car0's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
ajith_wordshaker's review against another edition
2.0
Expected some idea which uncovers the mystery behind the evolution and the very existence of humans and other species on earth. But I got a 600 page essay, where I can't find anything interesting or useful related to evolution.
rhyslindmark's review against another edition
3.0
This was excellent, but it's tough to give it the full five stars.
The first 1/3 is a great overview of Darwinian evolution, full of classic Dennett intuition pumps.
The remaining 2/3rds is Dennett engaging in long philosophical debates with contemporaries from the 1990s. It's speckled with a few highlights, like how ethics evolved.
Read the first 1/3rd and skim the remainder.
The first 1/3 is a great overview of Darwinian evolution, full of classic Dennett intuition pumps.
The remaining 2/3rds is Dennett engaging in long philosophical debates with contemporaries from the 1990s. It's speckled with a few highlights, like how ethics evolved.
Read the first 1/3rd and skim the remainder.
amralsayed0's review against another edition
5.0
This book is brilliant!
I really like that Dennett early on set up analogies like "skyhook" and "crane" and concepts like "Library of Babel" and "Library of Mendel" and after explaining them pretty well leans on that effort for the rest of the book to explain other ideas.
It was particularly interesting to me, given my computer science background, the parallels Dennett drew between optimization algorithms and Darwin's evolution. It was fascinating seeing concepts I'm very familiar with like Conway's Game of Life and search trees and optimization algorithms being used to describe seemingly unrelated theories in biology.
But the later chapters were ... shorter than I expected. I wanted Dennett to go into more depth about morality and its relation to evolution. He critiques other philosophers' moral theories and those who subscribe to social Darwinism relentlessly but offers no moral theory of his own. I suspect that Dennett's view on morality prevents him from making grand statements about it and prefers to stay on the defensive when it comes to morality.
On somewhat of a tangent, I learned the Dennett describes himself as an autodidact and after discovering this word, I completely identify with it! It shows in this book that he studied a wide range of fields from philosophy to biology to computer science and it's amazing to see the view of such a person on evolution.
I really like that Dennett early on set up analogies like "skyhook" and "crane" and concepts like "Library of Babel" and "Library of Mendel" and after explaining them pretty well leans on that effort for the rest of the book to explain other ideas.
It was particularly interesting to me, given my computer science background, the parallels Dennett drew between optimization algorithms and Darwin's evolution. It was fascinating seeing concepts I'm very familiar with like Conway's Game of Life and search trees and optimization algorithms being used to describe seemingly unrelated theories in biology.
But the later chapters were ... shorter than I expected. I wanted Dennett to go into more depth about morality and its relation to evolution. He critiques other philosophers' moral theories and those who subscribe to social Darwinism relentlessly but offers no moral theory of his own. I suspect that Dennett's view on morality prevents him from making grand statements about it and prefers to stay on the defensive when it comes to morality.
On somewhat of a tangent, I learned the Dennett describes himself as an autodidact and after discovering this word, I completely identify with it! It shows in this book that he studied a wide range of fields from philosophy to biology to computer science and it's amazing to see the view of such a person on evolution.
kahawa's review against another edition
4.0
This is the fourth Dennett book I've read, and I can now say I've understood and enjoyed 1/8 of them (here's what I thought of Consciousness Explained ;) ). The first half of DDI was painful and waffley, which is how I've experienced Dennett's other books - they promise so much, but they just don't deliver. The second half of DDI was great, in that it was mostly coherent and followable. I find many of Dennett's thought experiments to be convoluted, and his explanations of logical issues to be vague, with perhaps a lot of implied information in his allegories, which are legion, and jarring, and often unnecessary. He uses abstruse examples where clear, logical explanations would suffice.
One of my biggest gripes with DDI is that he didn't, IMO, explain Darwinian evolution as clearly as he should have, nor as often as he should have throughout the book. Evolution isn't a force. Evolution is what we call what gets left over after everything else has died. There are things that can replicate, and there is variation in the replication, and then there is an environment, and some replications survive, and some don't. Whatever survives is whatever survives. I think a lot of books don't make this very clear, and they keep implying that evolution creates something by selecting the fittest. Perhaps this is a remnant of our ancient teleological thinking, because by the time humans came to exist as conscious, rational beings, we were seeing things come into being that were the product of pseudo-teleology, or what Dennett would call a crane (a bottom up process requiring no special, supernatural intervention) that looks like a sky hook (a special case, in which something is inserted into the system that couldn't have come from a natural process). We were designing things, and now we're inclined to see all order as the product of teleological design, rather than sophisticated cranes made from cranes.
Where was I? So yeah, I think he could have reiterated this throughout the book, and it would have been more convincing and more powerful.
Dennett's writing style is often frustratingly unclear. As I mentioned above, he drifts in and out of analogies and thought experiments and logical reasoning while quoting poets and philosophers. Occasionally I would find myself understanding a sentence, but having no idea why he's talking about it. Perhaps I'm just not clever enough for this writing level. I suspect it's all part of his magisterial style of comprehensively addressing something from every possible angle so that by the time he's finished he's sewn together a complete and unassailable argument. To me it feels scattered and incomplete.
That said, he did a very thorough job of critiquing Gould and Chomsky, who for some reason can't give up sky hooks.
Toward the end of the book Dennett tries to talk about morality, and it's a bit weak. He also excoriates religion while suggesting a kind of coexistence with it. His criticisms are valid, but his suggestions are a bit absurd - ie, that religions be preserved in cultural zoos. Besides the fact that many religious people simply wouldn't allow it, what would be preserved wouldn't be the same religion, since many religions have features that require they be followed and proselyted. Dennett is really saying, "I don't want those belief systems because I think they're bad," which is in essence what everyone thinks of everyone else.
I'll add this book to my 'might read again one day' list. Perhaps I'll get more out of the first half.
One of my biggest gripes with DDI is that he didn't, IMO, explain Darwinian evolution as clearly as he should have, nor as often as he should have throughout the book. Evolution isn't a force. Evolution is what we call what gets left over after everything else has died. There are things that can replicate, and there is variation in the replication, and then there is an environment, and some replications survive, and some don't. Whatever survives is whatever survives. I think a lot of books don't make this very clear, and they keep implying that evolution creates something by selecting the fittest. Perhaps this is a remnant of our ancient teleological thinking, because by the time humans came to exist as conscious, rational beings, we were seeing things come into being that were the product of pseudo-teleology, or what Dennett would call a crane (a bottom up process requiring no special, supernatural intervention) that looks like a sky hook (a special case, in which something is inserted into the system that couldn't have come from a natural process). We were designing things, and now we're inclined to see all order as the product of teleological design, rather than sophisticated cranes made from cranes.
Where was I? So yeah, I think he could have reiterated this throughout the book, and it would have been more convincing and more powerful.
Dennett's writing style is often frustratingly unclear. As I mentioned above, he drifts in and out of analogies and thought experiments and logical reasoning while quoting poets and philosophers. Occasionally I would find myself understanding a sentence, but having no idea why he's talking about it. Perhaps I'm just not clever enough for this writing level. I suspect it's all part of his magisterial style of comprehensively addressing something from every possible angle so that by the time he's finished he's sewn together a complete and unassailable argument. To me it feels scattered and incomplete.
That said, he did a very thorough job of critiquing Gould and Chomsky, who for some reason can't give up sky hooks.
Toward the end of the book Dennett tries to talk about morality, and it's a bit weak. He also excoriates religion while suggesting a kind of coexistence with it. His criticisms are valid, but his suggestions are a bit absurd - ie, that religions be preserved in cultural zoos. Besides the fact that many religious people simply wouldn't allow it, what would be preserved wouldn't be the same religion, since many religions have features that require they be followed and proselyted. Dennett is really saying, "I don't want those belief systems because I think they're bad," which is in essence what everyone thinks of everyone else.
I'll add this book to my 'might read again one day' list. Perhaps I'll get more out of the first half.
zoes_human's review against another edition
3.0
It has taken me two years and five months to read this. Philosophy and I have never quite meshed. There's something about it, most of the time, that just utterly evades me. I find myself lost and wondering what the practical application of it is. Regardless, I like to exercise my mind, and this was certainly a workout for me.
It seems unhelpfully verbose and obscure at times. I'm not entirely certain who Dennett is trying to convince, but most folks are going to struggle to understand this. I did on numerous occasions, and I'm pretty sure I agree with him. At least, I agree with the bits I understood.
Also, did Gould fuck his wife or something? Such hostility seems well beyond that which would manifest as a result of philosophical or scientific disagreement.
It seems unhelpfully verbose and obscure at times. I'm not entirely certain who Dennett is trying to convince, but most folks are going to struggle to understand this. I did on numerous occasions, and I'm pretty sure I agree with him. At least, I agree with the bits I understood.
Also, did Gould fuck his wife or something? Such hostility seems well beyond that which would manifest as a result of philosophical or scientific disagreement.
adamz24's review against another edition
4.0
Much more interesting than Dennett's dealings with consciousness, and easily the best argument for the validity of his status in Philosophy, that I know of.
wmainwold's review against another edition
5.0
This book is a great resource for semi-knowledgeable students of evolution. Plus Daniel Dennet is a cognitive scientist, so I obviously love him.