Citazioni di Daniel Dennett

70 citazioni

Biology is Engineering.

X è reale, ma non è ciò che tu pensi.

The mind is the effect, not the cause.

Words are memes that can be pronounced.

We philosophers are mistake specialists.

Noi filosofi siamo specialisti di errori.

What you can imagine depends on what you know.

The earth has grown a nervous system, and it's us.

Wherever there is a conscious mind, there is a point of view.

I think religion for many people is some sort of moral viagra.

True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps.

Qualunque teoria che genera progresso è inizialmente contro-intuitiva.

Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the fact-finders.

Neither Darwin nor Nietzsche was politically correct, fortunately for us.

Any theory that makes progress is bound to be initially counterintuitive.

Imagination is cheap as long as you don't have to worry about the details.

Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares.

Religion, like love and music, is natural. But so are smoking, war, and death.

Fortunatamente per noi, né Darwin, né Nietzsche furono politicamente corretti.

Love is blind, as they say, and because love is blind, it often leads to tragedy.

Life itself is just a thin coat of paint on the planet, and we hold the paintbrush.

There is a time for politeness and there is a time when you are obliged to be rude.

The only answer to the endless chains of why, why, why is that the alternatives died.

Nemmeno una delle cellule che ti compongono ti conosce né si interessa di chi tu sia."

Most people in the West who say they believe in God actually believe in belief in God.

The recognition of the difference between appearance and reality is a human discovery.

There is no polite way to suggest to someone that they have devoted their life to a folly.

Philosophers' Syndrome: mistaking a failure of the imagination for an insight into necessity.

I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and we philosophers are better at questions than answers.

The secret of happiness is: Find something more important than you are and dedicate your life to it.

There are no forces on this planet more dangerous to all of us than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism.

There's no polite way to say to somebody (religious followers) 'Do you realize you've wasted your life?'

The more you have invested in your religion, the more you will be motivated to protect that investment.

Darwin's idea of natural selection makes people uncomfortable because it reverses the direction of tradition.

One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance.

Le religioni si trasmettono culturalmente, attraverso il linguaggio e il simbolismo, non certo attraverso i geni.

Go ahead and believe in God, if you like, but don't imagine that you have been given any grounds for such a belief by science.

The distinction between responsible moral agents and beings with diminished or no responsibility is coherent, real, and important.

In the long run I certainly hope information is the cure for fanaticism, but I am afraid information is more the cause than the cure.

I didn’t plan to become an atheist. I didn’t even want to become an atheist. It’s just that I had no choice. If I’m being honest with myself.

Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species - us.

Some of the greatest, most revolutionary advances in science have been given their initial expression in attractively modest terms, with no fanfare.

[Le religioni sono] sistemi sociali i cui partecipanti affermano di credere in uno o più agenti soprannaturali di cui bisogna cercare l'approvazione.

Words, I will argue, are the best example of memes, culturally transmitted items that evolve by differential replication—that is, by natural selection.

The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern.

There may be things that are completely unknowable to us, so we must be careful not to treat the limits of our knowledge as sure guides to the limit of what there is.

Philosophers who know only philosophy consign themselves to a janitorial role in the great enterprises of exploration that are illuminating the mysteries of our lives.

Even the most vaunted experts are susceptible to wishful thinking and can be blinded to a truth by a conviction that is supported more by emotional attachment than reason.

Science, however, is not just a matter of making mistakes, but of making mistakes in public. Making mistakes for all to see, in the hopes of getting the others to help with the corrections.

Può darsi che il meglio che si possa dire della religione sia che essa aiuta molta gente a innalzarsi a un livello di civismo e moralità tipicamente riscontrabile nelle persone brillanti [brights].

Americans are notoriously ill-informed about evolution. A recent Gallup poll (June 1993) discovered that 47 percent of adult Americans believe that Homo sapiens is a species created by God less than ten thousand years ago.

Human beings are actually more closely related to the two species of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes, the familiar chimp, and Pan paniscus, the rare, smaller pygmy chimp or bonobo) than those chimpanzees are to the other apes.

You don't get to advertise all the good that your religion does without first scrupulously subtracting all the harm it does and considering seriously the question of whether some other religion, or no religion at all, does better.

Our fundamental tactic of self-protection, self-control, and self-definition is not spinning webs or building dams, but telling stories, and more particularly connecting and controlling the story we tell others - and ourselves - about who we are.

To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.

People who want to study religion usually have an ax to grind. They either want to defend their favorite religion from its critics or want to demonstrate the irrationality and futility of religion, and this tends to infect their methods with bias.

We live in a world that is subjectively open. And we are designed by evolution to be "informavores", epistemically hungry seekers of information, in an endless quest to improve our purchase on the world, the better to make decisions about our subjectively open future.

The real danger, I think, is not that machines more intelligent than we are will usurp our role as captains of our destinies, but that we will over-estimate the comprehension of our latest thinking tools, prematurely ceding authority to them far beyond their competence.

The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore so it eats it!

Up till now [the development of proto-consciousness], we can suppose, nervous systems solved the "Now what do I do?" problem by a relatively simple balancing act between a strictly limited repertoire of actions — if not the famous four F's (fight, flee, feed, or mate), then a modest elaboration of them.

Every living thing is, from the cosmic perspective, incredibly lucky simply to be alive. Most, 90 percent and more, of all the organisms that have ever lived have died without viable offspring, but not a single one of your ancestors, going back to the dawn of life on Earth, suffered that normal misfortune. You spring from an unbroken line of winners...

I listen to all these complaints about rudeness and intemperateness, and the opinion that I come to is that there is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion? But that’s a good question to ask. Of course we should ask that question and of course it’s going to offend people. Tough.

If I were to give a prize for the single best idea anybody ever had, I'd give it to Darwin for the idea of natural selection - ahead of Newton, ahead of Einstein - because his idea unites the two most disparate features of our universe: the world of purposeless, meaningless matter and motion, particles jostling on the one side, and the world of meaning and purpose, design on the other.

If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things.

The traditional view of purpose says it comes from on high, from God, from the Creator. Darwin's idea of natural selection makes people uncomfortable because it reverses the direction of tradition. Whereas people used to think of meaning coming from on high and being ordained from the top down, now we have Darwin saying, "No, all of this design can happen, all of this purpose can emerge from the bottom up without any direction at all."

After Darwin, God's role changes from being the designer of all creatures great and small to being the designer of the laws of nature, from which natural selection can unfold, to being perhaps just the chooser of the laws. By the time God's role has been so diminished, he becomes a bit like a constitutional monarch, presiding ceremonially but not having any more work to do. That's a place for God if it makes people comfortable to keep God as the presider over the universe. I suppose that is satisfying for many.

I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound. It was a useful crutch, but we've outgrown it. Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue. We should certainly hope that those who believe in belief are wrong, because belief is waning fast, and the props are beginning to buckle.

I was once interviewed in Italy and the headline of the interview the next day was wonderful. I saved this for my collection it was... "YES we have a soul but it's made of lots of tiny robots" and I thought that's exactly right. Yes we have a soul, but it's mechanical. But it's still a soul, it still does the work that the soul was supposed to do. It is the seat of reason. It is the seat of moral responsibility. It's why we are appropriate objects of punishment when we do evil things, why we deserve the praise when we do good things. It's just not a mysterious lump of wonder stuff... that will out live us.

Sono un filosofo, non un biologo, né un antropologo, né un sociologo, né uno storico, né un teologo. Noi filosofi siamo più bravi a porre le domande che trovare le risposte, e questo può dare l'impressione di una comica ammissione di futilità: "Dice che la sua specialità è fare domande, non dare risposte. Che lavoro buffo! E lo pagano per questo?". Ma chiunque si sia mai misurato con un problema veramente arduo sa che una delle cose più difficili è trovare le domande giuste e il giusto ordine in cui porle: devi capire non solo cosa non sai, ma anche cosa hai bisogno di sapere e cosa non ti serve sapere, e cosa devi sapere per capire cosa hai bisogno di sapere, e via di seguito.

Potremmo scoprire che le religioni sono una specie di simbionti culturali che prosperano saltando da un portatore a un altro. Potrebbero essere mutualisti: rinforzare la fitness umana o addirittura rendere possibile la vita umana, proprio come fanno i batteri nel nostro intestino. Oppure, potrebbero essere commensali: cioè neutrali, né buoni né cattivi nei nostri confronti, ma disposti a stare a guardare. O infine potrebbero essere parassiti: replicatori nocivi che faremmo meglio a non avere (almeno per quanto ne va del nostro interesse genetico) ma che è difficile eliminare, perché si sono evoluti davvero bene per contrastare le nostre difese e incrementare la loro propagazione.

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

70 citazioni