I'll offer up a favorite Dennett quote as well, from Kinds of Minds: Toward An Understanding of Consciousness
"We intentional systems do sometimes desire evil, through misunderstanding or misinformation or sheer lunacy, but it is part and parcel of rationality to desire what is deemed good. It is this constitutive relationship between the good and the seeking of the good that is endorsed—or rather enforced—by the natural selection of our forebears: those with the misfortune to be genetically designed so that they seek what is bad for them leave no descendants in the long run."
This idea was a revelation for me and changed my approach to understanding others' motives, especially of people who I think act irrationally or do things I don't agree with or understand.
Rather than judge a person (fundamental attribution error) or their behavior, I try to understand why they think their behavior is good for them. I may not always agree with the thinking, but I have a more them-centered (vs. me-centered) understanding of their motives to work off of.
I love Dennett since I read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." However, I was a bit disappointed at his autobiography. He spends way too much time talking about the impressive people he met (Fellini, Hilary Putnam etc.). That's fine for some cool anecdotes, but he mentions his mother's passing, for instance, very quickly and gets back to it. Now that's just weird.
In a way it was appropriate because it expresses the way he trivialized the problem. It always seemed to me that philosophers of consciousness can be divided into two camps, those who “get” what Chalmers means by the hard problem and those that don’t.
You might get a kick out of what my AI Dennett had to say about his life, death, possibly meeting a god, and who he would choose to haunt and how if he got the chance to.
I’ve recently become a bit of a Dennett-skeptic. He was wrong on free will (see Kevin Mitchell) and “Consciousness Explained” did nothing of the sort, but his drawing of the battle lines in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” was spot on.
I'll offer up a favorite Dennett quote as well, from Kinds of Minds: Toward An Understanding of Consciousness
"We intentional systems do sometimes desire evil, through misunderstanding or misinformation or sheer lunacy, but it is part and parcel of rationality to desire what is deemed good. It is this constitutive relationship between the good and the seeking of the good that is endorsed—or rather enforced—by the natural selection of our forebears: those with the misfortune to be genetically designed so that they seek what is bad for them leave no descendants in the long run."
This idea was a revelation for me and changed my approach to understanding others' motives, especially of people who I think act irrationally or do things I don't agree with or understand.
Rather than judge a person (fundamental attribution error) or their behavior, I try to understand why they think their behavior is good for them. I may not always agree with the thinking, but I have a more them-centered (vs. me-centered) understanding of their motives to work off of.
Nice - I read Kinds of Minds a long time ago, but had forgotten that quote. Thanks for posting!
I love Dennett since I read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." However, I was a bit disappointed at his autobiography. He spends way too much time talking about the impressive people he met (Fellini, Hilary Putnam etc.). That's fine for some cool anecdotes, but he mentions his mother's passing, for instance, very quickly and gets back to it. Now that's just weird.
One thing Dennett did not in any book is actually explain consciousness.
Yep, it was an overambitious title!
In a way it was appropriate because it expresses the way he trivialized the problem. It always seemed to me that philosophers of consciousness can be divided into two camps, those who “get” what Chalmers means by the hard problem and those that don’t.
Interesting!
You might get a kick out of what my AI Dennett had to say about his life, death, possibly meeting a god, and who he would choose to haunt and how if he got the chance to.
https://twitter.com/HumblyAlex/status/1781420602802221159
Hahaha, he'd haunt Richard Dawkins!
I don't think I'll ever not be surprised by what AI is capable of these days.
I’ve recently become a bit of a Dennett-skeptic. He was wrong on free will (see Kevin Mitchell) and “Consciousness Explained” did nothing of the sort, but his drawing of the battle lines in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” was spot on.