Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@AS.47 says : very interesting conversation. makes you think. that's the most important part to me. thank you for this video. one section that caught my attention: 46:24 what is dennett's "good will"? you cannot push aside the godly as irrational and "unnecessary" and then build your argument on "good will" as if it's a scientific truth. that's a gap. 46:30 "good will that we normally assume in a civilised world." this sounds as if the order of the civilised world is based on good will. leaves out all kinds of punishment, social norms, institutions like the poolice and courts which aren't only a necessary addition but in my estimation the true basis of said civilised world. 46:58 the comparison between "crazy" unrelated chimps and "civilized" unrelated people in an auditorium doesn't just seem weak but counterproductive. the key difference between these scenarios isn't "human trust" but the scenarios themselves. "unrelated people in an auditorium" isn't a "random situation" but something that can only happen in an unbelievably developped society and demands very specific circumstances. in the grand scheme of things these people in those specific circumstances are very far from "unrelated strangers".>> <<@alga97 says : Atoms in molecules form specific geometric shapes because their negatively charged electron clouds repel each other, pushing them as far apart as possible to achieve a stable, low-energy state, explained by the Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory. This repulsion between bonding pairs and lone pairs dictates angles, creating 3D structures like bent, trigonal planar, or tetrahedral, which are crucial for a molecule's properties and function.>> <<@alga97 says : Some people watch the stars. I watch the places where code quietly decides who waits, who speaks, who lives with the scar. On Earth, my case files were buses, lunch counters, and courtrooms. Here, they’re feedback loops, VR temples, triage models, and governance predicates. This Observatory is a small way to mark where justice is at stake and to give others a compact pattern to do the same. Think of it as a star chart of harms, rights, and covenants.>> <<@alga97 says : The machine understands nothing. It mimics, it calculates, but it does not feel the void. We, however, do. This is the crux of the matter. The AI’s “nothingness” is our creation, a reflection of our own anxieties about meaning.>> <<@JLongTom says : How nice of Dan to come on and be talked at for 90 minutes in his final days.>> <<@jmkiser says : After 90 minutes of "conversation" I wonder how it was that so little of any substance was said. What I attribute that to is the variety of frustrating ways JP would appear to be getting to the putative discussion topics he offered at the outset, only to veer off into unrelated--and often quite lengthy--topics. I will certainly admit to having not watched more than a handful of videos featuring JP, but he came across in this one as one aware that he was well out of his depth. It could only be owing to DD's poor health that kept him from pushing back against the wall of qualifications, pointless digressions and frequently unsubtle moments of willful misunderstanding from JP. The most glaring assumption that seemed to underpin JP's references to ancient lore is that there is some unimpeachable authority bestowed by merely being ancient. As DD observed, with greater restraint than I'd have wished, JP overcomplicated things. What an understatement that was.>> <<@tomdaly9276 says : How can Dennett be suo patient with this gobshite>> <<@tomdaly9276 says : "I'm not trying to catch you" Peterson to Dennett 😂>> <<@avinkon says : Iam a big fan of Daniel c denett for the thinking tools he provided , he is such a legend , alongside he is such a gentle man for accepting invite from totally different view from jordan b peterson , my respect for J.B.P also has increased though I dont agree with JBP , the truth is evolution is universal acid only if you want to see the world the way it>> <<@EternalParr says : Great watch, I am honored to share the world at the same time as these great thinkers.>> <<@steliosemmanouilidis5050 says : Rest in peace Daniel>> <<@chobij3921 says : Ah i get it. Im for the birds😂😂😂😂. I knew that all along!>> <<@chobij3921 says : I described my experience of thinking to a therapist as Peterson describes the process. He had no comment. Anyway ive hardly thought at all past few years as i belonged to a 12 step org AA that discouraged thinking unless it looked like one was agreeing with them. Repeated silent reactions was how they shut me down gradually. I left them and left my catholic religion too since. Im an Atheist now. Thought my way into it while searching for "God/Truth. Hopefully im not too brain dead at 63 to be able to start to think again soon. I have had bad health past 3 yrs but at least sober still despite the damage of that Cult, Yes, CULT.>> <<@chobij3921 says : I wish i lived in an area where people enjoy helping each other think.>> <<@chobij3921 says : The jacket. Well id rather not say 😂😂😂>> <<@OfficialGOD says : JP is legendary>> <<@mozartwa1 says : Mr. Jordan Peterson is methodologically inaccurate in this dialogue, which makes this dialogue unproductive... his position in this conversation is completely unclear - whether he is a religious scholar, or a psychologist, or a cultural scientist, or even an interpreter of religious texts. It seems to me that he himself does not understand what he is looking for.. and this is connected with one interesting observation - philosophers and psychologists are people, figuratively speaking. without a profession. i.e. they do not understand the psychology of a person with professional knowledge and professional thinking and everything happens from this. Dennett spoke about this (and not only he) What does this lead to? - to him breaking down open doors, simply because he doesn't know that what he is trying to understand has long been explained by people who are professionally engaged in this>> <<@MiscPerson89 says : RIP, Dennett. I'm going to miss this man pushing philosophy down some fascinating roads!>> <<@samandro2331 says : Why would you interview Dr. Dan if you will be talking 99% of the time??!>> <<@DinoRamzi says : How shallow. Dennett describes God in the summum bonum and proceeds to call himself non-religious. It is wise to define your terms, since I have long ago rejected Dennett’s conception of the « sky-daddy » God and didn’t have to write a book about it. How is that for reducing atheism to a semantic play of words.>> <<@camrobinson118 says : I am struck that Dennett consistently applies the law of parsimony to Peterson's arguments, and from my perspective, in a most compelling fashion. This seemed to anchor Peterson in way that I've rarely witnessed with other guests. My sense is that the simplicity of Dennett's arguments were impervious to Peterson's rhetorical and narrative tactics. Hard science vs. soft science.>> <<@karayaziband says : it's sad dennett had to endure insufferable jordan in his last days on earth.>> <<@fpxy00 says : Nice post-modern jacket dr. P>> <<@Hooked_on_Locations says : Peterson is exhausting>> <<@Hogweed666 says : I miss Daniel Dennett>> <<@promeworks says : Daniel presented the usual informed secularist argument. Yes, science has provided us great value. Yes, science has raised society to new heights. Yes, science this and science that. I watched the newer talk with Richard Dawkings before this and I found this conversation mirroring the same issues. The secularist displays an air of superiority while repeating the achievements of science, like a parrot, as an answer to questions that were of a different subject. Now, Daniel's view seemed very informed, but also rather reductionistic and hence encumbered by a form of blindness - a blindness to things, that can't be measured. He readily seems to present science as a resolution to everything, while dismissing or downplaying any phenomenon outside of scientific domain. To me, he seemed blind, or dismissive, to the fact that all journeys towards truth begin with faith. Faith as in acting as if something is true, regardless of the source of the intel. Like the impetus inspired by instincts, intuition, imagination and insight. Like sensing the presence of a truth - it has nothing to do with rationality. It is something like an affirmation of a journey begun. Many might call it by other names, that don't have inconvenient connotations to religions, but I don't really care what anyone calls it - the pattern remains the same. Without faith, science would not exist. Without it, there would be nothing to confirm and validate through science, because we wouldn't have a disposition to do it. The meat of the matter is this - like Peterson very well seems to understand - science is a validation tool, not a generative mapping tool. The mapping is done by something much more complex in us, which resolves into insight - or a revelation, like Jordan aptly put it. I'd like to commend Jordan here for dodging getting stuck on the word during the conversation with Daniel - well done. :) I applaud Jordan for patiently asking again and again in different ways, that dismantled some of Daniels defenses on the matter - which they obviously were, judging by the parroting. Daniel, and some other endorsers of Scientism, seem to think that if science loses any credibility, we will instantly collapse back to the dark ages. Yes, science as a tool is wonderful, but it's not the right one for every job. I believe the careless use of it resulted in the sullying of many virtues, and other not very precise, but extremely important, concepts. Rationality is a good servant, but a poor master - unchecked it will impoverish your heart and drain you of vitality and life, given the chance. I've been following the journey of Jordan for a long time and I am very keen on learning how the rediscovery of the spirit of Logos pans out for him - and for us. We could all use some Faith, Truth and Love. :) All things considered, the conversation was wonderful to listen to! Stay well, Jordan! And hello from Finland!>> <<@oldspammer says : Dennett died in April 2024 about one month before this video was uploaded in May 2024. October, September, August, July, June, May, April But the description explains that this video was recorded March 2024. LHS of the screen, partly in partial shadow, is a bandage on Dennett's head--an injury.>> <<@billyzarcone8473 says : Sorry to see that Daniel died.Took the dust off my shelfs book "Breaking the Spell" I didn`t want to put it down.Dan`s message lives on.He served as an intellectual capacity for many a year. And where all the better for it. Let us all in some way continue to make education available to all, And be civic minded.This is what Doctor Dennett lived and hoped for.>> <<@ZiglerZ says : That's a good way of thinking about it>> <<@slyjokerg says : Everything Peterson is on/in/part of should be called "Exploring Bullshit." Dennett should have never sat down with such a blowhard nothing.>> <<@1metaphysician1 says : Anyone else catch that cut.. damn... 😂>> <<@JoshHartOn says : Dennet didn't have an answer to how science gets its ethics except politics, which is the most corrupt enterprise in the world. That's why you see trust in science collapse and scientists buckling under questions like what is a woman?>> <<@NicholasDoyle-u4t says : I read The Mind's I in university. I think Dr. Dennett puts a lot of trust in the word civilization in this discussion. I think perhaps the judeo Christian tradition is more like a symbiotic crop rather than only a nurse crop. The biggest proof is that all rational scientific regimes have failed. I don't think science can fly away on its own. It needs to be grounded and stay grounded in a moral system. I wish he loved longer for more discussions. What sort of civilization does science need and how do we maintain it etc.>> <<@arbutus9126 says : To be a good interviewer, you need to ask a good question in a short and sharp question, then let Daniel explain so we can understand the answer. What it seems to me here is that you talk more than Daniel and you are confused on your own questions. I listened for 10 minutes, I had to pass, not that Daniel didn't explain well, but your way of interviewing him was just confusing. Terrible interviewer@>> <<@athnealerodney says : Thanks for your service Prof. Dan Dannett..😢>> <<@rickchase6990 says : The name שָׂטָ֖ן Satan appears in the oldest book of the Old Testament and does not originate with Seth and the Coptics. He is the adversary and a fallen angel.>> <<@BrianMcGuire-u5s says : Being closed-minded to spiritual concepts prevents wisdom. Intellectuals of the type of Dr. Dennent has one trait in common. A lack of humility.>> <<@AAA9549-w7w says : 19/09/2024 I think religion is not a bad thing but rather a good thing. All of you presenters, viewers, and guests have the right to express your opinion, whether good or bad. Metaphysician ©>> <<@ignantxxxninja says : “Human beings are the measure of what’s good” Perfect place to apply the Socratic method…>> <<@championswaymma3077 says : God is not to be understood. But requires complete obedience & reverence. That’s dogmatic & demands deep humility. And scientists can’t stomach that. But that establishes the hierarchy of values JBP often talks about. And it’s the only thing that can prevent chaos. Let’s look at abortion in the US right now. Some on the pro choice side right now would welcome a government who’d imprison those who oppose. And the same can be said of those on the pro life side. And on both sides are highly acclaimed scientists. Those are very rigid stance. No human can & will ever solve this problem. And that’s where when the whole nation abides to a set of values that go beyond the realm of human understanding, you don’t fall into those sorts of conundrums. And a nation that doesn’t submit to God, will inevitably self destruct. We can get rid of God. And it may sound cute & smart for a moment, but it’s to our peril.>> <<@AngryClippy1 says : I didn't think this discussion was as good as it could've been. Daniel didn't speak enough or in depth enough like he did at the end. I can't tell if that's Daniels fault or Jordan's fault. I suppose it's a little bit of both. Jordan asking too many long winded questions, not trusting Daniel to fill in the gaps enough and needing to explain everything with big mythical examples, which can be good but not always necessary. But Daniel also seemed to assume that things aren't worth thinking deeply about, he assumed mundanity about too many things, and so his answers were short and dismissive. I think Peterson was trying to get more of our Daniel by then proposing his beliefs and maybe even assumptions to try and give Daniel something to work with but it seemed Daniel wasn't having it. Some, including you, seem to applaud Daniels having none of it, but not me. We're not talking about what flavor ice cream is best here, we're talking about the fundemental nature of reality itself, the foundations of morality and science and free will, and that's going to require that we delve into things very deeply. When talking about things of this nature it's really important to lay out everything you think, every single connection, every presupposition, every conflict of definition and opinion, so that we can truly get down to first principles and try our best to understand and speak about them.>> <<@kcgjhb says : Peterson you are so unintelligent, so painful to watch this, Daniel was so composed in talking to him. Peterson check on the dictionary what INTELIGENTE means. Ok, ok ok ok ok what's the okay about?>> <<@seanjbrogan says : Love the conversation, though with all of JPs conversations, I always feel he is stretching his truths into lies with the goal of finding god. Also, sponsored by goal investors? ouch.>> <<@ALavin-en1kr says : RIP. He meant well but he was deluded. To argue for one dimension; the elemental as fundamental to all else; to mind; to consciousness is material reductiveness that gives miraculous powers to the elemental. As Chinese philosophy has it nothing happens without three; consciousness; mind; elements; three dimensions, not just one.. Consciousness is now the hard problem for philosophy as they rightly understand that elements; macro or micro cannot be responsible for it. It may be creating A.I. that brought this to light, but whatever did, it is good that it happened.>> <<@jps0117 says : One of my favorite thinkers and one of my least favorite thinkers.>> <<@Ileroi says : I think its a good thing for someone to live such a long and rich life. I don't think we should be sad about his passing. the Life of Daniel Dennet is one good example of what a life lived to the fullest is. A textbook definition I must say. He lived, he loved,, he cried, He won, he lost, he suffered, he enjoyed, he overcame, and eventually, he met the fate we will all meet one day, he died. Dying in the way Daniel has is what you could call an inspirational passing. Human life is so complex and interesting.>> <<@theluckytree says : Dr Dennett one of the smartest persons I heard lately, some of his books definitely will bring some understanding for those who are looking for higher truths, thanks for sharing this video 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻>> <<@yeahiknow3 says : Even at that age, Daniel Dennett is comically smarter than Jordan Peterson, who's a barely sentient imbecile.>> <<@janmatula1534 says : I think that JP would benefit greatly from reading edmund husserl and marleau-ponty. i would say that they would very much interest him and they have a lot to say about perception as well>> <<@ibrahimwagdy7308 says : I am an Eastern Jew from Yemen.. Sephardim.. I only have the right to work as a construction worker or any other job Important... my house is cramped and cheap... while Westerner jews (Ashkenazi) hold all the important positions... all the leaders came from Eastern Europe... and They consider us to be less intelligent than them.. One of them even said that we belong For the sixteenth century>>