1. Comment #209943 by Big Gus on July 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Very interesting watch! Dan always is though.

Other Comments by Big Gus

2. Comment #209947 by maton100 on July 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Yeah Baby! Keep it up Dan.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #209956 by JimmyGiro on July 13, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Ooooh! BMW.

So what was the talk about? :))

Other Comments by JimmyGiro

4. Comment #209957 by Village_Idiot on July 13, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Great material, unfortunately this will never reach or be understood by those who should listen. Hence it is sterile. Sad.

Other Comments by Village_Idiot

5. Comment #209959 by Crazymalc on July 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Dennett is God.

I could listen to Prof. Dennett for hours.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is one of the most influential books I've ever read. Allowed me to final throw off the shackles of my religion.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

6. Comment #209993 by Upgrade01A on July 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Go to www.ted.com join up! or search on "Dawkins", "Pinker", "Dennett" ... you will not be disappointed. Dennett has a couple of talks. One of my favorite sites. Lots of info on the brain, technology, some nice music as well. The video quality is much better than here or youTube.

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

7. Comment #210000 by fizhburn on July 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Wait, ideas that are "literally alive"? This smacks of type/token distinction failure.

Dennet is a very cool dude. Talking to him in person is just about as fascinating as you'd expect.

Other Comments by fizhburn

8. Comment #210050 by dhweaver on July 13, 2008 at 7:50 pm

"Remember the Shakers"

Hopefully the Quakers follow in their footsteps to extinction.

Other Comments by dhweaver

9. Comment #210055 by JeremyH on July 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm

What I got from the end of his speech is that rather than destroy the religious memes (an impossible task), we should 'immunise' people against these toxic ideas, using mental antigens such as skepticism and critical thinking.

Other Comments by JeremyH

10. Comment #210063 by timtimes on July 13, 2008 at 8:39 pm

If we teach the kids about all the other religions then they will more than likely see through the scam that is their own.

Enjoy.

Other Comments by timtimes

11. Comment #210066 by Auld on July 13, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Dennet seems to have something very interesting to add before he finished/time ran out. Wonder what it was?

Other Comments by Auld

12. Comment #210096 by TIKI AL on July 13, 2008 at 11:33 pm

"Wonder what it was?" (Auld #12.)

While lecturing, I could see in Dan's eyes that he has tied up all loose ends in string theory.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

13. Comment #210133 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 1:38 am

This is in my opinion one of Dan's best lectures, and he's a consistently excellent lecturer. I first saw this last year when it was posted on the TED site. As the text there used to say before it was replaced with the "literally alive" hyperbole, it's unmissable.

Here's a couple more excellent Dennett lectures I found on Google Video:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

The Magic of Conciousness

Other Comments by Cluebot

14. Comment #210147 by bugaboo on July 14, 2008 at 2:47 am

Clearmind

You need professional help.

Other Comments by bugaboo

15. Comment #210149 by 8teist on July 14, 2008 at 3:01 am

Still no profile? Clearmind ,you don`t exist.

No wonder your posts are unintelligible dribble,you obviously have the very virus Prof. Dennett is speaking about.

Other Comments by 8teist

16. Comment #210158 by Tyler Durden on July 14, 2008 at 3:13 am

clearmind,

The professor found a so-called book on the table. He opened it up and looked at it. This book's survival letters are of letter evolution. This survived book came together and created meaningful letters.

A professor checked the writer's name found a book on the table and look the book was meaningful.

The memesis of elephant was confused when it was told that survival of memesis ended up in elephant and worse the and and Him were the ancestors to each other; it beats him who came first? when he heard that, He fainted he came from a worm.

What is Stalin, the difference, and between atheism?

So far jungle logic and reason will be failing since it failed and it is not based on, but just an assumption jungle. The funny, maybe as funny as Mr Dennet's video, thing about assumption is that when the first assumption is wrong, then, rest of the dome are all assumptions since they rely on each other like a wrong.

Logical thinking, comes through life, and meaningful Meaning life.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

17. Comment #210167 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 3:25 am

dhweaver

"Remember the Shakers"

Hopefully the Quakers follow in their footsteps to extinction.

You should look more into the Quakers. Of all Christian sects (and many self-professing Christians would deny that Quakers are Christians), they have the least dogma and the most attachment to rationality. They brainwash their kids least.

(Of course I mean the liberal, meeting-house attending, silent Meeting for Worship holding, clergy-less Quakers - not the conservative, church-attending, liturgical, clergy-ordaining, Quakers, of which Richard Nixon is the most famous example.)

Other Comments by Shuggy

18. Comment #210173 by DoctorE on July 14, 2008 at 3:44 am

Dennett, i love that guy!

Other Comments by DoctorE

19. Comment #210182 by rod-the-farmer on July 14, 2008 at 4:09 am

clearmind

You understand, do you, that many of us find your comments unintelligible ? You may have a point, but your ability to explain it clearly is not very high. You jump around, making whatever point you think you have, difficult to see. The standard of debate on this site is quite high, but your contributions don't add much. Try thinking them through a bit more before posting.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

20. Comment #210193 by Laurie Fraser on July 14, 2008 at 4:20 am

Clearmind,
Start drinking, pal. I mean, it can't hurt, can it?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

21. Comment #210197 by Crazymalc on July 14, 2008 at 4:25 am

Clearmind:

Meaning life comes through meaningful and logical thinking.

Couldn't agree more! http://www.crazymalc.co.nz/2007/Jul/22Jul/22Jul.htm

Other Comments by Crazymalc

22. Comment #210199 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 4:32 am

"What is the difference between atheism and Stalin?"
- clearmind

Simple question, simple answer:

* Atheism is a philosophical position.
* Stalin was a man.

See the difference?

Okay, let me elaborate:

* Atheism is the rejection of theism (i.e. rejecting claims a personal, interventional God exists.)
* Stalin was an evil, dogmatic dictator who ruled by exploiting those who placed too much faith in him and killing those who opposed or might rival him.

Is this clear now, clearmind?

You see, claiming atheism leads to Stalin is about as rational as claiming atheism leads to traffic jams. Industrialisation and modernity brought growth of our capability for all things, good and evil. That your laser guided amnesia forgets all this and homes in on atheism shows just how sloppy the thinking in your "clear" mind really is.

Let me give an example: Isn't it reasonable to suggest the success of Hitler's "big lie" has far more to do with state controlled mass media than atheism?

Incidentally, note the similarity between the power structures of dictatorships and that of monotheism: Both have a Godhead to whom followers must be thankful for all that is good and must not offer any criticism. Both have scapegoats to whom all that is bad are held accountable. Both often have texts which are uncritically held in reverence similar to that of their Godhead.

Let me pose a similar question: "What's the difference between Yahweh and Stalin?"

I'd propose the main differences are Stalin was less inscrutable, more accountable and had fewer people speaking on his behalf claiming to somehow know his own mind.

Of course, I utterly condemn Stalin's brutality, just as I condemn the sick tribalism of the Old Testament stories. Given that human population was far lower at the time, a normalised body count of the Old Testament genocides might actually be higher; I'd be interested to hear if anyone's done the maths on that one.

Other Comments by Cluebot

23. Comment #210220 by Rick Stromoski on July 14, 2008 at 5:41 am

Got to TED talks and find Sir Ken Robinson's lecture on how modern education stifles creativity. It is funny as well as brilliantly inciteful.

Other Comments by Rick Stromoski

24. Comment #210221 by Wosret on July 14, 2008 at 5:43 am

15. Comment #210144 by clearmind

That definitely was a "tale". I can't argue with that.

Well, if letters could survive, and have offspring letters, and all the evidence supported the idea that there was "letter evolution" then I'd agree that there was. Though your analogy is clearly foolish. By your logic, cake isn't edible because rocks aren't.

You can't just claim, by analogy, that X isn't true of A because it isn't true of B. You need to demonstrate why X must be true for B if it is true for A. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

What is "memesis"? Are you trying to conjugate "meme"? Or is that suppose to be a pun on like "nemesis" or something? Even if I assume either of the options I offered I still can't make heads of tails of that part. Also, "the ancestor of each other" that is logically impossible. That is equivolent to saying "you are my grandfather, and I am your grandfather". Maybe if time travel were involved...

Atheism isn't trying to do anything. You need to look up the word.

What's the difference between clearmind and hitler? Hitler killed people, and clearmind kills the english language, coherence, and intelligibility.

Other Comments by Wosret

25. Comment #210263 by Richard Feldmann on July 14, 2008 at 7:22 am

What's the difference between clearmind and hitler? Hitler killed people, and clearmind kills the english language, coherence, and intelligibility.

Nice post, MG. That last sentence was gold.

Other Comments by Richard Feldmann

26. Comment #210267 by MAS2007 on July 14, 2008 at 7:28 am

Here I am reading thoughtful comments, not paying close attention to Comment by ____. When I start having difficulty understanding one of the comments, then it gets harder to comprehend. I think to myself, "what the hell?" Checking the by line closely, I now understand it's just clearmind(sic) polluting the stream of reason.

Note to self: avoid reading clearmind posts may cause brain discomfort, extended exposure can cause permanent damage.

Other Comments by MAS2007

27. Comment #210268 by Dinah on July 14, 2008 at 7:30 am

Re: Comment #210144 by clearmind

Your mind is certainly clear of anything remotely rational. You evidently think like you write. If you have something worth saying, which I very much doubt, then the onus is on you to make yourself understood, not to expect your readers to wade through your ungrammatical and unintelligible drivel.

Other Comments by Dinah

28. Comment #210274 by David J on July 14, 2008 at 7:43 am

TED is a great website. I've seen Dan's work there before.

Clearmind, nice Engrish.

Other Comments by David J

29. Comment #210285 by David J on July 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

Second you are killing me softly when you talk about coherence and intelligibility imagining you leaning to SOOOOO complicated evolution tree as an evolin

LOL! Oh, the irony!!! LOLOLOL

Other Comments by David J

30. Comment #210287 by Ishruul on July 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

Clearmind you've defeated evolution with logic????

Wow, you should have a tea party with VenomFangX, you clearly have the same view on what is logic!

BTW, lying to oneself until he is convince of it doens't apply to logic just indoctrination.

And what's that? Killings and massacres cannot attach to any religion! Perhaps on some distant fantasy world of yours!

Of course all the holy wars, jyhad, crusade, holocaust and genocide or all atheist-based-slaughter. Thank you for opening my eyes on such warped view of the world.

For (insert your god's name here) sake!!! Read an HISTORY book for your own benefit (bible, coran, book of mormon, Walt Disney encyclopedia and such are not history book for your information).

Other Comments by Ishruul

31. Comment #210301 by j.mills on July 14, 2008 at 8:26 am

I have this wet dream that one day Dennett will do one of those sprawling documentary series, like The Ascent of Man or Civilisation or Cosmos. On the history of philosophy or genes, memes and AI, or something. Somebody make it so.

Other Comments by j.mills

32. Comment #210303 by Wosret on July 14, 2008 at 8:27 am

31. Comment #210279 by clearmind

The only solution is to have real faith in our hearts where there would be no hatred.

Of course! The solution to all the worlds problems is to fill our hate-filled hearts with belief in magic!

I believe in fairy-winkles, a big magical yes sir-ee.

And here I was deluding myself thinking that actually attempting to take measures to improve the state of the world would help. Instead, I should do nothing and believe in magic. My eyes are opened!

Yes, well, some of us don't live on gumdrop avinue, off fairy-dust lane. Yes, where some of us live, it doesn't matter how hard you believe, you need to actually take action in order to make a difference.

Other Comments by Wosret

33. Comment #210305 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 8:30 am

"Atheism became the source of massacres and all killings in the past" - clearmind

So, by your reasoning jihad is committed only by atheists. Need I point out the obvious contradiction here?

"People who have no real faith can do anything..." - clearmind

You confuse faith in God with commitment to moral values.

A person who will only act morally through coercion is not moral. Such people are called sociopaths; they are mentally ill, and thankfully a minority.

"You say the letters of the books wrote the book." - clearmind

No we don't. You're attacking a straw man. Try at least to understand the concept you're arguing against.

"But killings and massacres cannot attach to any religion." - clearmind

So, how do you account for the cult of martyrdom?

"The only solution is to have real faith in our hearts where there would be no hatred." - clearmind

If by "faith... there would be no hatred" you mean a commitment to the peaceful coexistence of humans as equals, regardless of religious labels, nationality, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc. then we at least agree on something. That happens to be one of the central tenets of humanism, and is explicitly contradicted by the "holy" books of major religions.

The bottom line is that once you recognise this, there's no need for the religious labels or the superstitions that go with them. You want to keep a label for reasons of "cultural identity," fine by me. Just remember it doesn't entitle you to feel superior or judgemental, nor does it grant you special insights on the world not available to those without it.

Other Comments by Cluebot

34. Comment #210306 by Gynwer on July 14, 2008 at 8:30 am

So I watched and listened a couple of times to make sure I didn't miss an important part. My conclusion remains the same ... the professor took a long time to say very little and all I "saw" was his frustration at not having enough time to properly put forward whatever his "idea" on memes is.

As an appetizer it was ok, as main course ... not sufficient in my opinion.

Other Comments by Gynwer

35. Comment #210313 by 35bluejacket on July 14, 2008 at 8:40 am

Give Rod-the-farmer a good cigar!!!

"The standard of debate on this site is quite high,"

This is one of the little gems that gives me hope for humanity.

From the conflict of ideas comes the spark of truth.

Clearmind- That flint don't spark.
At least you value logic. You just need to know its rules and how to use it.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

36. Comment #210321 by David J on July 14, 2008 at 8:56 am

Gynwer (#37), I have often felt the same thing when viewing talks at TED.com. It seems that yes, you can get your interest perked with some kernels here and there, but to get a full meal, one must buy the book, so to speak. Regardless, I like TED for at lest giving us the tidbits that it gives us, like the one posted here. At least it leaves me thinking on the way home.

Clearmind, I have to know - what is your native language? I can't quite pinpoint it, but I do notice your use (or lack thereof) of prepositions is off (quite common when crossing a linguistic barrier of any kind), but your verb conjugations and fragmented sentences I can't decode as Romantic, Semitic, East Asian, or any other. I'm not flaming you, I'm just interested (as a linguist).

Other Comments by David J

37. Comment #210334 by Wosret on July 14, 2008 at 9:19 am

I regret my comment about "killing the english language". That wasn't cool. I only speak one language, while I'm attempting to learn Japanese, I'd love to be as good at Japanese as he is at english.

It is a really stupid thing to do to give someone grief who doesn't speak the language as their first language. I apologize for that comment.

Other Comments by Wosret

38. Comment #210339 by Village_Idiot on July 14, 2008 at 9:27 am

Clearmind, can your brain focus and read this?
An attempt to have a discussion with a person who is not capable of distinguishing between:


an argument and opinion
a fact and conviction
a proof and misconception
a reason and faith...


...is simply NOT possible.
Therefore, I'm surprised than people on this forum even bother to have conversation with an individual who confuses the above. Why don't you go back to school? It is not too late. I can treat your posts here only as childish and chaotic comments. Take care of your...broadly defined physical health.

Other Comments by Village_Idiot

39. Comment #210342 by Upgrade01A on July 14, 2008 at 9:44 am

Nice post, MG. That last sentence was gold.

What? You cannot tell the difference between a sentence and gold?

Sentences are sometimes used as units of mememic exchange. Gold is sometimes used as a standard for monetary exchange.

Gold (Au) is an element with atomic number of 79 (a non-twin prime number!), with a melting point of 1064.18 °C.

Although some groups of sentences may lead to a heated debate, a sentence, has no mass and therefore travels at the speed of C. This is paradoxical, because sentences are known to change their form over time, and only particles with mass can do that (that is why we know neutrinos have mass). Therefore, a sentence has negative mass, travels faster than light and travels back in time. Evidence supports this, because one can find many sentences trapped in books written hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Like neutrinos, sentences may travel through your head without notice. They both have weak interaction with ordinary matter. Sometimes sentences allegedly interact with gray matter, but evidence for this is purely subjective and anecdotal. Gray matter is extremely rare is not to be confused with dark matter - a completely different matter believed to account for 25% of the mass of the Universe - a very big place. Gray matter is known to distort information, leading to information loss over time.

For more information and other non-related massless sentences, please visit:

http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/telepathy-verses-cell-phones/

On Dennett:

http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/tedtalks-dan-dennett-february-2006

Note: some of the youtube links are no longer available - just scroll down and you will find several videos there that are available still.

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

40. Comment #210350 by Village_Idiot on July 14, 2008 at 10:07 am

Upgrade01A, what did you have for a drink? Fractals on ice with Fibonacci's numbers?
Should I want the same? :-)

Other Comments by Village_Idiot

41. Comment #210354 by kev_s on July 14, 2008 at 10:26 am

Re: Comment #210199 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 4:32 am

Given that human population was far lower at the time, a normalised body count of the Old Testament genocides might actually be higher; I'd be interested to hear if anyone's done the maths on that one.

I remember a debate between Dinesh and Christopher Hitchens where Dinesh played the same numbers game totally ignoring the obvious difference in populations and military fire-power between the times of the inquisition/witch killings and 20th century. Dinesh made some comment like "Only 18 people died in the the Salem witch trials" to make it sound like Christianity's killing was hardly worth noticing.
According to my limited internet search (these numbers might be dodgy), the population of Salem was around 550 at the time and in fact around 140 people were actually accused so the death toll could have reached 140/550*100=25.5% if reason had not finally prevailed. (I judge the chance of being found innocent as being zero to all intents and purposes.)
However at Salem the *actual* death percentage was 18/550*100=3.3%
At http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html it estimates 10 million died under Stalin when the population of the USSR was estimated to be around 160 million. That is 10/160*100=6.25%
Under Mao it is estimated that 40 million died out of a population of around 700 million at Mao's death. 40/700*100=5.7%.
Conclusions:
1. Rather surprisingly to me, Stalin seems to have been worse than Mao.
2. Stalin seems to have been only twice as evil as the Christians of Salem despite all the advantages of modern technology for killing.
3. For really high percentage killing you can't beat a witch burning provided you can complete it before the rational spoil-sports arrive.
(Edit to correct spelling. Oops)

Other Comments by kev_s

42. Comment #210356 by Upgrade01A on July 14, 2008 at 10:30 am

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html

Susan Blackmore at TED on Memes and Temes. :-)

Upgrade01A, what did you have for a drink? Fractals on ice with Fibonacci's numbers?
Should I want the same? :-)

Hyperbolically speaking? Yesh! It all depends how you look at "it". Some people examine "it" and understand recursion, while others think only of scary clowns. Sorry if I repeat myself, but I am feeling loopy today. Guess it is time for a break statement.

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

43. Comment #210357 by Sciros on July 14, 2008 at 10:34 am

Rather surprisingly to me, Stalin seems to have been worse than Mao.

Stalin wins!! Haha! Take that, Mao!

Other Comments by Sciros

44. Comment #210371 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 14, 2008 at 11:38 am

Cluebot, I can't believe you used the "straw man" argument. I don't really agree with censorship, but that one ought to be banned on this site. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing "that" from people of faith that don't realise that "they are" the straw people that are being criticised.

Not seen the video yet, but will take a look when I get home.

Nice touch MG. Valid criticism in the first place ... but then to realise that the poor level of English wasn't the real issue ... always good to hear an apology when due.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

45. Comment #210372 by rod-the-farmer on July 14, 2008 at 11:44 am

Tell you what, clearmind. I have been warned against doing this in the past, but maybe I will give it a shot anyway. I will engage with a debate with you, on whatever topic you choose, with one proviso. Each of us can provide a statement in one sentence only. Nothing more than one. Our response to that one statement can only be three sentences. Hopefully this will clarify and focus the debate down to one topic at a time. We can debate either here, on a separate thread, or directly, using the RD Forum email, or if you provide your home email, I will provide mine.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

46. Comment #210373 by Sciros on July 14, 2008 at 11:54 am

rod-the-farmer, if I may suggest a few *more productive* activities:

1) playing world of warcraft
2) watching reruns of $10,000 Pyramid
3) building a taxonomy for classifying fart smells
4) staring at a blank white screen or bright window and following the bubbles you see in front of your eyes

(Bonus points: Mitchell Gilks or anyone else, guess the anime that suggestion #4 is borrowed from.)

Other Comments by Sciros

47. Comment #210375 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

ColdFusionLazarus, I would argue that the "straw man" analogy is entirely justified here, since attacking a caricature (of the concepts of memetics) he assembled himself is precisely what clearmind has done. What exactly do you find unbelievable about this action here? It seems entirely warranted in this case, and I ask you to clarify or retract your objection.

I do not wish to re-explain the concepts of memetics here myself, since nobody does that with more clarity than Dan Dennett. Had clearmind argued against the ideas Dan actually presents, I would not have had cause to use the label you seem to have such an aversion to.

Edit: Added last clause to first paragraph; added parentheses for clarity.

Other Comments by Cluebot

48. Comment #210402 by Maskelya on July 14, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Go to TED and click on just about anything if you've got a spare 15-20 mins, you can't go wrong - there's loads of fantastic stuff - agree that Susan Blackmore's talk on memes and temes is well worth a listen, and Ken Robinson is inspiring too - specially for teachers like me. Saw this Dan Dennett video sometime ago, I wonder why it's been reposted now? - all good stuff though.

Other Comments by Maskelya

49. Comment #210412 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Cluebot.
Slightly embarassed, and accepting your point - I cannot retract. I feel anyone can criticise anything and then people can pull the "ace card" too easily, saying, "that the criticism is not valid because it is only a straw man that is being ridiculed". And that alone is a fairly safe, defensive manoevre. But a better manoevre is to show that the "ridiculous charicature" is not what Dan was describing. I'm not the best to explain memes. I don't know much about them. But the essence of it seems to be that ideas can take shape that play a part in controlling our behaviour, and sometimes the resulting behaviour can be harmful. Darwinian mechanisms are taking place to allow some memes to continue their existence better than others. Clearmind has hooked on to the idea that "Darwin" explains how "something" (complex) can come to exist from nothing (or rather something very simple). And so Clearmind is laughing that anyone could possibly believe that the words of a book could actually be responsible for writing a book itself. You and I know that's not what Dan is saying. We know that some (sometimes random) behaviour becomes repeated and some behaviour becomes more desirable to us than others, and so some behaviours win and other behaviours lose. And so Clearmind may, when distressed, take comfort from self-harming, even when there's no real benefit. And then Clearmind might attribute this to the commands of god.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

50. Comment #210422 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Fair enough ColdFusionLazarus, I say only that I could not "show" the points any better than Dan has already in the video; efforts to do so here would likely be wasted on clearmind. Also, accusation of straw man employment is not an "ace card" if it can be shown the analogy is not applicable. Let's move on.

Here are some other TED videos I recommend (in addition to Dan's "Dangerous Memes" talk):

Richard Dawkins advocates militant atheism (funny)

Dan Dennett on evolution, religion, education and a rebuttal of Rick Warren's book

Jeff Hawkins discusses scientific breakthroughs, intelligence and the neocortex

David Deutsch gives profound insights on the implications of cosmology and physics

Edit: Clarified wording: "accusation of straw man employment" vs. "straw man"

Other Comments by Cluebot