nature that we can in a universe that appears to be deterministic at the macroscopic level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom