Boadella Interview with Daniel C. Dennett 
Interview by Enrique Font and Esther Desfilis. Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology. University of Valencia. Extracted from the magazine:
method Daniel C.
Dennett, described by some as the new Bertrand Russell, is a character difficult to summarize. In several hundred articles and numerous books, from "Content and Consciousness" (1969) to "brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds" (1998), Dennett has explored topics as diverse as language, cognition, consciousness, artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind and the theory of evolution, and all of them have acquired international recognition indisputable. Educated at Harvard and Oxford, where he received his doctorate in 1965, Dennett describes himself as a philosopher, but his work offers a vision of philosophy quite different from that until now were used. For most scientists, philosophers are humanists who do not know anything about science. Dennett, however, an attentive follower of the scientific and technical language understood better than most scientists.
Daniel C.
Dennett (1942) is Distinguished Arts and Sciences Professor and Director, Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University (Massachusetts, USA). Last November, Dennett visited Valencia to participate in the conference "Evolution: From molecules to Ecosystems" organized by the Instituto Cavanilles, University of Valencia. The Congress met at the Botanical Garden of the University to a large representation of biologists from several countries and involved some of the leading specialists in the field of evolutionary biology.
For several days we had the opportunity to personally meet Dennett and talk to him about various subjects, and especially about his ideas about evolution. The theory of evolution has been a recurring theme in the work of Dennett, and she has dedicated one of his most recent book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), translated into Castilian as the Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Ballantine Books, 1999) . In this book, Dennett explores the implications of Darwin's legacy from the perspective of a philosopher. For Dennett, the Darwinian revolution was not only scientific but also philosophical and philosophical implications are precisely what make Darwin's idea is dangerous. Dangerous because it promises-no-transform deep threat our traditional view of what life and our place in the universe.
Dennett is, of course, a philosopher to use. One aspect of his personality is most surprising is his tremendous curiosity about all they have to say the scientists. His reflections on the biology are not based on Aristotle, Plato, Kant and other oracles usual, but in the work of its own biologists. Dennett does know how to listen to scientists and takes good note of what you hear. During the conference sessions on the evolution we see him taking notes with a vehemence that would pale the most devout of our college students-even conference that many biologists had described as boring, and repeatedly had to provide extra paper so he could continue writing.
What philosophy can contribute to biology?
First we must clarify that there is no philosophy-free science. There is science that you do not take the trouble to examine your budget philosophy, and science that if you do, but there is always philosophical assumptions. Maybe you're lucky - very lucky! - And the philosophical foundations of your knowledge are harmless and neutral. In fact, it is rare that this is the case. The contribution which philosophy is simply to expose the philosophical assumptions of science and see if they are good. To do well you must know the science in question. Much of the philosophy of science that is done today is useless because it is educated in the relevant science. In this sense, philosophers who have done their homework and have learned biology may make an interesting contribution.
His book Darwin's Dangerous Idea has been the book on Darwinism that has generated more comments in recent years, why do you think that is why the book has received so much attention?
I think I was lucky enough to express ideas in the time needed to be expressed. When my book was published many people were starting to think about a more general view of Darwinism, I only did a few months before they did others. I remember when I was working on the book thinking, "I'll be lucky if I have posted before someone writes a book on the subject." I could hear how others around me began to express those same ideas, and indeed several books that came out shortly after my own ideas were very similar. I was lucky to be there a few months before them.
What do you feel a philosopher to be invited to participate in a conference on evolutionary biology?
I love that I get invited to these conferences, I find fascinating. I am very pleased with the reception my book has been among biologists. He concluded that the fact that I am invited to conferences and its workshops is a sign that they think I have something to contribute, and indeed these meetings cover a large part of my life since the publication of the book. During the last five years I have been to more departments and conferences in philosophy of biology.
The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe book Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that a simple natural selection algorithm is applicable to a large number of phenomena of various kinds, some of whom had not even been considered by biologists and other scientists . In his previous books had references to evolution but this is the first book devoted entirely to this subject. How he became interested in evolutionary biology?
I always believed that evolutionary thinking was important for understanding learning, to understand how the brain works. In fact in my first book, Content and consciousnessContenido and awareness), I outlined an evolutionary theory of learning. Over the years, I was impressed that such negative reactions caused evolutionary thinking among people in my field of cognitive science in general. People who, to my surprise, showed a very strong aversion to evolutionary thinking for reasons that neither they were able to support themselves, and so I became interested in opposition to evolutionary thought. The more we looked, the more convinced I had to write a book on the subject, and in the process learned a lot about evolutionary biology did not know, the more I learned more fascinating it seemed. (Published in Castilian as
Why do you think that evolution arouses so much interest today?
I think there are many reasons. One of them, of course, has been the tremendous progress in molecular biology and the genome project. Also people begin to realize that environmental problems and diseases are primarily developmental problems. We will not find good solutions to such pressing problems as global warming or epidemics if we have an evolutionary perspective. Another source of interest is computing, in which evolutionary approaches to software development and genetic algorithms are having a great success. This means that people are beginning to understand that, whether he wants to or not, evolutionary algorithms are everywhere.
The book uses metaphors of "cranes" and "hooks hanging from the sky." Could you explain what you mean by "lift"?
There are different ways of seeing evolution, I see the work that the evolution as a rise in the design space. The basic mechanism of natural selection as an elevator is very slow and gradual, is like pushing something up a ramp. People who resent the power of evolution have searched for things that would not be possible to arrive by the ramp because they are too wonderful, and looked for miracles come from above, "hooks hanging from the sky." But instead found that the process of natural selection itself has created very effective lifting, which I call "cranes." A crane is a device that performs local elevations very effectively. In relation evolution, a crane is a phenomenon that allows a more rapid, which makes the evolutionary process forward more quickly and efficiently. So sex is a crane indisputable because, once you recombination, it allows a much faster path through the design space. In fact, sex has to provide important benefits because you have to pay the initial price is effectively split in half. The beauty of view sex as a crane is that it appeared to be a crane. We must not make the mistake of thinking that evolution has a plan. But once the sex appeared on the scene quickly to explore the design space than was possible before. Language is also a powerful crane. Thanks to him we have genetic engineering, which is the latest in a series of evolutionary acceleration due to our own species. Artificial selection, as Darwin said, was a powerful amplifier of the selection, but it's nothing compared with genetic engineering. We now have plants with firefly genes that glow in the dark. This means saving an enormous distance in the space of possibilities, something that was extremely unlikely before genetic engineering.
Some renowned scientists like Stephen J. Gould criticized in his book. What were these criticisms and responded Gould them?
suggested in my book Stephen J. Gould had been reporting a distorted idea of \u200b\u200bthe current state of evolutionary theory ... and certainly did not expect to sit well such an accusation. So his answer was not at all unexpected, although it was disappointing. Wrote a very angry response (see Darwinian Fundamentalism, 1997), very emotional, but not directly respond to the criticism that I did.
One of the authors who apparently has inspired him in the field of evolutionary biology has been Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene. What is your opinion on the work of Dawkins?
Interestingly, at first when I heard about the Dawkins book, I did not read it, because the title made me think it would be an explanation or pseudoexplicación genetics of human selfishness, and thought it was stupid and I'm not interested in reading it. What happened is that my partner, Douglas Horstatdter, read it and said, "Dan, you have to read this book." I did and I became a fan of Dawkins
Could Gould's reaction might be due in part to philosophical support you have given to the ideas of R. Dawkins, J. Maynard Smith and other well-known neo-Darwinism?
In the U.S., ideas Dawkins and Maynard Smith on evolution have been silenced and Gould have great guilt about it, that is, he has been very convincing in presenting his own vision of the evolutionary process as the correct view. Even has deterred public television broadcast in the laying out other views. For example, Dawkins made a number of excellent programs on the development for the BBC have never been seen in the U.S.. Why? Because public television consultants, including Gould, said they were not good. But Gould is not alone, in a way Steven Rose plays a similar role in England or Lewontin, ... is terrible, but true.
Why do you think that some biologists are so concerned Gould impose a watered down version of Darwinism, that is, accept that there are natural phenomena that can not be explained by the simple algorithm of natural selection?
is something I've always tried to find out, I have some suspicions but I refuse to give a diagnosis. Some facts, however, are obvious. Many of the reasons that people have to resist a full-Darwinism, with all its force, are political in a broad sense. People are reluctant to give much importance to science in the explanatory project, so as to protect certain kinds of human phenomena of any explanation scientific. This is in some sense a political project. There are people on both the right and the left who want to keep science in place. I think Gould is sympathetic to the kind of deconstructive notions of science who claim that science does not have a vantage point on the path to the truth and I do not agree with that vision.
In his book states that "prudence dictates that religion be kept in cages."
absolutely necessary. This is probably the sentence of the book most often quoted out of context. The examples I gave included the religions that practice animal sacrifice, slavery of women, ... and I made it very clear all of us, in all countries, put limits to religious freedom. We would not allow religion to enslave or to make human sacrifices. And in that context I said that religious freedom has its limits and so did the parallel with the animals confined in zoos. And every time a religious person reproach me that phrase, I say: you accept the fatwa against Salman Rusdi? If you do not agree, then you agree with me.
What is your opinion about the teaching of creationism to children in schools?
This is a very real problem in the U.S.. There are many teachers, even university professors who support creationism to be taught in schools, and for me this is very harmful. I do not propose we have brought in cages, but I think we should make it clear as publicly as possible that people are afraid to teach the truth. Your kids ask when they grow up: Why do I tell these lies? Did not thought it would be able to face the truth? I think lying to a child is bad. Of course, there lies that appear benign, such as Santa Claus. Sometimes I marvel that people feel comfortable with this, because I think it sets a bad precedent: here we have more people conspiring to deceive children about something that sooner or later will find that is a lie. If adults impose creationism or creation science their children will come when children are going to say: Why do we deceive ourselves?
Will continue to explore the implications of Darwinism?
Oh yeah, now I'm working on a book about the evolution of free will. It's something I tried and at very rudimentary in my book Elbow Room. I firmly believe that, at least in the U.S., many people's resistance to evolutionary thinking is due to fear rob us of our freedom. They think that if we consider the Homo sapiens as one more product of evolution, like any other animal, our image of ourselves and our free will will be destroyed. I want to argue just the opposite: no free will really understand until we know what it is and how it evolved, and I want to do is to contrast the human free will as a phenomenon evolutionary animal free will. And the difference is huge. They are as different as human language and birdsong. Both are products of evolution, but human language is undoubtedly a complex phenomenon, interesting and productive than the song of the bird, this is beautiful. Human free will is much more complex and interesting than the free will of the bird to fly anywhere. I think if people understand that we can place of human freedom in an evolutionary context will be able to understand and appreciate it better.
Do animals have free will?
not interesting in a sense, partly because they are morally responsible. This is the key point of free will.
Recently, some researchers have begun to implement an evolutionary perspective to the study of behavior and the human mind. What do you think about this new discipline called evolutionary psychology that many?
My ideas about evolutionary psychology are mixed and Darwin's Dangerous Idea tried to give a balanced view. I think that has been established between evolutionary psychologists a siege mentality, and it is a shame. It is assumed that all effort must be against our critics and, therefore, is strongly frowned criticize from the inside because ... We have enough enemies out! I think it's a big mistake. We must be very critical of second-class work in the field and I think it has been quite ... It is not pleasant to criticize the work of your own side, but it is important to do, and do it openly yet with such severity as necessary. I think the level in evolutionary psychology should be considerably higher. The good stuff is good and the bad stuff is terrible. I recently spoke of a science fiction writer named Sturgeon enunciated the so-called Sturgeon's Law, which says that 95% of everything is crap. And I guess this can also be applied to philosophy and molecular biology. We need eyes from the second-class material and concentrate on that which is really good, ie, to criticize but also to support. Among evolutionary psychologists have tended to reject cultural explanations, which are also the result of evolution. Anyway, I think their contributions are useful and valuable, and people should not resist them because they hear only ideological diatribes against him.
One of the issues on which much has been written is the mind. How close are we understand the mind?
I think we're very close. I recently reviewed a series of essays that will appear in a special issue of the journal Cognition devoted to the neuroscientific approaches to human consciousness. I was invited to do a review article in which he had views on whether or not those jobs accounted for consciousness, and my answer was a resounding "Yes." I think we are making excellent progress. As in the case of evolutionary biology, new technologies are inundating us with lots of data. There are techniques for visualizing the brain noninvasively, and modeling techniques for exploring failures and Hit more complex models which could be studied before. Today, everyone starts from a much more sophisticated than it was ten or fifteen years and I think the pieces are fitting very well.
How does the future of relations between biology and social sciences?
The truth is I do not know, but I think it will be very complicated ... one hand we see a young discipline of evolutionary economics, see evolutionary approaches to political theory, history, psychology, ... Can not say there are not people who are beginning to Darwinized their disciplines. They exist and are doing very interesting work, but also There is a long history of antipathy, skepticism, and that in some cases seems to be intensified. In the field of anthropology is a scandal. Physical anthropologists are evolutionary and cultural anthropologists see any consideration of evolution as the most terrible of heresies and seems to be no cure for it. The only possible cure is to wait for those social anthropologists, cultural anthropologists and those students will retire and be replaced by subspecies better.
