Thank you for the instant laugh

It is not the only way he is twisted...

Actually it's part of a much longer interview 🤣

@@andsalomoni "It is not the only way he is twisted..." Nevertheless he is more straight forward than all theists, that were interviewed for this program, put together.

@@andsalomoni wonderfully put

I've never found sitting sideways in a pew uncomfortable.

We are not "Physical Bodies with Souls" but in reality We are "SOULS incarnated in Temporal Physical Human Bodies," Evidence ➡️kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rcV8hqSQxLy3hnk.html

Best comment, ever

Gotta pay the cost to be the boss #soulbrothernumber1

Funny 🤣🤣🤣

And his soul goes marching on! )

😂😂😂😂😂💃💯

He's a materialist. Not only is he wrong and incoherent in his "explanation" of consciousness, but his view reduces human beings to meaningless material processes.

Yes Dan is hiding his huge gut behind the bench. I think there was some design behind setting up the scene like this....:):):) I like Dan though - He's smart and knowledgeable and is not intimated as a philosopher by the scientists taking stabs at philosophy in our days. Cool guy

@Mary Louise Daniel If the soul is not the body and vice versa, technically, shouldn't they pay each other for their service to one another? Why would one not pay the other for services? If one cooks a meal for oneself, why would it be silly to pay for such services? Doesn't the philosophy and its ability to ask the right questions seems to be contradictory to find the right answers? or is it the reasoning that has failed to get at the right answer?

We are not "Physical Bodies with Souls" but in reality We are "SOULS incarnated in Temporal Physical Human Bodies," Evidence ➡️kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rcV8hqSQxLy3hnk.html

He is an ardent caroler at Christmas by his own admission.

I'm pretty sure that I saw him in the front row at a Boston Bruins game about ten years ago. Dressed as Santa Claus, of course.

Dog is real but irrelevant . Only Cat deserves our worship.

the answer to your question is 'yes'

His point is the same; we talk to ourselves because we dont yet know what we are going to say

We ought not talk to ourselves, this is the sign of a suboptimal mind. Processing verbally may appear as "conversation" but it lights up different parts of the brain.

@@hollisticbomber2660 you are so FOS

You can find a lot of his lectures on KZfaq. At Google, the Royal Institute, etc. He’s definitely brilliant and entertaining at the same time.

He denies consciousness exists, so he's not that smart.

@@handzar6402 He knows way more about it than you do that's for sure.

Much of his writing is on his website. Sadly, he has had his last brilliant thought. RIP. He was a brilliant and lovely man.

I don't see the potential so called drama on the horizon that you see. the conversations were respectful.

The products of thinking are thoughts and concepts: all man-made things. Sometimes to know the truth is to drop the thinking, thoughts and concepts all together.

@@kenhtinhthuc Cool, so you admit that you don’t want to think?

@@G_Demolished I admit I don't want to think more than I need - the same way I don't want sugar (brain energy) more than my brain and my body need.

@@kenhtinhthuc "think as little as possible" - Tinh Thuc

@@scambammer6102 How to stop your thoughts from controlling your life | Albert Hobohm | TEDxKTH kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aJ-GnZNeubysmYU.html

According to Dennett, matter is everything. He's wrong.

​@@EduardudeProve him wrong in a peer-reviewed scientific article. You will be famous forever. Until you do, I will reach the obvious conclusion that you are just speaking from a place of ignorance and delusion.

Pahahahahaha

Exactly!

Yeah, Lewis didn't get it.

@@Ploskkky I´d be interested to know if you could substantiate your comment.

@@Ploskkky To believe in something, I would have to be in possession of all the relevant data, and obviously I am not. Belief simply does not figure for me. Neither are you in a position to deny the existence of soul, so let´s get that straight. Neither of us actually know anything. Some of us like to explore what lies between our reach and our grasp. Belief is simply not relevant. I find KZfaq a useful place for the exchange of ideas, do you have any ideas worthy of the medium, or do you just like to criticise others ?

@@kerryburns6041 The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

A little too many drinks...

You obviously didn't get the memo. This dude has been a laughing stock since 30 years

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Stephen Hawking said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So, he thinks the law of gravity is nothing but actually that is something. Dr. John Lennox points out that that is self contradictory. Lennox says "If I say x creates y this presupposes the existence of x in the first place in order to bring y into existence. If I say x creates x, I presuppose the existence of x in order to account for the existence of x. To presuppose the existence of the universe, to account for it's existence is logically incoherent." It's much more easier to believe Genesis 1:1 than to believe that sci fi nonsense. So, some Atheists have to redefine nothing to make it something so something can come from nothing. Also the complexity of DNA is proof for intelligent design. "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." - The new answers book 2 p. 70. Bill Gates said "DNA is more advanced than any software ever created." Here, the following are just some out of many scientists who are Biblical creationists, Dr. Jason Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Bodie Hodge has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University, Dr. Terry Mortenson holds a masters of divinity and a PhD in the history of geology. It's not that science is against the the Bible, the darkened mind interprets the evidences for it through a naturalistic presupposition that doesn't allow anything spiritual because God's word says it's because people love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32. Note, archaeology confirms the Bible, the Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100,000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also it's strange when Christians bring up the fine tuning argument which there is evidence, atheists have to make up the multi verse theory which there is no evidence, so they make up a theory with no evidence to try and refute a scientific fact of fine tuning, so at that point its the atheist who's going by blind faith. Some atheists say they don't believe in anything immaterial but the laws of logic are immaterial and it exists. Jesus said "So it will be at the end of the age, the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50. Jesus also said "You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.

@@slapmeisterrecords8226 according to who? Who has deemed him the laughing stock? I'm genuinely curious, enlighten me.

@@astro_monist2559 idiots that's who

because he is a genius does not make him right. he could be VERY WRONG ..and I doubt he'd ever accept the possibility he is wrong.

@@Dion_Mustard Oh disagree about that, history has shown that scientists are willing to say they were wrong when the evidence indicates that's the case.

I agree with your view of him. But he fends for his soul. Arguing for the stance of his subjective person. Examples. He said good questions result in sets of answers like the sciences. He should have said that true questions result in knowledge. He did that to justify his beliefs. He is sly. If he was to argue true and false questions. He would have to say that philosophy is a intelligent design of many species of knowledge. The qualia of question is veracity and not goodness.

Daniel has a colossal blind spot in not seeing that whatever he does, says or thinks, only exist because and when he is conscious. Even when he says that consciousness is an illusion, he must be conscious to say it.

@@brandursimonsen4427 he mocks and chuckles at those whom are open to the possibility of non-local consciousness or as people call it "soul" which is a term i very much dislike. he is a typical atheist buffoon , besties with richard dawkins. that's says it all!

5 billion years of evolution junior

It got better around about 8 min. I think they had over compensated the echoing of the location 🙂

Two mics mixed together give a comb filter effect

I started having Out of Body experiences at age 18. I am now 72. We are Souls, who wear bodies to attain experiences to grow. I'm guessing you already know that. Best wishes on your journey....

@@moranplano what does the 2 year old who dies of malaria in abject poverty learn from their experience? Where does the soul come from? Have you ever conducted tests in these out of body experiences? In what way are they verifiable or conveyable for the benefit of other people?

@@moranplano How many fingers am I holding up?

Religion is a manmade attempt to explain our extraordinarily ethereal reality and our purpose within it

@@chyfields what's ethereal about it?

He's a materialist, so he's either spot on or one hell of a stain.

the dude abides

Until you get thirsty

Until you realize that you will eventually fail yourself.

@@mentalwarfare2038 is it failing or is it going through experiences both good and bad.

@@lightworker4512 failing yourself and having bad experiences are completely different things. I can have a bad experience without failing myself.

"all the answers are within" = 'return to monke'

I don't see how any of us are that important. Not too the point of deserving an eternal exsitence in any form.

​@@Michael-jh4wi not so far, but thanks Ultimately it doesn't matter whether whether what I perceive is objective reality or just a construct I use to cope with the void. Either I am objectively endless and the system will reboot which is something for which I have absolutely no evidence or, as all evidence suggests, I am objectively finite and the construct will collapse leaving a self-awareness in the void for a subjective eternity. (since that which does not exist can not know its non-existence) Then it is just a matter of whether the "I Am" is capable of "who, what, where, when, why, how". If not, then great. If so, then EEEEEEK!!!!

​@@thomasridley8675 Not sure what "deserve" (subjective value judgements) has to do with it.

@@HSR107 You are right. I should have said earned.

​@@thomasridley8675 I'm not sure what "earned" (a reward) has to do with it either. Both deserve and earn require a entity with the authority to judge or bestow. I'm not contemplating the existence of gods or supernatural governments. Just death and what the self is.

Managing "Sin" in your Life-- That's how you Take care of your "Spiritual Health".

Well said.

@@David-jr7rz not buying into sin, that’s how you maintain your mental health. There is no such a thing as a spiritual health.

@@Traderhood Consider a little different slant with the teachings of Jesus-- He tells us how to care for and protect our souls. You are living with some a majority of focus in life on one of three areas-- Mind, Body, or Spirit-- depraving or neglecting one or the other affects the other two. "Spirit"--- "Essence" of "Soul".

@@David-jr7rz If there is a soul it is immaterial and as such it can’t be touched be neither physical nor mental. It is pure and it can not be compromised. Only mind and body can be compromised. But not by sin. By negative thinking, unhealthy habits, poisonous environment etc. btw. Who is Jesus?

We are finite animals

@@fr3d42 It is seldom now a days, that people get born with tails. Slowly but surely, We is in the end of the Animal Kingdom One by one, the tail-bone-people, are going to be 'Real People'. In future, We dont need physical bodies, and Life continue.

@@holgerjrgensen2166 ok buddy

here here!

They dedicated an entire department for those cases in mental institutions.

Practical example: Some friends of Daniel Dennett visit him to go to the bar... - Hey, Daniel, let's go have a couple of beers! - (screaming) I'M NOT AT HOME!

@@wolfgangmeisner6569 Thinker and Vedic tradition is an oxymoron.

the ''soul'' is so vaguely defined as to be completely meaningless

it is what you are!

@@arvindupadhye7237 That is a general definition. That is not adequately described.

Asimov was the product of very old science. HE is totally obsolete right now.

@@francesco5581 You must be joking, Asimov is a legend, his philosophical stories and visions are so good we only begin to understand how deep are rabbit holes described in his books. He is not a fiction writer, Asimov is a science fiction writer, huge difference.

Asimov was fundamentally a detective-story and spy-story writer, in a sci-fi context. Philosophically he was a midget.

@@andsalomoni Wow, hold on to your horses, Asimov is way more than that. He didn't invent robots, but he tried to imagine laws of robotics, that should tell you he was deep into epistemology of modern phenomena. What can i say about him that is not already written on Wikipedia, his concepts were so well analyzed and developed we should consider him as a father of scientific prophecies.

@@xspotbox4400 Yes, he had a vivid imagination for technical and scientific prophecies. But philosophy was not his thing.

It isn't about denying our first-person perspective. It is a question of what makes it possible for us to self-reflect and to have a first person perspective in the first place. Something that is purely material cannot self-reflect, because self-reflection requires the trespassing of 'space'. Our self-consciousness clearly evades and defies space, it is 'unlimited' in the sense that it could never reach a 'wall' and stop -- unlike matter of course, which is strictly restricted and limited by space. This is, after all, what Goedel's incompleteness theorems show. That self-consciousness, subjectivity, knowledge. etc. are not restricted by the laws of physics and by the limits of matter. Ultimately, I agree, no dualism is needed (though this doesn't mean that consciousness is reduced to matter). Form/immateriality and matter are not at all contradictory, as Aristotle evinced years ago

@@marianadebono6310 really? have your consciousness fly over to the other side of that wall and see what's there.

Maybe Ron Jermy too

still brilliant lol

You're missing his point, profoundly..

"what is it about the void that predisposes it to creation" lots of unwarranted assumptions there.

you be clueless about socialism spunky

More i study the more it sounds like fudge an waffle. If anything Dennet is being kind. E.g 4 lectures on mind body and 6 methods of answering the question. 6hrs wasted No decision. Luckily we have science and evidential history.

Objective science is good to investigate, and can only investigate, objective phenomena. Being consciousness the subjectivity to which objective phenomena appear, science will never be able to explain consciousness. This is ontological, and is not fudge and waffle. And the "as long as it works its good enough" pragmatic mind is totally incapable of such an understanding. Neuroscientists will go on playing with brain imaging toys and the like to obtain some kind of objective results to put in scientific papers, "as long as we can entertain ourselves and the interested audience with pictures and diagrams of measureable correlates to subjective experiences". And subjectivity itself remains out of grasp. Consciousness can only be investigated subjectively, via direct observation of oneself. Which is what they call meditation.

I agree

@@guillermomontoyo with OP?

In what way did philosophy directly impact the world without a scientist to verify the thought? And who is to say that said philosophers were the first to the thought in the first place. There professional thinkers I say that only because that's what they do, however they voice there opinions to the world. Philosophy won't fix the damage the world has done to itself or help repair it, philosophy won't get you off this rock before the sun kills us, and they won't stop the heat death of the universe. They create questions okay, how did that help. Are you telling me no scientist as ever tried to prove you have a soul? Or asked if we really were designed. The difference is the scientist is hard at work attempting to prove his thought. And a philosopher is hard at work having a thought.

what would you ask him?

@@enterthevoidIi I'd ask him whether he still believes calling his book 'Consciousness Explained' was a good idea.

@@enterthevoidIi I would ask him questions about science. He is a scientist, not a philosopher.

Short answer "no". Long answer "yes" but with a "but"... 😊

@@heavymeddle28 😅👍

Well, I would borrow what an imperor once told Mozart : too may notes. Which means too many words to acquire a clear answer to your question here.

@@Musika1220 yes, verbose. concise is better. if you can manage it.

@@heavymeddle28 haha 😂…good one !

He begins by admitting he cannot answer the question. It should have ended there. However, should your question refer to the exact number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, this is most decidedly your man. Like all philosophers, he will never be held responsible for his errors, though they may catastrophic for others. For after all, if all the philosophers went on strike -- what on earth would we do ?

@@kerryburns6041 Enough already.

@@hesitatingdissension4682 See what happens when you take your fingers out of your ears ?

@@kerryburns6041 I get that you’re surprised by the honesty there, but nobody can answer the question. Aside from that, your disdain for philosophy is uninteresting.

The problem with the non-local soul is it seems pretty hard to justify it. The Hard Problem of consciousness is a real one imo, but until there is some serious reputable data on veridical experiences in out of body experience or something, it seems a bit like wishful thinking. That said though, they definitely do dig themselves into the materialist camp so hard that its embarrassing to step out of line.

@@Pheer777 not wishful thinking at all. have you done your research and read all the literature? the OBE / NDE is not an illusion and those whom have the experience do not consider it "wishful thinking" hence i prefer open minded people.

@@Dion_Mustard I have done a decent amount of reading on it. Admittedly, I remain a bit skeptical, as anyone should, but I definitely think more studies should be done on them, especially trying to verify visual veridical phenomena. On one hand, I think the scientific community is very quick to dismiss, but on the other hand, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sam Parnia is currently doing the AWARE II study so hopefully that yields some interesting results.

It's funny to read comments of people who ask "reputable data" about SUBJECTIVE experiences. The only reputable data about a subjective experience is to have that experience, so I would suggest to start a practice to have those experiences, maybe meditation (read Osho's "Meditation - the First and Last Freedom", a manual of meditation techniques).

@@andsalomoni There are many ways to verify the nature of an experience to see if its truly "non-local" consciousness that observes external phenomena not visible to the patient, or just a hallucination.

Let me try that. I feel like a real person, my soul is aching, all i care is about my self-interest. Therefore, I am optimistic, moral and egocentric. Those are 3 different things, individual human can be described with many other attributes than only those few or none of them. I believe you should rethink your simplification idea and come up with more accurate classification.

@@xspotbox4400 not every body's soul aches, which leads to question if another non physical being having effect on soul

@@xspotbox4400 it is our mind that creates all these classification. In deep meditation all these thoughts disappear and what remains is peace. That's true reality

@@cvsree But we don't want to alter our mental states back into a primitive animal form, this is why we learn symbols at very young age, everybody must know how to read and write or he couldn't be reasoned with and can't live in a civilized environment. Meditation can be a workaround this ideological conditioning, we can be free animal spirits while in trans and remain civilized humans after we snap back, sort to speak.

@@mariaandreaspashi1931 This leads me to question, how can drugs alter normal human emotions, numb a person so much it became dead inside.

Similar to what is called the "hard problem" of consciousness. One need not believe in any traditional theology to understand that mind is not a derivative of matter. Dennett is very wrong.

thats why they cut the part in which the priest arrive and throw both out with a broom ...

@@Bringadingus funny way to say that committed to nonsense and not committed to absolute truth .

@@Bringadingus and after this question he became silent 😂

@@Bringadingus Absolute truth is subjective self-evidence. If poor Dennett starts denying subjectivity, he will never attain that evidence. To find the evidence for absolute truth, you have to be committed to subjective self investigation of consciousness. And it is out of the grasp of objective science.

@@Bringadingus Consciousness itself is not "the world", it is the world - brains included - which appears in consciousness (I don't think neuroscientists can study any brains while being unconscious), so investigating the "world" is irrelevant to the problem of consciousness ITSELF. Dennett explains everything about consciousness in neuroscientific terms, in brain terms, i.e. in objective (or "world") terms, he says consciousness is derivative. This is a denial of consciousness as autonomous. The phenomena of consciousness can be non-singular, non-unified, etc. but they happen in the same consciousness. I can have as many different and seemingly unconnected conscious experiences as Dennett wants, but the fact that I am conscious is always the same "being conscious of..." Or do you think you have two consciousnesses? To reach an "absolute truth" about consciousness, to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, the only way is subjective investigation from the inside.

@@Bringadingus "The hard problem of consciousness" is common terminology used by scientists when they refer to understanding what consciousness is. Look at your own experience and you will see that consciousness is prior to any experience you have, by definition. To study the brain you must first be conscious, so consciousness is primary. Or can you show me whatever brain and brain activity when you are unconscious? It is not bad reasoning (it isn't "reasoning" at all) it is simple acknowledgement of a matter of fact. For the first time in human history, our culture has reached a level so low that we try deny the primarity of consciousness - the most astonishing deny of reality ever seen. A consciousness so basic that even when you try to deny it you must be conscious.

He should try meditation, if he had guts. But his desperate denial of subjectivity is the typical action of those who are scared of looking into themselves (I would not recommend LSD or the like to Dennett, he could get scared shitless).

@@andsalomoni Could you elaborate further on this? What do these substances supposedly reveal? I'm genuinely curious.

@@Maka_Maka Psychoactive substances may release unconscious mind "concretions", so to say. If there is something that unconsciously scares you, taking substances may give you an unpleasant hallucinatoy experience connected with your fears, i.e. what they call a "bad trip". So using LSD or the like should be done by a person with a careful attitude and ready to face oneself, under the supervision of an experienced person, and in a supporting environment. It puts you in front of yourself, it's not like drinking a beer.

@@andsalomoni Thank you

Yes, and "personality" does the same function as "soul".

Most regular people are religious no?

@@davidcraig7771 really?

The downside in believing in a higher power as the designer, is it stops us from asking questions. Like, how did it get to be this way? That's a tremendously useful question to science. But talking about narrative, God and religion is nothing more than a narrative. Why are you so critical about the narrative of science when you are not critical about the narrative of God or a higher creator?

I err on the side of the truth; I don't know. I also don't see a good reason to think anyone else does either.

@@Michael-jh4wi i told you so!

Ryan, we actually know nothing. We have theories. We have the evidence of our fallible senses. We interpret this through our mysterious uncalibrated consciousness. To aspire to actual knowledge is frankly risible. Get a grip.

@@Sergei_Gusakov Someone once said honour those who seek the Truth, but beware of those who have found it. I am content with a clumsy parable of my own making. It encourages me to dither, a vastly underrated accomplishment in my estimation.

I think therefore I is.

@@kerryburns6041 lol if you did not have philosophy you couldn't even form that statement

if you cut the a cable to someones headphones can he then listen to music with his headphones still. it easy answer when you know why.

coals make a lotta money too

With enough time and pressure these made diamonds from coal.

What about all those cat videos or leaving Britney alone?

@@alexanderabrashev1366 Does this channel looks like it will make money ? I don't think so. To make money on yt you can do dumb stuff like paul brothers and make millions.

@@brandursimonsen4427 true tho

He knows an amazing amount!

He seems to completely ignore a huge part of human experience that is not ignorable to someone who pretends to explain what "we" are and what consciousness is.

envious much...

Cheahn Hawkins, just ask any teenager a question and you will get every answer you ever could want. Answers are a dime a dozen. A good question is like fine wine, it only gets better with age.

You follow some insults by a couple of declarations about consciousness. Not very convincing.

@@Bringadingus It's the same, it's still a smart adaptation that does not follow random patterns. A random patter would have been like all red even in a green environment .. People give nature perfection and evolution for granted so they can dismiss the great intelligence that it shows every second.

@@francesco5581 It’s not “smart adaptation “… Natural selection is the driver

Francesco, it's great to ask questions and everything, but please do some research on genetic mutations and natural selection, good luck

Natural selection is a process. Random mutations produce longer or shorter lives. Longer lives have more opportunity to reproduce, entrenching the mutation in a species. 'Design' is a description of mutations that stick. The 'reason' for sticking is it keeps the animal alive.

@@chrisgreen8803 a random natural selection would leave you with nothing, because at every step you will lose 90% of that specie. And it does not act only with life .