Dennett: 'The Evolution of Confusion'

[calpurnpiso]

"V" wrote

Thomas, let me know if you have watched the video.
I am sure it will become apparent once you have. There is a context there that will save you and me a lot of time by simply watching it.
If you have, and it wasn't apparent to you, and from all that content this is the only issue you want to have a discussion on, ask me again.

Lily & Thomas are Christ-psychotics IOW Theotards, how do you expect them to understand Dennett's video? he is after all a philosopher not a neurologist & his video is from 2003.

This one is a more recent video made by a neurologist, but I doubt the Theotards would understand, for the truth that we mentally healthy aka atheist folks present always makes them MAD, after all, what else can be expected from theotards but delusions of god?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU

Here is a brief biography of Dr Markram a MENTALLY HEALTHY, aka atheist, man to show he KNOWS what he is talking about.

"Henry Markram is a professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. He founded the Brain Mind Institute (BMI) in 2002. He was born in South Africa and went to school at Kearsney College. He studied medicine and neuroscience at Cape Town University where, with Rodney Douglas he found that acetylcholine could re-arrange polymodal sensory maps of the giant cells in the brain stem. He obtained his Ph.D. in Neuroscience with Menhem Segal at the Weizmann Institute of Science where he discovered that acetylcholine is so important in memory because it gates the NMDA receptor. He went to the Max Planck Institute where he discovered calcium transients in dendrites evoked by sub-threshold activity and by single action potentials propagating back into dendrites. Markram discovered Spike Timing Dependent Plasticity (STDP) in 1992-1993 as a postdoc in Bert Sakman’s lab. Henry moved back to the WIS at the end of 1993 as an Assistant Professor where he started to systematically reverse engineering of the neocortical microcircuitry. He discovered redistribution of synaptic efficacy (RSE) among other key synaptic princples. Misha Tsodyks and he developed the TM mathematical model for dynamic synapses. He and Wolfgang Maass developed the theory of "Liquid Computing" to explain how neural circuits can produce a meaningful output when they are in states that may never have occurred in the past. In 2002 be moved as full professor, founder and director of the Brain Mind Institute to the EPFL. His lab built some of the most advanced technology to study neural circuits (12 neuron patch-clamp, multiple parralel optical stimulation, etc). He with Jean-Vincent le Be discovered Long-Term Microcircuit Plasticity (LTMP), and a number of cellular, synaptic and connectivity principles in the neocortical microcircuitry. Kamila Markram and he developed a novel unifying theory of autism called the Intense World Theory of Autism. Henry founded and directs the Blue Brain Project, which is building a simulation-based research facility for neuroscience. The first model built by this facility was the neocortical column. The Blue Brain Project involves neuroinformatics, model building according to biological specifications, simulation on supercomputers, and advanced scientific 3D visualization. Henry believes that it is biologically and technically possible to build detailed models of the mouse, rat, cat, primate, and Human Brain within 10 years. He has received numerous awards and published around a 100 papers. "

[thomastwo]

"V" wrote

Thomas, let me know if you have watched the video.
I am sure it will become apparent once you have. There is a context there that will save you and me a lot of time by simply watching it.
If you have, and it wasn't apparent to you, and from all that content this is the only issue you want to have a discussion on, ask me again.

I didn't have time to watch it yet. Are you saying the stats I was asking for to back up your truth claim are addressed there?

Thomas, before you make a fool of yourself, why don't you watch the video.

I am however, touched, by your vigorous pursuit of my usage of the word true, as well as your demand of facts and statistics.
Even though, in this case, you are way off track.

Mog wrote

Have you watched the video or are you just here to nit-pick? I hope Lily watched the video as well. Maybe she'd finally understand why the nearly 2000 years of Christianity's ability to produce theological bullshit to defend itself is not a good defense for Christianity.

!! The two stupidiest "brights" on the planet-- There isn't anything they have to say on the subject of religion that is worth hearing. Seriously, they are as ignorant as it is possible to be. They merely uphold your (plural) fatuous assumptions and give you some cover by their academic credentials.

Every time Dawkins goes up against a serious theologian (McGrath, Lennox, for example) he looks like an idiot. Dennett fares nearly as poorly in the critical literature. How does he do when he speaks publically? Well, even atheists admit that D'Souza made mincemeat out of him. I can't wait to see the howls (so to speak) another opus is going to provoke.

[Kate]

[Node18]

Kate wrote

i need me one of those

[Philboid Studge]

"V" wrote

Thomas, before you make a fool of yourself, why don't you watch the video.

I am however, touched, by your vigorous pursuit of my usage of the word true, as well as your demand of facts and statistics.
Even though, in this case, you are way off track.

I'm afraid our friend thomastwo won't accept the central premise, which is the paradox of seminary training: the best schools encourage real and honest scholarship, but as trainees learn how the sacred texts were really put together, they grow more and more skeptical that it could be divinely inspired.

The good news is that we atheists now have a kind of 'No True Christian' phallusy to keep in mind when cock-slapping the dimmer jeetards in the forums: if they think the Bible is the word of God, then they simply haven't studied it seriously, QED. The more one knows, the less he believes. (But we knew that already.)

thomas if yer innerested, you can skip ahead to about the 18 min mark in the vid. (Lily, don't waste your time; you won't understand it.)

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

!! The two stupidiest "brights" on the planet-- There isn't anything they have to say on the subject of religion that is worth hearing. Seriously, they are as ignorant as it is possible to be. They merely uphold your (plural) fatuous assumptions and give you some cover by their academic credentials.

Every time Dawkins goes up against a serious theologian (McGrath, Lennox, for example) he looks like an idiot. Dennett fares nearly as poorly in the critical literature. How does he do when he speaks publically? Well, even atheists admit that D'Souza made mincemeat out of him. I can't wait to see the howls (so to speak) another opus is going to provoke.

How can anyone claim to have expertise on religion, broadly speaking?

Sure, one can be well versed in the history of, say, Roman Catholicism as a movement, its predominant figures, its various rituals and copious claims. However, none of that can make one an "expert" in discerning whether or not there is a God, and that is usually the central point of these debates.

Anyone arguing against the existence of a god is going to look like an idiot to you, and anyone arguing against your version of a god is going to be perceived by you as mistaken. You are your own expert in that area, but that does not compel anyone else to accept your "expertise," or that of any other person, when it comes to matters that are inherently unknowable and unverifiable.

[Kate]

Somehow theists fail to see this: despite engaging in elaborate and quite intellectual theological debates it is still worthless without the central premise being true.

I do not ever see the need for atheists to debate Christians on theological grounds. Even if we grant Christians all the theological victories in all debates, it is still absolutely worthless.

[thomastwo]

Philboid Studge wrote

I'm afraid our friend thomastwo won't accept the central premise, which is the paradox of seminary training: the best schools encourage real and honest scholarship, but as trainees learn how the sacred texts were really put together, they grow more and more skeptical that it could be divinely inspired.

Still didn't watch the video yet. But I sort of agree with your idea here. Like most fields of study, the more you look into it the more you realise that we don't know. The issue here isn't the education or the topic it's the mis-education that led up to that point. I'm sure this can be unsettling for those who started off with a more fundamentalist view to any topic.

Philboid Studge wrote

The good news is that we atheists now have a kind of 'No True Christian' phallusy to keep in mind when cock-slapping the dimmer jeetards in the forums: if they think the Bible is the word of God, then they simply haven't studied it seriously, QED. The more one knows, the less he believes. (But we knew that already.)

Right. But the converse is also true I think. There are many atheists here who opine confidently about Christianity without actually understanding how little they know.

Philboid Studge wrote

thomas if yer innerested, you can skip ahead to about the 18 min mark in the vid. (Lily, don't waste your time; you won't understand it.)

OK, I'm interested.

[Kate]

Irreligious wrote

How can anyone claim to have expertise on religion, broadly speaking?

Sure, one can be well versed in the history of, say, Roman Catholicism as a movement, its predominant figures, its various rituals and copious claims. However, none of that can make one an "expert" in discerning whether or not there is a God, and that is usually the central point of these debates.

Anyone arguing against the existence of a god is going to look like an idiot to you, and anyone arguing against your version of a god is going to be perceived by you as mistaken. You are your own expert in that area, but that does not compel anyone else to accept your "expertise," or that of any other person, when it comes to matters that are inherently unknowable and unverifiable.

You fundamentally do not understand what the issues are. Religion, (both a particular religion as well as religion, the phenomenon) is as closed a book to you as it is to my cat. Your view of it is so narrow that it could slip through the eye of a needle more easily than the finest thread. You have no clue what it is. None, zip, zilch. I invite you to open an encyclopedia. Any encyclopedia and read. See if you can get a feeling for how broad and deep and rich this particular phenomenon is.

Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from reviews of Breaking the Spell that may give you some sense of why informed people universally panned it:

In reference to Dennett's clumsy mugging of religion Adam Kirsch writes:

The problem with Breaking the Spell is not its frank hostility to religion. On the contrary, there is a long, honorable, and thrilling tradition of atheistic polemics, from Voltaire to Nietzsche and beyond. If anything, one wishes Mr. Dennett were more familiar with this literature and had learned its most important lessons. If he had, perhaps his own attacks on religion and religious people would not sound so much like the complacent broadsides of the village atheist. For the best atheists agree with the best defenders of faith on one crucial point: that the choice to believe or disbelieve is existentially the most important choice of all.

He concludes his review of the book this way:

At the heart of organized religion, whether one accepts or rejects it, is the truth that metaphysical experience is part of human life. Any adequate account of religion must start from this phenomenological fact. Because Mr. Dennett ignores it, treating religion instead as at best a pastime for dimwits, at worst a holding cell for fanatics, he never really encounters the thing he believes he is writing about. The obvious thing to say about Breaking the Spell is that it will irritate believers and delight nonbelievers, but that is not, or should not be, the case. In fact, it should irritate both, for it trivializes matters that have engaged the best human minds for thousands of years.

Of course, you could cut to the chase and read Leon Wieseltier's hilarious review in the NYT Review of Books. It begins thus:

THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions. …

In his own opinion, Dennett is a hero. He is in the business of emancipation, and he reveres himself for it. "By asking for an accounting of the pros and cons of religion, I risk getting poked in the nose or worse," he declares, "and yet I persist." Giordano Bruno, with tenure at Tufts!

[Kate]

Ah the asinine fatuity of "Oh, you can't go through seminary and come out believing in God"! Since there is no percentage in creativity, this is what I wrote recently on RT's blog in reference to Bart Ehrman who, famously, is one of the minority of seminarians who became an atheist when he found out that the Bible had not been dictated by God.

( Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus p. 7. )

He speaks at some length about his Evangelical background and education in the introduction to the book. Off he went to seminary and, for the first time, was exposed to serious Bible scholarship. It shook him badly. Among other things he says: “I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly and sometimes (many times!) incorrectly?”

This is an excellent question for the neophyte biblical scholar to ask and he is not the first Evangelical or Fundamentalist to ask it. It comes rather naturally if one has been part of an environment in which people tend to think of the King James Bible as the one Jesus used (even though they *really* sorta know he didn’t). It is just too darned bad he didn’t think to pursue it, since he was hardly the first to come up against the questions inherent in this one (what is inerrancy? How does God inerrantly inspire fallible human beings? What would that even mean? Do we or do we not have trustworthy texts (he is in the minority in saying that we do not)? How do we establish that?)