That sounds almost like a prophecy come true with regards to today's state of affairs (from Wikipedia):
"While approving of the increase in efficiency that humans reap by using resources such as expert systems in medicine or GPS in navigation, Dennett saw a danger in machines performing an ever-increasing proportion of basic tasks in perception, memory, and algorithmic computation because people may tend to anthropomorphize such systems and attribute intellectual powers to them that they do not possess. He believed the relevant danger from artificial intelligence (AI) is that people will misunderstand the nature of basically "parasitic" AI systems, rather than employing them constructively to challenge and develop the human user's powers of comprehension."
His PhD thesis, in book form – "Content and Consciousness" – was one of the first things I read as a philosophy student. He was an excellent writer (even though he turned out to be wrong about consciousness). I loved his other books too. Brilliant man.
On many levels, unfortunately, Dan was misguided in his philosophical approach to the human condition. Many of his theories are considered outdated. David Chalmers on the other hand, has a much broader, comprehensive view our existential condition and experiences. Paradoxically , Dan's subjective feelings obscured the objectivity he so desperately sought to discover.
Such a beautiful tribute, such a great man! May he rest in peace. I think people who knew world wars first hand, even as infants, all lived their lives to the fullest, with gusto and flair, savouring their time on earth in ways none of us from the carefree post-war generations ever could. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for posting these kind words from Hofstadter. With Dennet and Pirsig, two of my three heroes are gone, now. Together with Hofstadter they shaped my thinking and helped me framing my life.
"Dan thus totally rejected the notion of “qualia” (pure sensations of such things as colors, tastes, and so forth)..."
I'm not one to speak ill of the dead. That said...
Although thoroughly inane, Dennett's views on qualia are adjacent to a wider inanity that has endured since the time of Galileo & Newton and which continues to permeate modern science.
Whitehead explains: What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or — as Newton thought — minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter.
Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind.
Thank you, when I heard the news of Dan’s death I was thinking it would be great to hear a tribute from Doug. I link them closely in my mind because “Mind’s I” co-written by them was my first exposure to both exceptional thinkers.
That sounds almost like a prophecy come true with regards to today's state of affairs (from Wikipedia):
"While approving of the increase in efficiency that humans reap by using resources such as expert systems in medicine or GPS in navigation, Dennett saw a danger in machines performing an ever-increasing proportion of basic tasks in perception, memory, and algorithmic computation because people may tend to anthropomorphize such systems and attribute intellectual powers to them that they do not possess. He believed the relevant danger from artificial intelligence (AI) is that people will misunderstand the nature of basically "parasitic" AI systems, rather than employing them constructively to challenge and develop the human user's powers of comprehension."
Thank you for sharing this (and by extention to Mr. Hofstadter for a) writing it and b) giving permission to share it.)
His PhD thesis, in book form – "Content and Consciousness" – was one of the first things I read as a philosophy student. He was an excellent writer (even though he turned out to be wrong about consciousness). I loved his other books too. Brilliant man.
On many levels, unfortunately, Dan was misguided in his philosophical approach to the human condition. Many of his theories are considered outdated. David Chalmers on the other hand, has a much broader, comprehensive view our existential condition and experiences. Paradoxically , Dan's subjective feelings obscured the objectivity he so desperately sought to discover.
Such a beautiful tribute, such a great man! May he rest in peace. I think people who knew world wars first hand, even as infants, all lived their lives to the fullest, with gusto and flair, savouring their time on earth in ways none of us from the carefree post-war generations ever could. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you so much for posting this beautiful tribute to a great human.
First came across DD after exploring cog-sci and philosophy in college. So thankful for the conscious mind that provided insights into our own.
Thanks for posting these kind words from Hofstadter. With Dennet and Pirsig, two of my three heroes are gone, now. Together with Hofstadter they shaped my thinking and helped me framing my life.
"Dan thus totally rejected the notion of “qualia” (pure sensations of such things as colors, tastes, and so forth)..."
I'm not one to speak ill of the dead. That said...
Although thoroughly inane, Dennett's views on qualia are adjacent to a wider inanity that has endured since the time of Galileo & Newton and which continues to permeate modern science.
Whitehead explains: What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or — as Newton thought — minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter.
Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind.
The Concept of Nature
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18835/18835-h/18835-h.htm
Thanks Gary Marcus for sharing this beautiful tribute to one of my formative years' hero, by one of my formative years' hero.
May his soul rest in peace.
Thank you, when I heard the news of Dan’s death I was thinking it would be great to hear a tribute from Doug. I link them closely in my mind because “Mind’s I” co-written by them was my first exposure to both exceptional thinkers.
OMG😳😳😳🥺🥺