Actually, the special feature of a 'do' loop is that it iterates at least once before it tests for the condition otherwise it's the same as a 'for' loop.
can anyone help me? i would like to use his differentiation about Why? in the begging of the lecture. the process narrative vs. justification to my thesis, where can i find written reference or source for this? thanks.
I note that telic reasons pertain to the future, but to part of a cycle which was also a significant past within the real evolutionary process. Eg, we close the house because that's a human habit, BECAUSE this increases our children's safety as it has in the past.
No. Having "faith" means to believe something in absence of evidence (in some cases even *contrary* to evidence). It also means one needs to make more assumptions than the *Occam's razor* principle would require. What Dennett is talking about isn't faith-based, as it actually *is* supported by evidence. Consciousnesses wasn't the main topic here, but Dennett has wrote about it extensively... And yes, every single one we know of (up to now) has required a body. No evidence to the contrary yet.
I was hoping he would speak on the purpose of life; I was mistaken, lol. I did find his lecture VERY enlightening and his Turing Metaphor initiated a cascade of revelations in my mind. I'm not sure that I agree with him on intentionality... I will have to roll that around a bit. One funny thing I noticed was this creepy stare: 11:24,12:31,17:36, 22:22.
I'm not sure this is correct in the grand scheme of things. I accept Dennets general definition of 'purpose' but I think he's forgetting that its not just living organisms that are subject to the laws of mutability, or even reproduction in rare cases. [See Complex adaptive systems Murray Gell-Mann 1994] Given the complexity even of inorganic structures all of the outputs will be subject even to Dennetts definition of purpose. RFC
"we are the ONLY reason representers" hasn't been proven and is an unreasonable assumption without evidence. it has not yet been proven that animals don't represent reasons and relate them to each others in their languages. it's not fair to rule out the possibility
Hmmm, I don't know how humans have a purpose if we are just matter and particles. Purpose really is illusory. It all ends the same as it was determined. By the way, I am an atheist.
If you're not more qualified than Dennett in this field - shut up! Dualism can't take us any further, but monism is carrying us forward! Some of us find this interesting and no matter how much you want to restrict free speech - you're not going to be allowed to do so.
Fascinating.. I never saw it this way. Dennett keeps blowing my mind.
I think that line almost brought a tear to my eye lol almost because I'm still watching the vid
The reason for being is to become beings of reason.
Actually, the special feature of a 'do' loop is that it iterates at least once before it tests for the condition otherwise it's the same as a 'for' loop.
can anyone help me? i would like to use his differentiation about Why? in the begging of the lecture. the process narrative vs. justification to my thesis, where can i find written reference or source for this? thanks.
46:15 - hey, kid! I'm a computer!
Stop all the downloadin'!
I note that telic reasons pertain to the future, but to part of a cycle which was also a significant past within the real evolutionary process. Eg, we close the house because that's a human habit, BECAUSE this increases our children's safety as it has in the past.
I came here to watch this, because of reasons.
No.
Having "faith" means to believe something in absence of evidence (in some cases even *contrary* to evidence). It also means one needs to make more assumptions than the *Occam's razor* principle would require.
What Dennett is talking about isn't faith-based, as it actually *is* supported by evidence.
Consciousnesses wasn't the main topic here, but Dennett has wrote about it extensively... And yes, every single one we know of (up to now) has required a body. No evidence to the contrary yet.
I was hoping he would speak on the purpose of life; I was mistaken, lol. I did find his lecture VERY enlightening and his Turing Metaphor initiated a cascade of revelations in my mind. I'm not sure that I agree with him on intentionality... I will have to roll that around a bit. One funny thing I noticed was this creepy stare: 11:24,12:31,17:36, 22:22.
I'm not sure this is correct in the grand scheme of things. I accept Dennets general definition of 'purpose' but I think he's forgetting that its not just living organisms that are subject to the laws of mutability, or even reproduction in rare cases.
[See Complex adaptive systems Murray Gell-Mann 1994]
Given the complexity even of inorganic structures all of the outputs will be subject even to Dennetts definition of purpose.
RFC
'Algorithms'. From Al-Khwarizmi, the Persian astronomer --- not from the word 'rhythms'.
Dennett @ 2:13
He looks like Darwin.
Did Dennett just steal a bit from Louis C.K.?
"we are the ONLY reason representers" hasn't been proven and is an unreasonable assumption without evidence. it has not yet been proven that animals don't represent reasons and relate them to each others in their languages. it's not fair to rule out the possibility
8:00 "Darwin shows hows to make honest science of teleology"
Hmmm, I don't know how humans have a purpose if we are just matter and particles. Purpose really is illusory. It all ends the same as it was determined. By the way, I am an atheist.
If you're not more qualified than Dennett in this field - shut up! Dualism can't take us any further, but monism is carrying us forward! Some of us find this interesting and no matter how much you want to restrict free speech - you're not going to be allowed to do so.
Why? Why? Why? Why? Oh, shut up lol
P.S. That part