ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Dennett - Philosopher, cognitive scientist
Dan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.

Why you should listen

One of our most important living philosophers, Dan Dennett is best known for his provocative and controversial arguments that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes in the brain. He argues that the brain's computational circuitry fools us into thinking we know more than we do, and that what we call consciousness — isn't. His 2003 book "Freedom Evolves" explores how our brains evolved to give us -- and only us -- the kind of freedom that matters, while 2006's "Breaking the Spell" examines belief through the lens of biology.

This mind-shifting perspective on the mind itself has distinguished Dennett's career as a philosopher and cognitive scientist. And while the philosophy community has never quite known what to make of Dennett (he defies easy categorization, and refuses to affiliate himself with accepted schools of thought), his computational approach to understanding the brain has made him, as Edge's John Brockman writes, “the philosopher of choice of the AI community.”

“It's tempting to say that Dennett has never met a robot he didn't like, and that what he likes most about them is that they are philosophical experiments,” Harry Blume wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 1998. “To the question of whether machines can attain high-order intelligence, Dennett makes this provocative answer: ‘The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves.'"

In recent years, Dennett has become outspoken in his atheism, and his 2006 book Breaking the Spell calls for religion to be studied through the scientific lens of evolutionary biology. Dennett regards religion as a natural -- rather than supernatural -- phenomenon, and urges schools to break the taboo against empirical examination of religion. He argues that religion's influence over human behavior is precisely what makes gaining a rational understanding of it so necessary: “If we don't understand religion, we're going to miss our chance to improve the world in the 21st century.”

Dennett's landmark books include The Mind's I, co-edited with Douglas Hofstaedter, Consciousness Explained, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Read an excerpt from his 2013 book, Intuition Pumps, in the Guardian >>

More profile about the speaker
Dan Dennett | Speaker | TED.com
TED2009

Dan Dennett: Cute, sexy, sweet, funny

Filmed:
3,553,924 views

Why are babies cute? Why is cake sweet? Philosopher Dan Dennett has answers you wouldn't expect, as he shares evolution's counterintuitive reasoning on cute, sweet and sexy things (plus a new theory from Matthew Hurley on why jokes are funny).
- Philosopher, cognitive scientist
Dan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:12
I’m going around the world giving talks about Darwin,
0
0
3000
00:15
and usually what I’m talking about
1
3000
2000
00:17
is Darwin’s strange inversion of reasoning.
2
5000
3000
00:20
Now that title, that phrase, comes from a critic, an early critic,
3
8000
5000
00:25
and this is a passage that I just love, and would like to read for you.
4
13000
4000
00:29
"In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer;
5
17000
5000
00:34
so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system,
6
22000
5000
00:39
that, in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine,
7
27000
3000
00:42
it is not requisite to know how to make it.
8
30000
3000
00:45
This proposition will be found on careful examination to express,
9
33000
4000
00:49
in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory,
10
37000
4000
00:53
and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin’s meaning;
11
41000
4000
00:57
who, by a strange inversion of reasoning,
12
45000
4000
01:01
seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified
13
49000
3000
01:04
to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in the achievements of creative skill."
14
52000
6000
01:10
Exactly. Exactly. And it is a strange inversion.
15
58000
7000
01:17
A creationist pamphlet has this wonderful page in it:
16
65000
4000
01:21
"Test Two:
17
69000
2000
01:23
Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder? Yes/No.
18
71000
4000
01:27
Do you know of any painting that didn’t have a painter? Yes/No.
19
75000
3000
01:30
Do you know of any car that didn’t have a maker? Yes/No.
20
78000
4000
01:34
If you answered 'Yes' for any of the above, give details."
21
82000
5000
01:39
A-ha! I mean, it really is a strange inversion of reasoning.
22
87000
6000
01:45
You would have thought it stands to reason
23
93000
4000
01:49
that design requires an intelligent designer.
24
97000
4000
01:53
But Darwin shows that it’s just false.
25
101000
2000
01:55
Today, though, I’m going to talk about Darwin’s other strange inversion,
26
103000
5000
02:00
which is equally puzzling at first, but in some ways just as important.
27
108000
6000
02:06
It stands to reason that we love chocolate cake because it is sweet.
28
114000
7000
02:13
Guys go for girls like this because they are sexy.
29
121000
6000
02:19
We adore babies because they’re so cute.
30
127000
4000
02:23
And, of course, we are amused by jokes because they are funny.
31
131000
9000
02:32
This is all backwards. It is. And Darwin shows us why.
32
140000
7000
02:39
Let’s start with sweet. Our sweet tooth is basically an evolved sugar detector,
33
147000
8000
02:47
because sugar is high energy, and it’s just been wired up to the preferer,
34
155000
4000
02:51
to put it very crudely, and that’s why we like sugar.
35
159000
5000
02:56
Honey is sweet because we like it, not "we like it because honey is sweet."
36
164000
7000
03:03
There’s nothing intrinsically sweet about honey.
37
171000
5000
03:08
If you looked at glucose molecules till you were blind,
38
176000
4000
03:12
you wouldn’t see why they tasted sweet.
39
180000
3000
03:15
You have to look in our brains to understand why they’re sweet.
40
183000
6000
03:21
So if you think first there was sweetness,
41
189000
2000
03:23
and then we evolved to like sweetness,
42
191000
2000
03:25
you’ve got it backwards; that’s just wrong. It’s the other way round.
43
193000
4000
03:29
Sweetness was born with the wiring which evolved.
44
197000
4000
03:33
And there’s nothing intrinsically sexy about these young ladies.
45
201000
4000
03:37
And it’s a good thing that there isn’t, because if there were,
46
205000
5000
03:42
then Mother Nature would have a problem:
47
210000
4000
03:46
How on earth do you get chimps to mate?
48
214000
5000
03:53
Now you might think, ah, there’s a solution: hallucinations.
49
221000
8000
04:01
That would be one way of doing it, but there’s a quicker way.
50
229000
4000
04:05
Just wire the chimps up to love that look,
51
233000
3000
04:08
and apparently they do.
52
236000
3000
04:11
That’s all there is to it.
53
239000
4000
04:16
Over six million years, we and the chimps evolved our different ways.
54
244000
4000
04:20
We became bald-bodied, oddly enough;
55
248000
3000
04:23
for one reason or another, they didn’t.
56
251000
4000
04:27
If we hadn’t, then probably this would be the height of sexiness.
57
255000
12000
04:39
Our sweet tooth is an evolved and instinctual preference for high-energy food.
58
267000
5000
04:44
It wasn’t designed for chocolate cake.
59
272000
3000
04:47
Chocolate cake is a supernormal stimulus.
60
275000
3000
04:50
The term is owed to Niko Tinbergen,
61
278000
2000
04:52
who did his famous experiments with gulls,
62
280000
2000
04:54
where he found that that orange spot on the gull’s beak --
63
282000
4000
04:58
if he made a bigger, oranger spot
64
286000
2000
05:00
the gull chicks would peck at it even harder.
65
288000
2000
05:02
It was a hyperstimulus for them, and they loved it.
66
290000
3000
05:05
What we see with, say, chocolate cake
67
293000
4000
05:09
is it’s a supernormal stimulus to tweak our design wiring.
68
297000
5000
05:14
And there are lots of supernormal stimuli; chocolate cake is one.
69
302000
3000
05:17
There's lots of supernormal stimuli for sexiness.
70
305000
3000
05:20
And there's even supernormal stimuli for cuteness. Here’s a pretty good example.
71
308000
6000
05:26
It’s important that we love babies, and that we not be put off by, say, messy diapers.
72
314000
5000
05:31
So babies have to attract our affection and our nurturing, and they do.
73
319000
6000
05:37
And, by the way, a recent study shows that mothers
74
325000
4000
05:41
prefer the smell of the dirty diapers of their own baby.
75
329000
3000
05:44
So nature works on many levels here.
76
332000
3000
05:47
But now, if babies didn’t look the way they do -- if babies looked like this,
77
335000
5000
05:52
that’s what we would find adorable, that’s what we would find --
78
340000
4000
05:56
we would think, oh my goodness, do I ever want to hug that.
79
344000
6000
06:02
This is the strange inversion.
80
350000
2000
06:04
Well now, finally what about funny. My answer is, it’s the same story, the same story.
81
352000
7000
06:11
This is the hard one, the one that isn’t obvious. That’s why I leave it to the end.
82
359000
4000
06:15
And I won’t be able to say too much about it.
83
363000
2000
06:17
But you have to think evolutionarily, you have to think, what hard job that has to be done --
84
365000
6000
06:23
it’s dirty work, somebody’s got to do it --
85
371000
3000
06:26
is so important to give us such a powerful, inbuilt reward for it when we succeed.
86
374000
8000
06:34
Now, I think we've found the answer -- I and a few of my colleagues.
87
382000
4000
06:38
It’s a neural system that’s wired up to reward the brain
88
386000
4000
06:42
for doing a grubby clerical job.
89
390000
5000
06:48
Our bumper sticker for this view is
90
396000
4000
06:52
that this is the joy of debugging.
91
400000
3000
06:55
Now I’m not going to have time to spell it all out,
92
403000
2000
06:57
but I’ll just say that only some kinds of debugging get the reward.
93
405000
5000
07:02
And what we’re doing is we’re using humor as a sort of neuroscientific probe
94
410000
8000
07:10
by switching humor on and off, by turning the knob on a joke --
95
418000
4000
07:14
now it’s not funny ... oh, now it’s funnier ...
96
422000
2000
07:16
now we’ll turn a little bit more ... now it’s not funny --
97
424000
2000
07:18
in this way, we can actually learn something
98
426000
3000
07:21
about the architecture of the brain,
99
429000
2000
07:23
the functional architecture of the brain.
100
431000
2000
07:25
Matthew Hurley is the first author of this. We call it the Hurley Model.
101
433000
5000
07:30
He’s a computer scientist, Reginald Adams a psychologist, and there I am,
102
438000
4000
07:34
and we’re putting this together into a book.
103
442000
2000
07:36
Thank you very much.
104
444000
3000

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Dennett - Philosopher, cognitive scientist
Dan Dennett thinks that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.

Why you should listen

One of our most important living philosophers, Dan Dennett is best known for his provocative and controversial arguments that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes in the brain. He argues that the brain's computational circuitry fools us into thinking we know more than we do, and that what we call consciousness — isn't. His 2003 book "Freedom Evolves" explores how our brains evolved to give us -- and only us -- the kind of freedom that matters, while 2006's "Breaking the Spell" examines belief through the lens of biology.

This mind-shifting perspective on the mind itself has distinguished Dennett's career as a philosopher and cognitive scientist. And while the philosophy community has never quite known what to make of Dennett (he defies easy categorization, and refuses to affiliate himself with accepted schools of thought), his computational approach to understanding the brain has made him, as Edge's John Brockman writes, “the philosopher of choice of the AI community.”

“It's tempting to say that Dennett has never met a robot he didn't like, and that what he likes most about them is that they are philosophical experiments,” Harry Blume wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 1998. “To the question of whether machines can attain high-order intelligence, Dennett makes this provocative answer: ‘The best reason for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that we human beings are conscious, and we are a sort of robot ourselves.'"

In recent years, Dennett has become outspoken in his atheism, and his 2006 book Breaking the Spell calls for religion to be studied through the scientific lens of evolutionary biology. Dennett regards religion as a natural -- rather than supernatural -- phenomenon, and urges schools to break the taboo against empirical examination of religion. He argues that religion's influence over human behavior is precisely what makes gaining a rational understanding of it so necessary: “If we don't understand religion, we're going to miss our chance to improve the world in the 21st century.”

Dennett's landmark books include The Mind's I, co-edited with Douglas Hofstaedter, Consciousness Explained, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Read an excerpt from his 2013 book, Intuition Pumps, in the Guardian >>

More profile about the speaker
Dan Dennett | Speaker | TED.com