
Daniel Dennett: The Normal Well-Tempered Mind - X4
http://edge.org/conversation/normal-well-tempered-mind
======
Afforess
_You begin to think about the normal well-tempered mind, in effect, the well-
organized mind, as an achievement, not as the base state_

As an aside,

Almost no one ever really analyzes sanity. Somehow, despite not understanding
why exactly we exist, what our purpose is, and that at any given moment we
could die and cease to exist, we don't go insane. Do you have any idea how
crazy that is? Even "insane" people are just experiencing delusions ontop of
reality - the constructs from their mind are mundane in a sense because while
they aren't real, they are sane. Real insanity would be realizing how large
the universe is, that philosophers cant even prove anything besides solipsism
exists, or how meaningless life is. I've come to the conclusion that I must be
insane, since sane people don't notice any of this - clearly all the
completely sane people don't give it a second thought.

And of course I'm sure plenty of you will say sure life has purpose, or
solipsism is too narrow because it isn't useful to use as a worldview. Because
you're all sane. ;)

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Real insanity would be realizing how large the universe is

I remember going camping when I was 15. After everyone else fell asleep, I
laid on my back under the clear open night sky and let my mind wander.

I first thought about planets in our solar system, then the interstellar
medium, then other star systems with their own stars, planets and asteroid
belts. I then "zoomed out" and thought about the Milky Way, then about other
galaxies, spiral ones and starburst ones and irregular galaxies, and the void
between them. I thought about nebulae and black holes. As time passed, I
started to view Earth as _just a planet_ , and our sun not as _the Sun_ but as
_a star_. Just one out of countless. I started to put myself in the shoes of
an alien who lives on another planet - or maybe within interstellar clouds! -
and tried to...

Then I stopped.

The reason I stopped was because I had the distinct feeling that my mind was
about to _break_. As if I was about to run a buggy function, and if I pressed
Enter to run it, it would throw an _index out of bounds_ error and crash
permanently. So I did the sane thing by pulling my sleeping bag over my head
and falling asleep.

~~~
mugwumpjissom
I think that feeling is a major barrier we as a species need to get past,
which is more of a spiritual/therapeutic issue than an intellectual one as far
as I can tell. This foundation provides free 10-day silent meditation retreats
where they push you to have that experience but instead of opening your eyes
and "pulling the sleeping bag over your head", you embrace it and explore
beyond. It changed my life. I've been to two of these things, one in CA and
one in TX and if you ever have time it's worth it in every way. I'm not
affiliated with them in any way, I just think it's relevant.

------
SapphireSun
I really like this conception of brains working as internally competing and
cooperating ferral units. I'll have to give it some more thought in the
morning. I do have an entreaty for you though:

In this era of high throughput computing, elegant biotechnology, and the
coming of the BRAIN initiative from the national level, I believe the best way
to attack the problems of mind/brain right now is hard work and the scientific
method. We need more data and we need to analyze it.

We're hiring developers for eyewire.org - a game to map the brain by crowd
sourcing/gamifying the analysis of electron micrographs of stained retinal
slices from mice. We're developing the tools to map the connectome. For real.
The PI for my lab, Dr. Sebastian Seung, is mentioned in this article, and I
love working with him. There are other absolutely incredible people working
here too that will blow your mind.

Send an email to support at eyewire dot org if you want in or email me
personally (see link in my profile) if you want more details. (I won't be able
to get back to you instantly - I'm totally swamped, but if you're hired, based
on my experiences so far, it'll be worth the wait).

Here are two fun explanatory videos from TED/TEDx:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0)
\- Sebastian Seung talking connectomes
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gKt8iT08Zc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gKt8iT08Zc)
\- Amy Robinson talking EyeWire

Thanks for reading. I hope this post isn't too far out of our community norms
- I don't see too many (large) job postings in the comments, but I felt like
this article is the perfect place to find someone willing and able to provide
much needed help (I'm the only web developer / aspiring neuroscientist there
right now). :) If I'm taking up too much space, let me know and I'll condense
it.

~~~
jnbiche
Looks like an amazing project. I think crowdsourcing is vastly underutilized
for tasks like this.

May I make a suggestion re: the web site? In the home/registration page, it
would be very helpful to link to some kind of description of the project, even
if it's just one paragraph. Better yet, include that short description on the
page itself.

As things stand now, I go to the sign-up page, but if I want to have any idea
what the project involves before I sign up, I have to leave your site and go
google the project (fortunately, there's an excellent Wikipedia article about
the project).

Best of luck with your project and finding some good job candidates. If I were
in a position to relocate, I'd apply for the job.

~~~
SapphireSun
Haha, this is something hotly debated in the lab as we speak. We just started
A/B testing descriptions on Friday. :) Thanks for the kind words!

------
themodelplumber
"You [use a highlighter and] break the whole article down into two or three or
four or thirty-two sub articles that are basically ideas...and this looks like
a regress, but it's only a finite regress, because you this gigantic article
and you break it down into a group of simpler, more obvious points, and you
keep going until you arrive at the end, and that's a great way of reading
about cognitive science without wanting to stab yourself."

------
javajosh
The strange thing to me is that our minds aren't really that great at studying
and describing themselves. You'd think that a mind interested in how minds
worked would happily examine itself in whatever level of detail it wanted. One
could hope that someone like Dennett could just close his eyes, sit back, and
directly observe the answer to all of his most pressing questions. Why doesn't
that seem to be possible?

~~~
lnanek2
Why would it be? Evolution is mostly driven by getting enough calories and
mates. If your brain needed to be twice as big and needed twice the calories
to perform self introspection, for example, it would probably be selected
against by evolution since the gain wouldn't be worth the cost.

It would be like running a debugger in production. Kills the performance.

~~~
javajosh
I'm not saying that we should be introspective in lieu of reproducing. It's
not an all or nothing thing. BTW that same line of argument could be made
against philosophy or even large portions of science, but clearly people can
(and do) think about things that don't have an evolutionary advantage. But for
some reason, direct knowledge (and manipulation) of our own minds is curiously
out-of-reach.

~~~
PeterisP
Larger brain by itself is a very strong evolutionary disadvantage - it
consumes a lot of calories, and in humans it hampers childbirth which in out
natural state is very deadly already.

There is a strong pressure for us to have a brain that's "barely just enough"
capable for the functions that increase survivability.

------
cdcarter
If you'd like to read more of Dennett's (newer) understandings in a more
cohesive form, check out The Intuition Pump. He talks less about his mistakes
but more about how his new ideas really mesh with science and real ethics.

------
stiff
Nothing new in the philosophy departments: thousands of words and nothing to
say at all that would be connected to reality. I heard he cites some
experimental works sometimes, but his own work seems still to be in this good
old tradition of medieval scholasticism of thinking very hard what "ought to
be", he even personifies neurons and throws in some "emergence". Missing is
only some chaos theory and Goedels theorem, but Plato is there, so maybe this
makes up for it. Worst is that he will inspire hundreds of cranks to do
similar attempts at "explaining how brain works" and people doing real
research will receive still more letters with "revolutionary" ideas of no use.

On the topic of the brain, I will take a paragraph from a biologist over a
treatise by a philosopher.

~~~
betageek
I assume this is just a troll, anyone who doesn't know who Daniel Dennett is
should peruse his CV sometime
[http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettdcv.htm](http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettdcv.htm)

~~~
stiff
I know "who he is". Do I have to agree with him because he is a professor?
Every piece of his writing I saw used the most complicated language possible
and the largest amount of digressions to in the end convey nothing concrete
whatsoever and this is all the more true of this article. Moreover I think one
can not make any serious contribution to cognitive science using the
methodology he uses and that what he is doing is akin to people trying to
explain "what gravity is" before Galileo came, abandoned the question, and
used equations to predict effects of gravity instead. If I am wrong, I
seriously would love an explanation of why do you think so.

As others have said Marvin Minsky, who I by the way respect way more than
Dennett because in his prime he actually did do real research, had this idea
of a "community of agents" thirty years ago or more, in fact he several time
claimed that if only he would receive the money to hire programmers he would
produce revolutionary AI programs in a matter of months. How this is looked
upon by more mainstream scientists one can guess. To me the whole theory is as
vague as saying that the brain is made up of cooperating parts. Does any of
this lead to testable scientific predictions?

~~~
diydsp
I admire your healthy level of skepticism. I've been intrigued by Dennett for
years, but I haven't drunk his Kool-Aid.

How do you find triune brain theory? I'm finding it a very useful model. Want
to know what I think many of these "brain guys" get wrong? The fact that many
neural circuits include loops through the body at various distances. Doesn't
it seem like many theories are actually projections of social models?
(consider the shift from cleverly-connected agents to "decentralization" to
competing individual neurons). There's a theory somewhere that says
technocracies develop products that mimic their internal communication/social
structure. I see startups go through this all the time. anyhoo...

~~~
X4
It would have been good if you included your references instead of
halfheartedly telling us the keywords why you maybe disagree. I still upped
your comment, because despite your ignorance, you've developed your own views
to things, which as I said, just lack the references. Have an open mind and go
beyond the words, start with your own imagination. To me it sounds, as if you
cannot reason Dennett, but you leave us unclear what "that" logic inaccuracy
is, thus making you appear ignorant.

The missing links (please complete them, if there was more that you'd like to
share):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain)

------
aheilbut
Minsky talked about the 'society of mind' involving competition between many
autonomous modules a very long time ago; funny that he isn't even mentioned.

The brain-as-computer analogy needs more qualification than it is usually
given. When one says that, people tend to think of a computer very abstractly;
as some Turing-machine like substrate on which one can run any computation.
The brain isn't like that at all; it's built out of all kinds of ASICs that
have evolved for very specific functions. The reality is probably much closer
to 19th century phrenology than 50s cybernetics.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
> The brain isn't like that at all; it's built out of all kinds of ASICs that
> have evolved for very specific functions.

That turns out not to be the case. There _are_ some specialized modules, but
stroke studies have shown that massive damage to specific functions can often
be recovered by retraining. It seems that particular parts of the brain are
especially good at learning particular jobs, and that when they learn a job
they somehow suppress redundant learning by other regions. Much of the
apparent specialization of the brain is very possibly an optimization process,
akin to a computer cluster that automatically assigns I/O jobs to nodes near
the mass storage.

~~~
scotty79
I believe that optimizations observed are almost purely function of brain
activity. Any boosts genes provide to specific regions are quantitative not
qualitative in nature.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
In the cerebral cortex, I agree. It seems like any handy chunk of cortex with
enough connections can learn a task.

Outside the cortex there are dedicated organs within the brain: circadian
rhythym generators, the locus ceruleus, the hippocampus, and many others.

------
awaxman11
2nd time in one week that Dennett has popped up on HN (see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6374470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6374470))

Philosophy of mind is a very interesting topic as computers become more and
more 'human' like. Dug up an essay I wrote freshman year on one of his books
called Consciousness Explained - funny to look back at old writings:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/g3t7ntwy782m005/Dennett%20Paper%20...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/g3t7ntwy782m005/Dennett%20Paper%20%28Spring%20%2708%29.pdf)

~~~
X4
Thanks for sharing.

------
scotty79
Whenever I hear about "free will" I wonder if that's just Judeochristian
narrative or do other cultures also have same idea featured so prominently.

------
ideonexus
One bit of additional info on this topic. To understand how and why neurons
are independent, you need to understand how a baby's brain grows into its body
by producing an overabundance of neurons and then "pruning" the ones that
aren't used. So neurons are subject to natural selection as we grow:

[http://mxplx.com/Meme/922/](http://mxplx.com/Meme/922/)

------
hoffcoder
"...and I suspect that a more free-wheeling, anarchic organization is the
secret of our greater capacities of creativity, imagination, thinking outside
the box and all that, and the price we pay for it is our susceptibility to
obsessions, mental illnesses, delusions and smaller problems."

Great observation! Isn't it true that the geniuses of this world have very
often been afflicted with mental abnormalities? Take the most brilliant
mathematicians, engineers, scientists; so many of them faced such problems.
There indeed seems to be some connection between the mind's capacity to
innovate and create and its capacity to suffer delusions and obsessions. Take
examples of Gödel, Turing, Tesla, Hemingway, etc.
[http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/mad-
geniu...](http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/mad-genius.htm)

~~~
diydsp
>geniuses of this world have very often been afflicted

Maybe so, but don't forget, there is no "normal" human being. We create the
criteria of genius, normal and mental illness all in order to fulfill our
social needs. It's possible we categorize certain individuals as genius and
afflicted just so we can deny them the fruits of their labor. It's possible we
create the concept of normalcy just so we can leverage techniques of mass
manufacturing and social control.

It's possible that innovation without being identified as a genius is a smart
way to escape the disadvantages of being labelled afflicted. It's possible
Dennett's newest change-of-mind is just an update to the fairy tale that tells
those in charge how to handle workers for the maximum effect and least
disruption.

After all, who wants anarchic disruptions in the social order? We want
reliable electrical networks and food delivery, not creative, experimental
protests. So instead of heeding the words directly of those with insight,
appeal to their ego, call them geniuses, strip their innovations to the bare
minimum and label them as crazy or problematic to keep them separated safely
from others. (cough) Torvalds (cough) RMS.

~~~
hoffcoder
Maybe so. Even though I am not aware of any studies of this kind of a link
between insanity and genius, the kinds of afflictions I am talking about are
not imaginary. They are real mental disorders like OCD, bipolar disorder etc.

------
dwaltrip
I was slightly confused the format of seemingly disconnected subsections, but
I can't really complain because each section was quite interesting on its own.

While we are on the topic, if anyone has any great recommendations for entry
level philosophy/ethics books, I would love to hear them.

~~~
gjm11
> recommendations for entry level philosophy/ethics books

Nice (but opinionated and now ~50y old) overview: Bertrand Russell's "History
of Western Philosophy". Long but extremely readable. Not necessarily very
reliable.

Ethics specifically: Peter Singer's "Practical ethics". Note that Singer
thinks that we (in the affluent West) should all be giving a lot more than
most of us do to help less well-off people, and that non-human animals'
welfare is much more important than most people treat it as, and he's quite
persuasive. So reading his work might be bad for your financial and/or
gastronomic well-being (but if so, you will consider that that's for the
best).

Not all that entry-level but full of clever things and exceptionally clear (in
approximately the way that maths/physics/computing people value clear thinking
extra-highly): Gary Drescher's "Good and Real". Subtitle is "demystifying
paradoxes from physics to ethics".

Just for fun: Quine's "Quiddities: an intermittently philosophical
dictionary". Not really a dictionary, but a collection of short essays and
remarks in alphabetical order of (single-word) subject. Quine was an
absolutely first-rank philosopher, though he's not in particularly serious
mode here.

Not at all entry-level (in terms of how hard you need to think; I don't think
much expert philosophical _knowledge_ is needed) but extraordinarily good and
highly relevant to questions of ethics, though it's more about questions of
personal identity: Derek Parfit's "Reasons and persons". He's more recently
written a large two-volume work on ethics, which I haven't read.

~~~
dwaltrip
Thanks! I will definitely check some of those out.

------
Millennium
If "the normal well-tempered mind" is an achievement, rather than the base
state, then can it really be called normal at all?

------
mugwumpjissom
[http://www.dhamma.org/](http://www.dhamma.org/)

