The 4 biggest ideas in philosophy, with legend Daniel Dennett for Big Think+

Summary

In this engaging transcript, Daniel Dennett emphasizes the importance of understanding how things work, challenging the traditional philosophical approach of focusing on questions rather than answers. He advocates for a philosophical mindset that embraces science and the understanding of mechanisms behind phenomena. Dennett discusses his personal journey from a curious child to an influential thinker, highlighting the significance of evolutionary theory and the concept of memes in shaping our understanding of the world. He warns against the dangers of disregarding truth and the rise of 'toxic memes' in the digital age, calling for a concerted effort to develop tools and legislation to combat the spread of misinformation.

Takeaways

• 🧙 Magicians and philosophers sometimes provide explanations that satisfy the curiosity without revealing the actual workings, akin to saying a lady isn't truly sawn in half but doesn't explain the trick.
• 💡 Philosophers should be more interested in understanding how things work rather than just asking questions, taking responsibility for the depth of their explanations.
• 🧠 Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and author, emphasizes the importance of philosophers learning about science to better understand the world and contribute to meaningful discussions.
• 📚 Dennett's curiosity about how things work led him to explore the physiological aspects of the nervous system, which was unconventional for philosophers at the time.
• 🌟 The concept of neurons as the basis for learning and evolution was a turning point for Dennett, leading him to see the brain as a product of Darwinian processes.
• 🧬 Evolutionary theory, according to Dennett, can help debunk many philosophical problems and the idea that understanding the mechanics of phenomena diminishes their importance.
• 📖 Dennett criticizes the traditional philosophical approach of seeking essences, advocating instead for a focus on variation, details, and edge cases to truly understand concepts.
• 🦠 Memes, as described by Richard Dawkins, are cultural units of transmission that evolve over time, and Dennett sees the human brain as filled with memes that give us our unique power.
• 💥 The idea that truth doesn't matter is considered toxic by Dennett, who argues that truth is essential and that relativism can be exploited for nefarious purposes.
• 🤖 AI and large language models prioritize truthiness over truth, creating a potential danger as they replicate and evolve, influencing human behavior and attention.

Q & A

What is Daniel Dennett's perspective on the role of philosophers?

Daniel Dennett believes that philosophers should be more engaged in understanding how things actually work, rather than just providing superficial explanations. He advocates for philosophers to learn about the world and science to better address and clarify complex questions.

Why does Dennett think that philosophy is better at questions than answers?

Dennett suggests that many philosophers tend to shy away from the responsibility of explaining the actual workings of things. They are more comfortable with defining terms and establishing essences, rather than delving into the mechanisms and processes that drive phenomena.

What was a pivotal moment for Dennett in his philosophical journey?

A pivotal moment for Dennett was when he learned about neurons and how they could be the basis for an evolutionary process in the brain, which he realized was learning. This led him to see learning as a Darwinian process and sparked his interest in the intersection of philosophy and science.

How does Dennett view the concept of memes as introduced by Richard Dawkins?

Dennett sees memes as units of cultural transmission that evolve over time, similar to genes in biological evolution. He believes that the human brain's power comes from being filled with memes, which are downloaded culturally, and that this is a significant factor in the difference between human and chimpanzee brains.

What is Dennett's stance on the idea that truth is relative and personal?

Dennett strongly opposes the idea that truth is relative or personal. He argues that truth matters and that the belief in relative truth can be exploited and is harmful. He emphasizes the importance of establishing the truth in any context.

What does Dennett mean by the 'intentional stance'?

The 'intentional stance' is Dennett's term for the strategy of treating complicated and interesting things as agents with beliefs, desires, and the capacity for rational behavior. This stance is useful for understanding behavior in concrete objects but can be misleading when applied to AI or digital entities that simulate such behavior.

How does Dennett perceive the current state of AI in terms of truth and falsehood?

Dennett views current AI, particularly large language models, as prioritizing 'truthiness' over factual truth. He likens them to historical fiction writers, creating narratives that sound plausible but may not be entirely accurate. He distinguishes this from human behavior, where the intention to lie is present.

What is Dennett's concern regarding the replication and evolution of fake intentional systems in AI?

Dennett is concerned that fake intentional systems, or AI that mimics human behavior, can become dangerous memes. They can replicate and evolve, capturing and manipulating human attention, and leading to a situation where it becomes difficult for people to discern what is real and what is not.

Why does Dennett believe it is important for technology to have the capacity to detect counterfeit digital entities?

Dennett argues that technology should be equipped to detect counterfeit digital entities to prevent the spread of false information and manipulation. He suggests that just as technology has evolved to detect counterfeit money, similar measures should be taken to identify and reject fake digital content.

What role does Dennett see for governments and legislatures in addressing the challenges posed by AI?

Dennett emphasizes the need for governments and legislatures to pass laws that can effectively regulate and mitigate the risks posed by AI, especially concerning the spread of false information. He believes that lawmakers need to be well-informed about the technology to create effective regulations.

How does Dennett connect his childhood curiosity with his philosophical approach?

Dennett's childhood curiosity about how things work, his desire to take them apart to understand their mechanisms, has shaped his philosophical approach. He applies this curiosity to philosophical inquiry, advocating for a hands-on, investigative approach to understanding complex ideas and phenomena.

What is Dennett's view on the importance of understanding evolutionary theory for philosophers?

Dennett believes that understanding evolutionary theory is crucial for philosophers. He criticizes the complacency of philosophers who ignore evolutionary theory, arguing that it provides a key to understanding a wide range of phenomena and can help to eliminate magical or mysterious explanations.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 The Intersection of Philosophy and Science

This paragraph introduces Daniel Dennett, a philosopher with a strong interest in understanding how things work, both from a philosophical and scientific perspective. Dennett criticizes philosophers who are not willing to delve into the scientific aspects of their inquiries, arguing that philosophy should be about understanding the mechanisms behind phenomena. He emphasizes the importance of learning about the world and science for philosophers, and highlights the growing recognition of scientifically trained philosophers by the scientific community. Dennett shares his personal journey from being curious about the physiological aspects of the nervous system to understanding the evolutionary process of learning in the brain. He advocates for a bottom-up approach to understanding consciousness, meaning, and truth, and expresses surprise at the lack of engagement with evolutionary theory among many philosophers.

05:02

🧬 Darwinian Influence on Philosophy and the Concept of Memes

In this paragraph, Dennett discusses how Darwin's ideas can resolve or subvert many traditional philosophical problems by promoting the concept of gradualism, as opposed to the search for essences. He criticizes the philosophical tradition of seeking to define terms and establish essences, suggesting that philosophers should instead focus on understanding variation and context. Dennett shares his insights on memes, as introduced by Richard Dawkins, explaining that cultural evolution through memes significantly expands human cognitive abilities. He argues that the human brain's power comes from the memes it absorbs, likening it to downloading apps onto a device. Dennett warns about the prevalence of toxic memes, such as the relativism of truth, and emphasizes the importance of truth in society. He also introduces his concept of the 'intentional stance,' which is the strategy of treating complex entities as intentional agents to understand their behavior.

10:04

💻 The Challenge of AI and Counterfeit Intelligence

This paragraph addresses the challenges posed by AI and the digital world in distinguishing between real and artificial entities. Dennett draws a comparison between the historical efforts to combat counterfeit money and the need for technology to identify and flag fake digital personas. He suggests that digital devices should be equipped with software capable of detecting and flagging counterfeit individuals. Dennett calls for the establishment of laws and regulations to manage this issue, acknowledging that this requires effort and full-time attention. He differentiates between human intentions and the output of large language models like ChatGPT and GPT-4, which prioritize truthiness over truth, and stresses the importance of taking truth seriously in the face of AI's potential to generate and spread falsehoods.

Keywords

💡Magician's Illusion

The act of creating a false perception, as exemplified by a magician sawing a lady in half. This illusion is used in the video to illustrate the superficiality of some explanations, where the underlying mechanisms are not explored. The magician's illusion is a metaphor for the dissatisfaction with explanations that do not delve into the 'how' and 'why' of phenomena, which is a recurring theme in the video.

💡Philosophy

The study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. In the context of the video, philosophy is critiqued for being better at asking questions than providing answers and for sometimes neglecting the responsibility to understand the actual workings of things, which the speaker, Daniel Dennett, believes should be a philosopher's job.

💡Explanation

A statement that makes clear the meaning of something or provides a reason, cause, or justification for something. In the video, the importance of seeking and providing explanations is emphasized, particularly those that reveal how things work and why they happen the way they do. The speaker advocates for a deeper understanding beyond superficial explanations.

💡Evolution

A biological process that leads to changes in species over time through mechanisms such as natural selection and genetic variation. In the video, evolution is presented as a key to understanding the brain, learning, and a range of philosophical issues, including the nature of consciousness and the development of cultural phenomena like memes.

💡Neuroscience

The scientific study of the nervous system, including the brain, its structure, function, and the role of neurons in signaling. In the video, neuroscience is highlighted as a field that can provide insights into the physiological underpinnings of consciousness and learning, challenging traditional philosophical approaches.

💡Memes

Cultural units of information or ideas that spread from person to person through imitation or other forms of non-genetic inheritance. In the video, memes are discussed as a significant aspect of human cultural evolution and the power they hold in shaping our brains and influencing our beliefs and behaviors.

💡Truth

The quality or state of being true, in accordance with fact or reality. In the video, the importance of establishing truth is emphasized, rejecting the notion that truth is relative or unimportant. The speaker argues that truth matters and that the belief in the relativity of truth can be harmful and misleading.

💡Intentional Stance

A theoretical approach in the philosophy of mind where we treat an entity, such as a person or an AI, as if it has beliefs, desires, and intentions, regardless of whether it actually possesses them. In the video, the intentional stance is used to explain how humans naturally attribute mental states to complex entities and the potential risks of applying this to AI and digital entities.

💡AI and Fake Intentional Systems

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that simulate the appearance of having mental states, such as beliefs and desires, even though they do not actually possess them. In the video, the speaker warns about the proliferation of AI systems that mimic intentionality and the need to be cautious about how we interact with and are influenced by them.

💡Counterfeit Detection

The process of identifying and verifying fake or fraudulent items, such as counterfeit money or digital entities. In the video, the concept is extended to the digital realm, suggesting that just as technology has advanced to detect counterfeit physical currency, similar measures should be taken to identify and label digital entities that are not genuine.

💡Governmental Regulation

The act of controlling or governing activities and behaviors through the establishment and enforcement of laws and rules by a governing body. In the video, the need for governments and legislatures to pass laws to regulate digital entities and memes is emphasized, to prevent their harmful effects on society and ensure the propagation of truth.

Highlights

The magician metaphor for understanding philosophical explanations.

The reluctance of some philosophers to delve into the mechanics of phenomena.

The importance of understanding how things work and why they happen as they do.

Daniel Dennett's curiosity about the positions philosophers arrive at and the framing of scientific questions.

Dennett's belief that philosophy should involve understanding the actual workings of things.

Dennett's background and approach to philosophy as an engineer at heart.

The increasing recognition of scientifically trained philosophers by the scientific community.

The role of philosophers in helping scientists avoid philosophical mistakes.

The value of maintaining an open mind and considering the possibility of being wrong.

Dennett's interest in the physiological aspects of philosophy, such as the nervous system.

The evolutionary process of learning in the brain and its Darwinian basis.

The elimination of magic in favor of a bottom-up theory of meaning, learning, and consciousness.

Dennett's criticism of philosophers' complacency and ignorance towards evolutionary theory.

The concept of memes and their role in human cultural evolution as proposed by Richard Dawkins.

The idea that human brains are furnished with memes, which gives us our power.

The prevalence of toxic memes in society, such as the notion that truth is relative.

The significance of Dennett's 'intentional stance' and its application to understanding complex systems.

The challenge of distinguishing between real and artificial intentional systems in the age of AI.

The need for technology to prioritize truth and for governments to legislate against digital counterfeits.

Transcripts

- If you see a magician sawing a lady in half

and you wanna know how it's done,

and somebody says, "Well, I'll tell you how it's done.

They don't really saw the lady in half.

They just make it appear

that they're sawing the lady in half."

And you say, "Yeah, okay, great.

How do they do that?"

"Oh, that's not my department.

That's somebody else's job.

I've already given you my explanation."

Sometimes philosophers give answers like that.

I think they just don't wanna be bothered.

They don't wanna take on the responsibility

to explain what's actually happening.

What I like to do is explain things,

and have them explained to me.

Mainly, explanations are about how things work,

why they happen the way they do.

So I've been curious about how philosophers arrive

at the positions they arrive at,

how scientists make mistakes when they frame

their own questions.

I have often said that philosophy is better at questions

than at answers-

and that's nontrivial.

They don't think it's their job to understand

how things actually work,

whereas I think that should be the job of philosophers.

I'm Daniel Dennett.

I'm the author of more than a dozen books

on the mind, on free will, on evolution.

And I'm an Emeritus Professor from Tufts University.

Since I was a little boy,

I wanted to know how things worked.

I wanted to take them apart and see what made them tick,

what made them work.

So I was sort of an engineer at heart.

And it turns out that that's not a bad attitude to have

as a philosopher.

Figure out what makes ideas work and why.

And so I've championed the idea

that if you're gonna be a philosopher,

learn about the world, learn about the science.

I'm happy to say that now,

philosophers who are scientifically trained

way beyond what I ever was, is growing larger,

and for the first time in my career,

they're being taken seriously by the scientists.

Because scientists are just as capable

of making philosophical mistakes

or getting into philosophical confusions as any laypeople.

But they need the help of informed philosophers

if they're gonna clarify those questions

and ask better questions.

A lotta people just dig in, double down,

and refuse to abandon a point of view which is under attack

from their critics.

That in itself is not a bad thing.

I'm glad that my criticisms are resisted so resolutely

and ferociously by some of those I criticize,

otherwise, we'd never get at the truth.

I think it's very important

to keep in the back of your mind: 'What if I'm wrong?'

When I was a graduate student in philosophy

way back in the '60s in Oxford,

one day with a group of fellow graduate students,

we got talking about what happens when your arm goes asleep

and you can't control it.

What on earth is that all about?

And I got interested and started asking questions about:

Well, what is it, is it the nerves?

Do they get pinched?

Is it blood flow? What is it?

And they thought it was bizarre

that a philosopher would be interested

in the physiological questions of what was going on.

They thought I was abandoning philosophy.

I went off to the medical library

and tried to get myself educated

on how the nervous system works.

And that was a main turning point for me.

It suddenly hit me when I learned about neurons,

the cells of the brain that do the signaling,

that they could be the basis for an evolutionary process

in your brain, which was learning.

That learning in the individual

was just yet another Darwinian process.

I didn't know much about evolution at the time,

about natural selection, but I began to learn.

And the more I learned, the more I thought,

"This is the key.

This is the great key to how things fit together."

And we get rid of all the magic

and we have a bottom-up theory of meaning and learning

and truth and consciousness.

And I'm, to this day, amazed

at how complacent so many philosophers are

with their utter ignorance of evolutionary theory.

They think that if we had a physiological, mechanistic,

physical explanation of creativity, of genius,

of understanding, that this would somehow diminish

and demean these wonderful phenomena-

not at all.

If we understand how amazingly intricate

and wonderful and ingenious nature is

in allowing us to understand things

and create things, think ahead,

we would dismiss the magical ideas out of hand.

And I think that Darwin's ideas undo

many of the biggest problems in philosophy,

or at least, subvert them

and turn them into better problems.

And the fact that so many philosophers keep hammering away

trying to find the essence of this or that,

when Darwin has shown us that nothing of any interest

has an essence;

it's gradualism all the way.

This is an idea that is just not dawned

on a lot of philosophers, and for a very good reason.

They learn from Socrates, from Plato.

And the first thing they do is "define your terms,"

"establish the essence of each thing,"

as Aristotle would put it.

And that turns out to be the great philosophical mistake.

Forget about essences.

Learn about all the variation and the details

and the penumbral cases.

Then afterwards, you'll know what you're talking about.

One of the most eye-opening moments for me

was when I read Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene"

and learned about his concept of memes.

When Dawkins coined the term "memes,"

he had in mind something very general.

The term caught on.

It's in the dictionary now.

But only a small subset

are what most people think of as memes.

And those are the ones that people deliberately

and, presumably, intelligently design

with the hopes that they'll go viral.

And some of them do.

But lots of memes go viral

that don't involve the internet at all.

Words are memes.

Every word in every language is a meme.

It's not genetically inherited,

it's culturally transmitted.

They evolve over time.

And Dawkins' theory was a very general theory

of how human cultural evolution

hugely expands the powers

of a human brain.

In fact, I would put it very strongly.

I would say, the difference between a chimpanzee

and a human brain is that the brain of a chimpanzee

is largely unfurnished.

Whereas we fill our brains with memes.

We download hundreds of thousands of memes,

and that's where we get our power from.

Your computer or your phone isn't a very powerful device

until you download some apps to it.

Those are like memes.

We're awash in toxic memes right now.

One of the most toxic,

I think because it enables so many others,

is the idea that truth doesn't matter,

that truth is just relative,

that there's no such thing

as establishing the truth of anything.

Your truth, my truth,

we're all entitled to our own truths.

That's pernicious, it's attractive to many people,

and it is used to exploit people

in all sorts of nefarious ways.

The truth really does matter.

I think one of my best ideas is the "intentional stance,"

the idea that we automatically adopt the strategy

of treating anything complicated and interesting,

if we can, as an agent.

What does it want?

What does it know?

What does it believe?

We use the intentional stance all the time

to endow other things that are moving and complicated

with beliefs and desires,

and the ability to do the rational thing

given those beliefs and desires.

Well, that's fine, as long as we're living in a world

of concrete objects.

But what's now happening is that AI is filling

the digital world with fake intentional systems,

fake minds, fake people,

that we are almost irresistibly drawn to treat

as if they were real,

as if they really had beliefs and desires.

And these will be very dangerous memes indeed,

because they will replicate,

they will evolve,

and we won't be able to take our attention away from them.

They will capture our attention and manipulate us.

The difference between current AI,

large language models so-called,

things like ChatGPT and GPT-4,

is that their goal is truthiness, not truth.

They are more like

historical fiction writers than historians.

We're different in that we take truth seriously.

Maybe because we want to lie.

But LLMs, AIs don't yet really have the capacity

to lie on purpose.

They do formulate falsehoods that they then spread.

And there's only a difference of degree between us and them.

So we're not used to having our technology

in the position to ignore the truth

and just feed us what makes sense to them.

Technology has gone to great lengths

to make it very hard to make counterfeit money

and quite easy to identify it.

So we can do something similar

for every phone, computer, tablet-

every digital device can have software put in it

which will do a pretty darn good job

of detecting counterfeit people.

And we'll not accept it or we'll brand it instantly:

"This is fake, this is fake, this is spam,

this is a hoax, don't believe it."

And in order to do that, well, you have to have laws.

And in order to have laws,

you've got to have governments, legislatures,

that will pass the laws,

and they have to know enough about what they're doing

so they pass laws that aren't easily circumvented.

This is something we have to work on now,

and I think we need to work on it full-time.