Daniel Dennett Dead At 82

[No Robots]

^All religions bear witness to the truth in their own way, even yours.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Religionists

^All religions bear witness to the truth in their own way, even yours.

So the Tao and the Abrahamic god are the same thing? Not sure that's how that works.

 

[Jarhyn]

THOSE GODDANGED SECULARISTS TAKIN' AWAY MAH KABALLAH. I TELL YOU HWAT

And like, he acts like I haven't researched key parts of Kabbalah and Kabbalistic beliefs.

I'm a fucking wizard for fuck sakes. Wizards online are absolutely all over themselves with that bullshit.

I'm actually more dismissive over the Kabbalah shit because of that reason more than most others, because the world is filled with such Ions.

It's just the same predestination nonsense and singing the songs of the philosophers.

It was some advice; Socrates is generally pretty solid.

There's actually some orthogonality to Kabbalistic views in my exploration of simulation theory vis a vis the "Ripping Apart gods" opening post. If anyone wants, I can go ahead and explore the relationship between those ideas and the Kabbalistic beliefs, particularly aspects of Lurianic Kabbalah, but it really deserves its own thread, neither this one nor that one. This is such a gross derail at this point I feel bad for the mods.

I just find it silly that some guy is trying to lecture me on Kabbalah when my own thought process took me across and beyond that line of thought over a decade ago now. I just don't use fantasy religion terms when I have better terms that successfully relate to the language of systems theory and well explored logic.

I could as soon enjoin NoRobots to read my posts on the subject and maybe open to the idea "maybe these people know a thing or two".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

THE TAO IS A JEALOUS GOD

 

[No Robots]

Religionists

^All religions bear witness to the truth in their own way, even yours.

So the Tao and the Abrahamic god are the same thing? Not sure that's how that works.

They are indeed the same. You can explore the subject on your own or ask me for sources.

 

[pood]

lol

When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Once there was a board poster named No Robots
Who derided us all as Kant nanobots.
His foes, he says, fellate Kant
But it’s Kant he does not want,
So some nobody named Waton, out he trots.

 

[Jarhyn]

lol

When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Once there was a board poster named No Robots
Who derided us all as Kant nanobots.
His foes, he says, fellate Kant
But it’s Kant he does not want,
So some nobody named Waton, out he trots.

To be fair, Kant is wrong too, but in a subtle way actually answered and repaired, interestingly enough, with the explorations I make with respect to free will in deterministic systems.

Compatibilism completes Kant in a way.

 

[pood]

lol

When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Once there was a board poster named No Robots
Who derided us all as Kant nanobots.
His foes, he says, fellate Kant
But it’s Kant he does not want,
So some nobody named Waton, out he trots.

To be fair, Kant is wrong too, but in a subtle way actually answered and repaired, interestingly enough, with the explorations I make with respect to free will in deterministic systems.

Compatibilism completes Kant in a way.

I think he was right about some things and wrong about others. Unfortunately for NoRobots, I don’t consult my “Kant’s Manual to Life” before I write a post.

 

[pood]

Harry Waton:

According to Hitler, a race of a superior culture has a right to subordinate to itself the races of an inferior culture, and the race of the highest culture has a right to be the master over the whole earth and the whole human race. What follows? Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth

 

[No Robots]

Harry Waton:

According to Hitler, a race of a superior culture has a right to subordinate to itself the races of an inferior culture, and the race of the highest culture has a right to be the master over the whole earth and the whole human race. What follows? Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth

The quotation continues:

Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews, but not in the sense of Hitler and the nazis. With Jesus, who only symbolizes the Jews, the Jews say: Our kingdom is not of this world. The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress. Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race. The races and the nations will cheerfully submit to the spiritual power of Judaism, and all will become Jews.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Harry Waton:

According to Hitler, a race of a superior culture has a right to subordinate to itself the races of an inferior culture, and the race of the highest culture has a right to be the master over the whole earth and the whole human race. What follows? Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth

The quotation continues:

Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews, but not in the sense of Hitler and the nazis. With Jesus, who only symbolizes the Jews, the Jews say: Our kingdom is not of this world. The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress. Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race. The races and the nations will cheerfully submit to the spiritual power of Judaism, and all will become Jews.

And it's still stupid.

 

[pood]

Ditto.

 

[pood]

^All religions bear witness to the truth in their own way, even yours.

All religions bear witness to lies in their own way, even yours.

 

[lpetrich]

Daniel Dennett, philosophical giant who championed “naturalism,” dead at 82 | Ars Technica

In his later years, Dennett wasn't shy about sounding the alarm regarding AI, even writing an article for The Atlantic last year on the topic about the dangers ahead, particularly with the advent of large language models like ChatGPT. "The most pressing problem is not that they’re going to take our jobs, not that they’re going to change warfare, but that they’re going to destroy human trust," he told Tufts Now. "They’re going to move us into a world where you can’t tell truth from falsehood. You don’t know who to trust. Trust turns out to be one of the most important features of civilization, and we are now at great risk of destroying the links of trust that have made civilization possible."

So AI makes fakery too easy, and that's a dangerous feature of it.

 

[lpetrich]

Daniel C. Dennett, Widely Read and Fiercely Debated Philosopher, 82, Dies - The New York Times

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.

Mr. Dennett irked some scientists by asserting that natural selection alone determined evolution. He was especially disdainful of the eminent paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, whose ideas on other factors of evolution were summarily dismissed by Mr. Dennett as “goulding.”

...
He believed that natural selection was the overwhelming factor in this evolution. And he insisted that physical and behavioral traits of organisms evolved primarily through their beneficial effects on survival or reproduction, thus enhancing an organism’s fitness in its environment.

Critics, like Mr. Gould, cautioned that while natural selection was important, evolution would also have to be explained by random genetic mutations that were neutral or even somewhat damaging to organisms, but that had become fixed in a population. In Mr. Gould’s view, evolution is marked by long periods of little or no change punctuated by short, rapid bursts of significant change, while Mr. Dennett defended a more gradualist view.

I'm inclined to agree with SJG. A lot of evolution is just plain random, even though natural selection is a nonrandom effect. The Modern Synthesis of nearly a century ago recognized "genetic drift", a random effect, but with sequencing of proteins and genes came recognition of how much randomness there is. As a result, some biologists have talked about a neutral theory of evolution, where most evolution is selectively-neutral genetic drift.

We also need a better understanding of what variations are possible. We have this about genes, where we have discovered not only point mutations but also gene duplication and genome duplication: polyploidy. While genes to proteins is well-understood, genes to shapes continues to be very poorly understood, and that gets in the way of finding its range of possible variation.

 

[lpetrich]

 Breaking the Spell (Dennett book)

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a 2006 book by American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, in which the author argues that religion is in need of scientific analysis so that its nature and future may be better understood. The "spell" that requires "breaking" is not religious belief itself but the belief that it is off-limits to or beyond scientific inquiry.[1]

Synopsis
The book is divided into three parts. Dennett's working definition of religions is: "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought". He notes that this definition is "a place to start, not something carved in stone".

Part I
Part I discusses the motivation and justification for the entire project: Can science study religion? Should science study religion?

Part II
After answering in the affirmative, Part II proceeds to use the tools of evolutionary biology and memetics to suggest possible theories regarding the origin of religion and subsequent evolution of modern religions from ancient folk beliefs.

Part III
Part III analyzes religion and its effects in today's world: Does religion make us moral? Is religion what gives meaning to life? What should we teach the children? Dennett bases much of his analysis on empirical evidence, though he often points out that much more research in this field is needed.

He has a predecessor from 2,500 years ago: Fragments of Xenophanes - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[pood]

Yeah, I mentioned the evolution thing upthread. The article contradicts itself slightly, saying that Gould argued that natural selection alone determined evolution and a little later saying he claimed only that selection was the “overwhelming factor” in it. However that may be, he does appear to be wrong. Larry Moran at his Sandwalk blog talks a lot about neutral evolution, or “evolution by accident” as he calls it. And as I linked earlier, P.Z. Myers dismissed Dennett’s ideas on evolution as “naively adaptationist.”

 

[blastula]

Daniel C. Dennett, Widely Read and Fiercely Debated Philosopher, 82, Dies

Espousing his ideas in best sellers, he insisted that religion was an illusion, free will was a fantasy and evolution could only be explained by natural selection.

www.nytimes.com

Rest in peace.

Here's a better obit.

Daniel Dennett, philosophical giant who championed “naturalism,” dead at 82

Part of the “New Atheist” movement, best known for work on consciousness, free will.

arstechnica.com

 

[Angry Floof]

Not sure where to put this obituary but Daniel Dennett has returned to star dust.

More like his star dust is continuing its journey of constant change, which is now either ash or breaking down into myriad chemical changes that we typically call "rot" or sometimes "nutrients for plants" or "reactions to embalming chemicals" or whatever.

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.

The world has lost its nicest philosopher.

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.

I did not know this. Do you have some specifics?

But Mr. Dennett, who never shirked controversy, often crossed swords with other famed scholars and thinkers.

True, he did. And he also famously said that philosophy is dead and then continued to philosophize as did other philosophizers. It was such a (to me) dumb statement coming from someone who was not in the least bit dumb.

It's a sad day for the infidel/freethinker community for sure. Rest in peace, beloved horseman.

 

[pood]

Daniel C. Dennett, Widely Read and Fiercely Debated Philosopher, 82, Dies

Espousing his ideas in best sellers, he insisted that religion was an illusion, free will was a fantasy and evolution could only be explained by natural selection.

www.nytimes.com

Rest in peace.

Here's a better obit.

Daniel Dennett, philosophical giant who championed “naturalism,” dead at 82

Part of the “New Atheist” movement, best known for work on consciousness, free will.

arstechnica.com

Terrific obit. Thanks for posting that.