Daniel Dennett is a pain in the arse. What does he know, anyway. He's just not needed. He's boring too.
Why do you find him a pain in the arse?
As for boring, that takes two.
It's love that takes two, not boredom.
Dennett is an old fart who shouldn't be on prime-Internet-time and should be relegated elsewhere or censored altogether.
Being bored requires something to find boring, and a tendency to be bored, that's what I mean.
Did you listen to the video?
Dennett is OK, Nappy. Just imagine you might live as long as he has. Then you would be an old fart.
Dennett has written a lot of interesting books. Freedom Evolves is the one that meant most to me.
He says interesting things in the video.
Michael, I'm an old fart (83) who lives with a bunch of old farts (average ~78).
When one of us goes off like Nappy is doing here, we ask him if he forgot his meds.
As for knowing the universe' cause, I have two answers:
1) Will my knowing its cause help me pay the rent?
2) Only unhappy people need to know its cause. (I was once a Catholic and unhappy.)
As for knowing the universe' cause, Only unhappy people need to know its cause.
Hm, what makes you think that?
Luara, try being young with a normal supply of hormones, a Catholic, and NOT a submissive.
BTW, I know how to be Machiavellian. The more people who wait for happiness in a future life, the fewer people I have to share this life' happiness with.
Happiness isn't a zero-sum thing so I'm Machiavellian only when I'm pissed at religious folk.
You didn't answer my question, why wouldn't a happy person want to know the reason for it all?
Luara, I didn't say happy people wouldn't want to know the reason for it all.
I said only unhappy people need to know the universe' cause.
Those two statements are logically equivalent.
"B is true only if A is true" is logically equivalent to
"A is false implies B is false".
Your statement that "only unhappy people need to know the cause of the universe" is logically equivalent to "Happy people don't need to know the cause of the universe."