Podcast appearances and mentions of Hubert Dreyfus

In this episode of Sticky from the Inside, host Andy Goram sits down with leadership coach and visionary, Dan Tocchini to explore the transformative power of vision, resilience, and authentic connections in leadership and company culture. Dan shares profound insights on how embracing discomfort and facing personal and professional "exile" can lead to deeper wisdom, stronger relationships, and extraordinary success. Discover why a strong vision is the cornerstone of effective leadership and how it can free you from being held hostage by past failures or current circumstances. Learn how to cultivate resilience and stay committed to your goals, even in the face of adversity, and why authentic connections are forged in the toughest of times. If you're looking to transform your approach to leadership and company culture, this episode is packed with actionable advice and thought-provoking concepts that will inspire you to lead with purpose, overcome challenges, and create lasting impact. ----more---- Key Takeaways How to turn discomfort into a powerful tool for personal and professional growth. The role of vision in freeing leaders from the constraints of history and circumstance. Why resilience and commitment are crucial for achieving extraordinary results. The importance of facing reality head-on to unlock new opportunities for success. ----more---- Key Moments The key moments in this episode are: 00:00:10 - Introduction to Sticky from the Inside 00:03:14 - Dan Tocchini on Transforming Leadership and Company Culture 00:06:15 - The Role of Philosophy in Leadership Development 00:09:57 - Phenomenology and Neuroscience: Understanding Leadership Behaviour 00:12:24 - How Vision Shapes Leadership and Company Success 00:19:38 - Embracing Discomfort for Personal and Professional Growth 00:26:54 - The Importance of Resilience and Commitment in Leadership 00:33:13 - Leading Through Crisis: Lessons from Personal Tragedy 00:39:00 - Overcoming Exile in Business Leadership 00:44:04 - Authentic Connections and Emotional Intelligence in Leadership 0000:46:40 - Key Takeaways: Mastering Leadership and Creating Impact ----more---- Join The Conversation Find Andy Goram on LinkedIn here Listen to the Podcast on YouTube here Follow the Podcast on Instagram here Follow the Podcast on Twitter here Follow the Podcast on Facebook here Check out the Bizjuicer website here Get a free consultation with Andy here Check out the Bizjuicer blog here Download the podcast here ----more---- Useful Links Follow Dan Tocchini on LinkedIn here Follow Dan on Instagram here Find the Take New Ground website here Find out more about Phenomenology here Find out about Hubert Dreyfus here ----more---- Full Episode Transcript Get the full transcript of the episode here

Books in the Video:   • Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor - Retrieving Realism • Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Phenomenology of Perception • Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman - How Enlightenment Changes Your Brain: The New Science of Transformation • Elaine Scarry - On Beauty and Being Just   Series Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Vervaeke.John/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/vervaeke_john   Eleventh episode of Dr. John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis.

We're on break this month, but are sharing some favorite episodes from our archives to tide you over. Enjoy, friends!   I'm betting you've heard about the next generation of artificial intelligence, the one that's just around the corner. It's going to be pervasive, all-competent, maybe super-intelligent. We'll rely on it to drive cars, write novels, diagnose diseases, and make scientific breakthroughs. It will do all these things better, faster, more safely than we bumbling humans ever could. The thing is, we've been promised this for years. If this next level of AI is coming, it seems to be taking its time. Might it be that AI is simply harder than we thought? My guest today is Dr. Melanie Mitchell. She is the Davis Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and the author of a number of books, including her latest, which is titled ‘Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.'  In this conversation we zoom in on Melanie's widely discussed recent essay, 'Why AI is harder than we think.' We talk about the repeating cycle of hype and disenchantment within AI, and how it stretches back to the first years of the field. We walk through four fallacies that Mitchell identifies that lead us to think that super smart AI is closer than it actually is. We talk about self-driving cars, brittleness, adversarial perturbations, Moravec's paradox, analogy, brains in vats, and embodied cognition, among other topics. And we discuss an all-important concept, one we can't easily define but we can all agree AI is sorely lacking: common sense.  Across her scholarly publications and public-facing essays, Melanie has recently emerged as one of our most cogent and thoughtful guides to AI research. I've been following her work for a while now and was really stoked to get to chat with her. Her essay is insightful, lucid, and just plain fun—if you enjoy this conversation, I definitely suggest you check it out for yourselves.  Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Melanie Mitchell. And for those in the US—happy thanksgiving!  The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here.    Notes and links 5:00 – A recent essay by Dr. Mitchell on self-driving cars and common sense. 14:00 – An influential paper from 2013 titled ‘Intriguing properties of neural networks.' 16:50 – A video introduction to “deep learning.” 19:00 – A paper on “first step fallacies” in AI by Hubert Dreyfus. 21:00 – For a discussion of Alpha Go's recent success with the game of Go, see our earlier interview with Dr. Marta Halina. 26:00 – An influential 1976 paper titled, ‘Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity.' 31:00 – A popular Twitter account that tags recent findings with “In mice.” 38:00 – A paper by Lawrence Barsalou on “grounded cognition.” For related ideas see Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. 41:00 – A recent book by Brian Cantwell Smith, The Promise of Artificial Intelligence. 43:00 – An article on the idea of “core knowledge.” 47:00 – The CYC project. 49:30 – A recent article by Dr. Mitchell about analogies people have been using to understand COVID-19. 50:30 – An op-ed by Dr. Mitchell about why we should not worry os much about super-intelligence.   End-of-show recommendations: Dr. Mitchell's 2019 book, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans Blake et al., 2017, ‘Building Machines that Think and Learn Like People' Chollet, 2019, ‘On the Measure of Intelligence'   You can find Dr. Mitchell on Twitter (@MelMitchell1) and follow his research at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Mark is a philosopher of computation and cognitive science at Edinburgh. We start off the conversation exploring why we shouldn't attribute computation to stones and talk about instances of distributed cognition in classical antiquity. Then, we discuss the relationship between functionalism and extended cognition with the paradigmatic example of Otto's notebook and some implications for deep learning researchers. Next off is the famous Chinese Room Argument and how the 'Robot Reply' illustrates the need for embodiment when going from 'cat' syntax to cat semantics. After a quick rendezvous with the frame problem (see also Ep1), Hubert Dreyfus and Heideggerian AI, we move onto predictive coding, David Marr's three levels of analysis and the idea of representation in the brain. We finish off the conversation with some very good reading strategies and why we should all move to Edinburgh. Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (03:04) - Does a stone do computation? (08:16) - Distributed cognition in classical antiquity (20:27) - Functionalism and extended cognition (33:00) - Chinese Room Argument & Robot Reply (45:51) - Frame Problem, Hubert Dreyfus (56:47) - David Marr's Three Levels, Predictive Coding and Representation in the Brain (01:16:14) - Career advice & Why Edinburgh is the best Mark's Website (All of Mark's publications are freely available there - Yay Open Access) https://marksprevak.com/ Clark and Chalmers 1998 paper - The Extended Mind https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8284.00096 Ballard et al. 1997 paper - Off-loading information onto the environment https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/deictic-codes-for-the-embodiment-of-cognition/C8A398E8E3785B5B921DD40AA6EA5CEB Rao and Ballard 1999 paper - Predictive Coding https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dana/nn.pdf Spratling 2008 paper - Predictive Coding https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/neuro.10.004.2008/full My Twitter https://twitter.com/Embodied_AI My LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/akseli-ilmanen-842098181/

Welcome to the Convivial Society, a newsletter about technology, culture, and the moral life. In this installment you’ll find the audio version of the previous essay, “The Face Stares Back.” And along with the audio version you’ll also find an assortment of links and resources. Some of you will remember that such links used to be a regular feature of the newsletter. I’ve prioritized the essays, in part because of the information I have on click rates, but I know the links and resources are useful to more than a few of you. Moving forward, I think it makes sense to put out an occasional installment that contains just links and resources (with varying amounts of commentary from me). As always, thanks for reading and/or listening. Links and ResourcesLet’s start with a classic paper from 1965 by philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, “Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence.” The paper, prepared for the RAND Corporation, opens with a long epigraph from the 17th-century polymath Blaise Pascal on the difference between the mathematical mind and the perceptive mind. On “The Tyranny of Time”: “The more we synchronize ourselves with the time in clocks, the more we fall out of sync with our own bodies and the world around us.” More: “The Western separation of clock time from the rhythms of nature helped imperialists establish superiority over other cultures.”Relatedly, a well-documented case against Daylight Saving Time: “Farmers, Physiologists, and Daylight Saving Time”: “Fundamentally, their perspective is that we tend to do well when our body clock and social clock—the official time in our time zone—are in synch. That is, when noon on the social clock coincides with solar noon, the moment when the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky where we are. If the two clocks diverge, trouble ensues. Startling evidence for this has come from recent findings in geographical epidemiology—specifically, from mapping health outcomes within time zones.”Jasmine McNealy on “Framing and Language of Ethics: Technology, Persuasion, and Cultural Context.” Interesting forthcoming book by Kevin Driscoll: The Modem World: A Prehistory of Social Media.Great piece on Jacques Ellul by Samuel Matlack at The New Atlantis, “How Tech Despair Can Set You Free”: “But Ellul rejects it. He refuses to offer a prescription for social reform. He meticulously and often tediously presents a problem — but not a solution of the kind we expect. This is because he believed that the usual approach offers a false picture of human agency. It exaggerates our ability to plan and execute change to our fundamental social structures. It is utopian. To arrive at an honest view of human freedom, responsibility, and action, he believed, we must confront the fact that we are constrained in more ways than we like to think. Technique, says Ellul, is society’s tightest constraint on us, and we must feel the totality of its grip in order to find the freedom to act.”Evan Selinger on “The Gospel of the Metaverse.”Ryan Calo on “Modeling Through”: “The prospect that economic, physical, and even social forces could be modeled by machines confronts policymakers with a paradox. Society may expect policymakers to avail themselves of techniques already usefully deployed in other sectors, especially where statutes or executive orders require the agency to anticipate the impact of new rules on particular values. At the same time, “modeling through” holds novel perils that policymakers may be ill equipped to address. Concerns include privacy, brittleness, and automation bias, all of which law and technology scholars are keenly aware. They also include the extension and deepening of the quantifying turn in governance, a process that obscures normative judgments and recognizes only that which the machines can see. The water may be warm, but there are sharks in it.”“Why Christopher Alexander Still Matters”: “The places we love, the places that are most successful and most alive, have a wholeness about them that is lacking in too many contemporary environments, Alexander observed. This problem stems, he thought, from a deep misconception of what design really is, and what planning is.  It is not “creating from nothing”—or from our own mental abstractions—but rather, transforming existing wholes into new ones, and using our mental processes and our abstractions to guide this natural life-supporting process.” An interview with philosopher Shannon Vallor: “Re-envisioning Ethics in the Information Age”: “Instead of using the machines to liberate and enlarge our own lives, we are increasingly being asked to twist, to transform, and to constrain ourselves in order to strengthen the reach and power of the machines that we increasingly use to deliver our public services, to make the large-scale decisions that are needed in the financial realm, in health care, or in transportation. We are building a society where the control surfaces are increasingly automated systems and then we are asking humans to restrict their thinking patterns and to reshape their thinking patterns in ways that are amenable to this system. So what I wanted to do was to really reclaim some of the literature that described that process in the 20th century—from folks like Jacques Ellul, for example, or Herbert Marcuse—and then really talk about how this is happening to us today in the era of artificial intelligence and what we can do about it.”From Lance Strate in 2008: “Studying Media AS Media: McLuhan and the Media Ecology Approach.” Japan’s museum of rocks that look like faces.I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Katherine Dee for her podcast, which you can listen to here.I’ll leave you with an arresting line from Simone Weil’s notebooks: “You could not have wished to be born at a better time than this, when everything is lost.” Get full access to The Convivial Society at theconvivialsociety.substack.com/subscribe

Bu hafta Hubert Dreyfus'un "İnternet Üzerine" kitabı üzerine konuşuyoruz.Mücadele'ye hoş geldiniz.Kaynaklar: Kitap: İnternet Üzerine | On the Internet Twitter'dan Mücadele'yi takip etmeyi unutmayın: twitter.com/mucadelepodcastBizi dinleyebileceğiniz tüm platformlar: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3wZOwKwgFBsGmfG4ucjdd1?si=4upwBHInTDy8zENyeu1D9giTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/tr/podcast/m%C3%BCcadele-01/id1360454797?i=1000406560515&l=tr&mt=2Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/3093942YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2H3qK0nwR5iPGs8bNu79HAHer türlü geri bildiriminiz için;mucadelepodcast@gmail.comtwitter.com/mucadelepodcastadreslerinden bize ulaşabilirsiniz.İçeriklerimizi desteklemek istiyorsanız;patreon.com/mucadeleüzerinden bize destek olabilirsiniz.Keyifli dinlemeler!

I'm betting you've heard about the next generation of artificial intelligence, the one that's just around the corner. It's going to be pervasive, all-competent, maybe super-intelligent. We'll rely on it to drive cars, write novels, diagnose diseases, and make scientific breakthroughs. It will do all these things better, faster, more safely than we bumbling humans ever could. The thing is, we've been promised this for years. If this next level of AI is coming, it seems to be taking its time. Might it be that AI is taking awhile because it's simply harder than we thought? My guest today is Dr. Melanie Mitchell. She is the Davis Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and the author of a number of books, including her latest, which is titled ‘Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.'  In this conversation we zoom in on Melanie's widely discussed recent essay, 'Why AI is harder than we think.' We talk about the repeating cycle of hype and disenchantment within AI, and how it stretches back to the first years of the field. We walk through four fallacies that Mitchell identifies that lead us to think that super smart AI is closer than it actually is. We talk about self-driving cars, brittleness, adversarial perturbations, Moravec's paradox, analogy, brains in vats, and embodied cognition, among other topics. And we discuss an all-important concept, one we can't easily define but we can all agree AI is sorely lacking: common sense.  Across her scholarly publications and public-facing essays, Melanie has recently emerged as one of our most cogent and thoughtful guides to AI research. I've been following her work for a while now and was really stoked to get to chat with her. Her essay is insightful, lucid, and just plain fun—if you enjoy this conversation, I definitely suggest you check it out for yourselves.  Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Melanie Mitchell. And for those in the US—happy thanksgiving!  The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode will be available soon!   Notes and links 5:00 – A recent essay by Dr. Mitchell on self-driving cars and common sense. 14:00 – An influential paper from 2013 titled ‘Intriguing properties of neural networks.' 16:50 – A video introduction to “deep learning.” 19:00 – A paper on “first step fallacies” in AI by Hubert Dreyfus. 21:00 – For a discussion of Alpha Go's recent success with the game of Go, see our earlier interview with Dr. Marta Halina. 26:00 – An influential 1976 paper titled, ‘Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity.' 31:00 – A popular Twitter account that tags recent findings with “In mice.” 38:00 – A paper by Lawrence Barsalou on “grounded cognition.” For related ideas see Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. 41:00 – A recent book by Brian Cantwell Smith, The Promise of Artificial Intelligence. 43:00 – An article on the idea of “core knowledge.” 47:00 – The CYC project. 49:30 – A recent article by Dr. Mitchell about analogies people have been using to understand COVID-19. 50:30 – An op-ed by Dr. Mitchell about why we should not worry os much about super-intelligence.   End-of-show recommendations: Dr. Mitchell's 2019 book, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans Blake et al., 2017, ‘Building Machines that Think and Learn Like People' Chollet, 2019, ‘On the Measure of Intelligence'   You can find Dr. Mitchell on Twitter (@MelMitchell1) and follow his research at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

The Pill Pod takes on two definitive philosophers opposed to the fantasies of uploading consciousnesses into machines: John Searle and Hubert Dreyfus. Apologies in advance but we gotta burst your 20-year-old-cousin-who-retweets-Elon-Musk's techno-utopian bubble in a Chinese room.   If you've gone through the public feed there's more exclusive audio and video content on www.patreon.com/plasticpills

COSMOS - How does metaphysics contribute to our understanding of the world? It asks the most profound questions: What kinds of things exist? How does causality work? Sound too abstract? How about: Does God exist? Are you a soul? Featuring Michio Kaku, Bede Rundle, John Leslie, Richard Swinburne, and Hubert Dreyfus.

In this heady episode, hear more from Hubert Dreyfus, as well as some choice cuts out of William James's classic, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Are there non-ordinary states of consciousness that are nevertheless not dangerous, and maybe even positively advantageous? Can those who have not experienced mystical experience ever understand those who have? Finally, is modern Psychiatry just another mechanism of institutional control? Is Thomas Szasz right? Is Tom Cruise!?

In the best episode to date, you'll hear our boy Hubert Dreyfus along with some stuff about the Enlightenment, but mainly, just take huge quaffs of straight up literary, philosophical, and metaphysical TRUTH... or at least, hear good questions about those, including: is Captain Ahab really an okay guy, maybe, in some ways? Ahem. There's lots of talk about whether Moby-Dick is gay (it is Romantic and Hellenic, not gay) and whether the whiteness of the whale is really because Sperm Whales are Anglo-Saxon. Seriously, just thank me, even if you can't do the Patreon. I'm going to be the Jordan Peterson of 2029 at this pace.

In this unique episode, my own voice is the background music and a slowed-down Bach Sonata is the main content. You'll hear clips from John Michael Greer, Hubert Dreyfus, Ed Dutton, as well as readings of Nietzsche and Jean-Francois Lyotard. It's another experimental monologue and you get what you pay for -- like & review!

In this controversial and borderline heretical episode, we delve into the process of moving from a synopsis to an interpretation -- how does History come to have meaning? Quotes from Hubert Dreyfus illuminate us and a backdrop of Vivaldi makes this episode extra perfect for late Fall.

Keri and Carter chat with Keri's paster, Bradley Helgerson. Bradley serves as the Minister of the Word for the Church on the Square in Georgetown, Texas. He is also a PhD Candidate in Church and Dogma History at North-West University.  You can find his teaching at the Church on the Square's YouTube channel and Facebook page. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thechurchonthesquare Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYexyKgTPKCpWKw7KBlhffA/ REFERENCES FROM TODAY'S SHOW: George Lakoff: https://georgelakoff.com/ Jonathan Haidt: https://jonathanhaidt.com/ Hubert Dreyfus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus John Vervaeke: https://johnvervaeke.com/ Clay Routledge book _Supernatural_: https://amzn.to/3j25O9o Thanks for watching! Please don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. Follow us on the following social media channels...at least until we get banned: Twitter: @unsafespace Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsafepage Instagram: @_unsafespace Gab: @unsafe Minds: @unsafe Parler: @unsafespace Telegram Chat: https://t.me/joinchat/H4OUclXTz4xwF9EapZekPg Pick up some Unsafe Space merch at unsafespace.com! YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/KRP9IY9RGjQ

Keri and Carter chat with Keri's paster, Bradley Helgerson. Bradley serves as the Minister of the Word for the Church on the Square in Georgetown, Texas. He is also a PhD Candidate in Church and Dogma History at North-West University.  You can find his teaching at the Church on the Square’s YouTube channel and Facebook page. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thechurchonthesquare Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYexyKgTPKCpWKw7KBlhffA/ REFERENCES FROM TODAY'S SHOW: George Lakoff: https://georgelakoff.com/ Jonathan Haidt: https://jonathanhaidt.com/ Hubert Dreyfus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus John Vervaeke: https://johnvervaeke.com/ Clay Routledge book _Supernatural_: https://amzn.to/3j25O9o Thanks for watching! Please don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. Follow us on the following social media channels...at least until we get banned: Twitter: @unsafespace Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsafepage Instagram: @_unsafespace Gab: @unsafe Minds: @unsafe Parler: @unsafespace Telegram Chat: https://t.me/joinchat/H4OUclXTz4xwF9EapZekPg Pick up some Unsafe Space merch at unsafespace.com! YouTube link to video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/KRP9IY9RGjQ

Esse é o quarto episódio do podcast Gênero, estado e processos de subjetivação, em que apresento o contexto, algumas referências e diálogos a partir do artigo "O sujeito e o poder" constante na obra "Michel Foucault: uma trajetória filosófica para além do estruturalismo e da hermenêutica", organizado por Hubert Dreyfus e Paul Rabinow. 

Tao & Patrick discuss origin stories, swimming with Hubert Dreyfus, and the concept of Being In The (podcast) World.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights What is Entrepreneurial Intelligence? For Steven Phelan, “It's all about the spark” — the moment of inspiration in combining disparate elements together to develop a new solution. Humans draw on “the fringes of consciousness” to create new constructs. Entrepreneurs also take risks, investing time, talent and treasure in their venture in hopes of gain, yet understanding that they could lose something of value to them in the endeavor. How do we contrast Entrepreneurial Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence? First, we need to differentiate between the narrow and general forms of AI. Narrow AI is software that can solve problems in a single domain. For example, a Nest thermostat can raise the temperature or lower it in a room according to a pre-set rule. “If this, then that” is the general rule for this kind of intelligence. The parameters are designed by the programmers. For the unstructured problems of life and business, a truly intelligent computer would have to figure out for itself what is important. Part of the problem is that understanding or predicting human motivations — as entrepreneurs do — requires a “theory of mind”, an understanding of what makes humans tick. Entrepreneurs need empathic accuracy — unavailable to AI — to anticipate the needs of consumers. A sentient computer would need self-awareness or consciousness to truly empathize with humans, and have a set of values with which to prioritize decisions. What's the role of machine learning? If you work in a business that generates a lot of data, it can be mined by data scientists for patterns, and those patterns might indicate a better way to respond to customer needs. The richest source of data is behavioral — like choosing songs to listen to on Pandora. Machine learning can detect a pattern of what kinds of sings a user chooses most. A human interpreter can translate those patterns into preferences — in other words, motivations are embedded in behavior and machine learning can help entrepreneurs extract them. So, the entrepreneur's best resource is entrepreneurial intelligence. The psychologist Howard Gardner helped us to recognize many types of intelligence, including math, language, spatial, musical and social. There are two types that might be indicative of entrepreneurial intelligence: EQ (Emotional intelligence) might be associated with intensified empathic skills and empathic accuracy; CQ (Curiosity Intelligence) is linked to the kind of creativity that finds solutions by combining elements on the “fringes of consciousness”, as Hubert Dreyfus puts it. Can entrepreneurs and business owners assess their own entrepreneurial intelligence? There are scales to measure EQ and Creativity. Here's a link to an entrepreneurial quotient assessment: Mises.org/E4E_68_QA And here is a more action-oriented self-assessment we developed for E4E: Mises.org/E4E_68_SA The bottom line: Entrepreneurs need knowledge of how to profitably satisfy customer preferences given the resources at hand. This is not a trivial requirement. It is not possible to pre-state all of the uses for a given resource nor to compute the payoff for a given application. Current computational methods are thwarted without a complete list of entrepreneurially valid moves and the payoffs from such moves. No amount of growth in processing power, data communication, or data storage, can solve this problem. The late Steve Jobs is often held up as the epitome of a successful entrepreneur. His founding of Apple, ousting by his own board, and subsequent return to rescue the company, and then make it the most valuable publicly traded company in the world is the stuff of legend. One of the apparent secrets of his success was to understand that “people don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.” This ability to “read things that are not yet on the page” lies at the heart of the concept of empathic accuracy. Empathic accuracy is “the ability to accurately infer the specific content of other people's thoughts and feelings”. Until AI can do this, Entrepreneurial Intelligence is a better tool for the innovating entrepreneur. Additional Resources "Entrepreneurial Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_PDF "Entrepreneurial judgment as empathic accuracy: a sequential decision-making approach to entrepreneurial action" by Jeffrey S. McMullen (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_Article "Are you ready to be an entrepreneur?" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_QA "Entrepreneurial Self-Assessment" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_SA

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights What is Entrepreneurial Intelligence? For Steven Phelan, “It's all about the spark” — the moment of inspiration in combining disparate elements together to develop a new solution. Humans draw on “the fringes of consciousness” to create new constructs. Entrepreneurs also take risks, investing time, talent and treasure in their venture in hopes of gain, yet understanding that they could lose something of value to them in the endeavor. How do we contrast Entrepreneurial Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence? First, we need to differentiate between the narrow and general forms of AI. Narrow AI is software that can solve problems in a single domain. For example, a Nest thermostat can raise the temperature or lower it in a room according to a pre-set rule. “If this, then that” is the general rule for this kind of intelligence. The parameters are designed by the programmers. For the unstructured problems of life and business, a truly intelligent computer would have to figure out for itself what is important. Part of the problem is that understanding or predicting human motivations — as entrepreneurs do — requires a “theory of mind”, an understanding of what makes humans tick. Entrepreneurs need empathic accuracy — unavailable to AI — to anticipate the needs of consumers. A sentient computer would need self-awareness or consciousness to truly empathize with humans, and have a set of values with which to prioritize decisions. What's the role of machine learning? If you work in a business that generates a lot of data, it can be mined by data scientists for patterns, and those patterns might indicate a better way to respond to customer needs. The richest source of data is behavioral — like choosing songs to listen to on Pandora. Machine learning can detect a pattern of what kinds of sings a user chooses most. A human interpreter can translate those patterns into preferences — in other words, motivations are embedded in behavior and machine learning can help entrepreneurs extract them. So, the entrepreneur's best resource is entrepreneurial intelligence. The psychologist Howard Gardner helped us to recognize many types of intelligence, including math, language, spatial, musical and social. There are two types that might be indicative of entrepreneurial intelligence: EQ (Emotional intelligence) might be associated with intensified empathic skills and empathic accuracy; CQ (Curiosity Intelligence) is linked to the kind of creativity that finds solutions by combining elements on the “fringes of consciousness”, as Hubert Dreyfus puts it. Can entrepreneurs and business owners assess their own entrepreneurial intelligence? There are scales to measure EQ and Creativity. Here's a link to an entrepreneurial quotient assessment: Mises.org/E4E_68_QA And here is a more action-oriented self-assessment we developed for E4E: Mises.org/E4E_68_SA The bottom line: Entrepreneurs need knowledge of how to profitably satisfy customer preferences given the resources at hand. This is not a trivial requirement. It is not possible to pre-state all of the uses for a given resource nor to compute the payoff for a given application. Current computational methods are thwarted without a complete list of entrepreneurially valid moves and the payoffs from such moves. No amount of growth in processing power, data communication, or data storage, can solve this problem. The late Steve Jobs is often held up as the epitome of a successful entrepreneur. His founding of Apple, ousting by his own board, and subsequent return to rescue the company, and then make it the most valuable publicly traded company in the world is the stuff of legend. One of the apparent secrets of his success was to understand that “people don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.” This ability to “read things that are not yet on the page” lies at the heart of the concept of empathic accuracy. Empathic accuracy is “the ability to accurately infer the specific content of other people's thoughts and feelings”. Until AI can do this, Entrepreneurial Intelligence is a better tool for the innovating entrepreneur. Additional Resources "Entrepreneurial Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_PDF "Entrepreneurial judgment as empathic accuracy: a sequential decision-making approach to entrepreneurial action" by Jeffrey S. McMullen (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_Article "Are you ready to be an entrepreneur?" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_QA "Entrepreneurial Self-Assessment" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_68_SA

My guest today is Andrea Mignolo. Andrea is VP of Product and Design at Movable Ink, a marketing technology company based in New York. In this episode, we discuss design as a way of being in the world, and why it matters. Listen to the full conversation https://theinformeddotlife.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/the-informed-life-episode-22-andrea-mignolo.mp3 Show notes Andrea Mignolo's website Andrea Mignolo on Twitter Andrea Mignolo on Medium Oberlin College Free Speech TV Rails Ember.js Reflections on Business, Design, and Value by Andrea Mignolo Learning Through Worldmaking: The Design Way by Andrea Mignolo The Interaction Design Association VUCA Peter Senge Phil Gilbert Sketch Photoshop New Ventures West Andrea's Experiential Learning Cycle diagram Case Western Reserve University Fernando Flores BEING IN THE WORLD (2010 documentary file) Martin Heidegger Humberto Maturana John Dewey Read the full transcript Jorge: All right, Andrea, welcome to the show. Andrea: Thank you for having me. I'm really excited to be here. Jorge: So for folks who don't know you would you please introduce yourself? Andrea: Sure. My name is Andrea Mignolo. I'm currently the Vice President of product and design at Movable Ink, a company in New York. I'm a designer by background. I came into it through interaction design and had a very winding path to where I am today. Jorge: I'm curious about that, how has the path wound? Andrea: My path started in… Probably in college. I went to Oberlin, and they have a program for… They have the ability for you to design your own major and I was very interested in technology. The internet was pretty nascent at that point, and I was really curious about how we shape technology and how technology shapes us. And I didn't know about HCI at the time I think the programs that were visible to me were probably like the science technology and Society programs. So I kind of looked to those to model my own major and built something called techno-cultural studies. After that, I was really curious about just working in technology, so I ended up as a video game tester and then made my way over to running digital systems for a nonprofit called Free Speech TV from there. I went to Japan and taught English for four years business English, but while driving between all of the different companies that I was teaching at. I listened to a lot of podcasts, and this is kind of after the first internet crash the dot com bust, and new things were starting to happen on the internet. And I was just really obsessed with what people were building and what people were doing, and it was around that time also through these podcasts that I started to learn about interaction design. And something with that clicked for me, and I realized that is the thing that I wanted to do. So from there, I made my way back to the States, gradually. I had a stop in Vancouver worked for some [inaudible] agencies, and then ended up in New York during a time where Rails is really getting big. And there were a number of interesting startup things happening. And so it's just really windy. Jorge: It sounds like the implementation side of things has played a role in your foundations as a professional. Do you consider yourself a more technically-inclined designer?  Andrea: In my earlier days, I was definitely doing a lot more front-end development work, Was a WordPress developer for a while when I came to New York I joined a company that was. Kind of bringing in design for the first time. But they were a Rails shop. And so, I started to learn Rails. At my previous company, we used Ember, and I did all of the front-end development work for the first few years in that platform. These days, I don't… Well, I am writing a little bit of code for a marketing site, but for the most part, I'm not doing that much anymore. But yeah, I would definitely say that I have a technical background. Jorge: You've posted several articles to Medium that drew my attention, and I wanted to talk about that a little bit. You talk in these articles about the value of design, and the idea that design perhaps is not as valued as it should be. Would you please elaborate a bit on this idea of the value of design, as you see it? Andrea: Yeah, I'll see if I can unravel that when I first encountered design… Again, I think it was through interaction design, the Interaction Design Association, there's something with it that really clicked for me. It was suddenly, “Oh, this is how I see the world. This is how I interact with it this is how I learn.” Which, you know coming up through the American school system, Oberlin was a great school and had kind of different styles of teaching, but we ended up in a lot of classrooms all the time just receiving information. And ever since then, I've just been kind of obsessed with it at first in my early career like what does it mean to be a designer? How do you engage in the craft of design? But then, in more recent years, I've been really trying to unravel, “What is it that we're doing when we design?” Because I think it's that attitude or that posture, that perspective, that allows us to explore the world in a unique way. I think that's really the value. And also, obviously, the artifacts that we're making that can push conversations along, etc. And everything that I'm talking about and writing about right now, I'm in the midst of like, there's a lot that's swirling, and I have a lot of unpublished posts and things that I'm trying to articulate to really get hands on this. And so, it's still like a process in the midst of. Jorge: I'm going interpret what it is that I read, and you tell me if that corresponds with the intent, is that design can be not just for making things but also as a way of knowing the world, somehow. Andrea: Yeah. Jorge: As a way of putting small feelers out that allow organizations to experiment with different ways of being. Andrea: Yeah. Jorge: You talk about the concept of VUCA. Could you unpack that a bit? Andrea: VUCA is volatile, uncertain, ambiguous, and what's the C? I can't remember. Jorge: Complexity? Andrea: It might be. But just this idea that we don't live in a predictable world. We never have. There might have been a moment of perceived stability in our kind of limited human senses. But especially now, the complexity of the systems that we've built and the pushing of the ecosystem to the edge of sustainability, there's nothing predictable anymore. Jorge: Yeah, certainly. And business cycles seem to be… Not getting shorter, but the changes that are experienced in each cycle seem to be bigger in some way. It's one of the things that resonated with me when I when I read them, this notion that the traditional way that business folk have gone about making decisions has had to do with models they build in spreadsheets, that presume that there are things about the future they can control or that they can they can forecast. And the argument that I thought you were making with the post was that design gives you a different way of knowing about the future, that doesn't have to do with the numbers. Andrea: Yeah, absolutely. And it's, a lot of times the numbers, again, they point to potential certainty. And I think it's important to use the numbers, and there are other models in financial valuation that can take in risk ambiguity and kind of different paths, but I think what design really points to is this ability to look very broadly and explore a lot of different scenarios that can be valuable to a business and to constantly… I think the reason why it's… The learning part is very interesting to me and very important, and I think it dovetails with some of Peter Senge's writings, is can it shift a conversation into what do we need to learn or what do we not know? There's so much in conversations with business and ROI that's just about like this is the thing. This is the way it is. Versus shifting into this constant open, curious, learning system that helps a business navigate all of these kinds of complexities. Jorge: How would it do that through design? Andrea: It's a good question, what I'm still working on and trying to figure out. But I think, in a lot of ways, it's potentially using things like design thinking across an organization to help shift some of these conversations. I think a lot of people talk about wanting design-driven companies, but I think that that's maybe a little too much hubris. I think it's really design helping facilitate and spread these activities ways of thinking ways of exploring into other departments as well or just creating a culture where this is part of the approach. I think it might have been Phil Gilbert I was talking to, where one of the first things they did at IBM and they were spinning up design was that they partnered with HR and started working with how can design and HR work together to create human-centered experiences for employees. So I think there's this kind of… Depending on the size of the organization, other things are happening. It's a slow process. It's… you know, you're a system inside another system, and all these systems are dynamic and at play. And so you have to figure out how do you start putting, I think you had mentioned earlier, these feelers out. Or, how do you start doing small things and seeing how those start to shift and change in the conversations that are happening? And so, I'm in the midst of being, I think… My writings right now are very abstract about it because I have to figure out what the thing is that I'm pointing to before bringing it back into, and in practice, where all those things are also happening, and what does it look like. Jorge: I'm not familiar with Movable Ink. What does Movable Ink do? Andrea: So we are a B2B SAAS company. We are in the marketing technology space, and basically I describe it as “design tool kits plus APIs.” So the idea is that marketers have very advanced marketing strategies, but it's very hard to create all the content to serve, especially when we're talking about things like micro-segmentation. It's hard to get all of the creative and content to serve the various audiences that marketers are trying to reach. So basically, we connect APIs to creative, like a Sketch- or Photoshop-like tool that we have. And you can connect your APIs to that, and then just generate creative at scale. So a lot of designers at some point in their career have created hundreds of banner ads for various things. And so we can automate a lot of that. So it's kind of an interesting creative automation space that we're playing in. Jorge: So if I'm understanding that correctly, it makes iterating through designs that are perhaps very similar in some ways, iterating through variations in an automated fashion. Andrea: Yeah, what will happen is that the creative will be composed at the moment someone uses it. So we take in contextual signals etc. so that there is a level of personalization. We started in email, so it was very opt-in. Right now, we're moving into web and mobile. But yeah, so we take certain things that we know about the person, where they are, their name, etc. And instead of having a team who's creating each one of those variations, the system just does it at the moment the person looks at the creative. So it's not replacing the design tools that designers are using it's more once those have been made marketing teams can take them, they connect data and then have them generate all the variations when somebody views it. Jorge: I know organizations who would immediately see the value in having a way of scaling up their design production work through something that lets them plug their design tools into their APIs. I also know lots of organizations for whom, if I described that phrase, they would not even understand what I'm talking about. There's this big gap in the world between those. I'm wondering, how does one appeal to them? How does one talk to folks? I'm asking because I'm struggling with the same thing. It's like, how does one get folks to understand that the way that type of work has been done for a long time has gone away, and it's moving to this other domain? Andrea: I'm going to answer that probably more broadly than specifically about Movable Ink. But I recently completed a coaching program from New Ventures West in integral coaching, which is a kind of ontological approach to coaching and ways of being. And one of the things that you learn in coaching is that you have to meet the person where they're at in order for developmental work to begin. And that when you start working with a client, there has to be an opening. And I think those two things are also very critical in working with organizations where there has to be an opening, something that has happened to make them open to, “Hey, wait a minute. Something's not right here. We need to fix this.” Or you know, whatever it might be. And then the other is just, you have to meet them where they're at. And one of the reasons I ended up going to business school and getting an MBA was, I wasn't sure how to have conversations with business using design language. So a lot of times you're having those conversations, not talking about design at all, which I think some designers are uncomfortable with. But we only started using the word “design” in the 14th century, maybe. But I would argue we've been doing it for quite a bit longer than that. So whatever it is that you're getting to, you're trying to drive certain outcomes and work on something together. Language is also a technology, so use the one that's going to help facilitate that communication and start transforming into whatever it is that you're trying to get to. Jorge: There's a diagram in one of your Medium stories that has what I see as a sort of feedback loop. It has a feedback loop where you have four stages of what you've labeled the Experiential Learning Cycle. Can you describe those? Andrea: Yeah, the Experiential Learning Cycle is actually something that I learned when I was in my MBA program. So this is all research and scholarship that comes out of Case Western Reserve University. And it was just so fascinating being in school and everything that we would learn, I'd be like, “Oh, that sounds like design.” And that was something we did in the first the very first session we had together, and we all took… It's called the learning style inventory. I use it with my teams at work. And there's a quick survey or whatever you can take to understand where you fall, or where your comfort zone is, in the learning style inventory. And so we did this in the beginning, and part of it was because we needed to understand… There are certain polarities in that learning cycle where two people might… It might be very hard for them to work together if they don't understand where their comfort zones are, which is why it's really great to use for teams. But we did this because we had to form our study groups, and we were stuck with a study group for two years. So they had us, you know, visualize everyone on a Big Grid and then we kind of… They locked us in a room, and we had to form chains, and it was really awkward. But anyway, I remember learning about this when we saw the experiential learning cycle. And I went up to my professor, and I was just like, “Oh, this is design. This is what we do when we design.” He looked at me. And so, I've been thinking about that a lot, and it wasn't till I had some time after graduation that I could start exploring that more. But I think that as we move through, what I like about the experiential learning cycle is that it has these two axes. One is about transforming experiences; the other is about grasping those experiences. I think that there are things that they get mapped to. But as you're moving through it, there are these tensions that you're trying to resolve to understand what's happening. And I think that those tensions are where creativity comes from. And so it gets very interesting when you map that to design. And I, originally in that post, I also segued into double-loop learning, but then it just got overwhelming. So there's another article at some point that's about the double-loop learning with experiential learning, but that's for later. Jorge: You talked about these two sets of tensions, and you described one of them as… I'm probably not going to use the exact terms you used, but the way that I understood them is, one of them has to do with changing things in some way, and the other has to do with reflecting on the impact of those changes. Is that right? Andrea: The reflection can happen. In the Experiential Learning Cycle the transforming experience is acting and reflecting, and then the other axis is feeling and thinking. And so it's kind of like an understanding versus reflection. Jorge: So the way I'm understanding this is that this is a way of understanding what's going on by making things and intervening in things, in the way they are, and then gauging the results of what you've done and the impact they've had. Is that fair? Andrea: I think so. Jorge: I'm wondering If this line of thinking, or how this line of thinking has had an impact on your own way of being in the world; how you work? Andrea: I think that's what drew me again to the coaching program that I was in, this integral coaching. Because it really is about ways of being but using metaphors to kind of invite you. Into new ways of being and using that language or technology of language into opening up possibilities. And so with the experiential learning cycle with any of these things, it's… I think that's what I'm exploring is: What is this when it's embodied and lived and embraced fully? Versus, you know, “Hey, this is the craft that's producing this thing.” And this is where I think design often can maybe get stuck in organizations, is really focusing on, oh, the product or the service. But that's a small facet of a much larger environment in which we're acting and behaving and affecting various things. Jorge: I hear more and more of our peers, folks who are our colleagues, getting into coaching. What led you to explore that? Andrea: I care a lot about flourishing. It's a very important word to me, and I feel that my mission is to help organizations create new ways of working to support flourishing individuals and flourishing organizations. So part of the reason I went back to business school was trying to understand how organizations work, right? Like, how do I start affecting things at the organizational level, in an organizational-design kind of way? And Case also has a really great organizational behavior program. But you don't learn about the people part in business school. So I had design, and I had business, but I didn't have people. And in researching various programs, I knew that ontological coaching was very important to me. I've [been] influenced by Fernando Flores and ontological design. And I think a lot of what's happening in that program. And when you when you design these programs for people, it's just another exploration embodiment of what it means to design and be in the world. Jorge: I'm unfamiliar with ontological coaching. Can you describe it? Andrea: Yeah, ontological coaching really is about people's ways of being and what I talked about earlier, in terms of using metaphors to shift how you're showing up in the world, how you are embodied in the world, what is possible for you. That's ontological coaching. A lot of times coaching might take the form of like, “Go do these five things and then do this other thing.” Or, you know, If it's a compliance thing for an organization where somebody maybe is on a pip, there's very different forms. But the purpose of this style of coaching in this ontological coaching, is to help people start to become aware of what keeps them stuck, and to build self-generating behavior. So the idea is that you wouldn't have an integral coach for five years, right? Maybe have a six-month engagement, and it's tied to certain types of developmental outcomes. But it's all about your way of being in the world. That's the thing that we learn, it's the thing we learn how to understand. We do use various models. But we also use our own… The first six months of the program, you're building your own capacity to be present and to be in relationship with someone to understand what's happening with them. Jorge: You've been using this phrase “being in the world,” and I'm reminded of a documentary called Being in the World. It's a film about the philosophy of Heidegger, and it's centered on Hubert Dreyfus. And it's about this very subject. Andrea: Yeah, and that's the type of philosophy that informs this program. There's Heidegger, a lot of Maturana, Flores, John Dewey. So, it's definitely a world that had underpinnings and foundations with people that had already been very influential in my own thinking, in terms of design. So to see it kind of pull into this program where you're working with people and understanding them and helping them design different ways to show up in the world. Jorge: You know, I can see how something like ontological coaching can transform someone's life. And I'm wondering if it's possible for organizations to do something like that. Not just for people, right? Andrea: That's what I'm wondering as well. And when you think about like metaphors that we use for organizations, the author's blanking… But there's, I think he had categorized eight metaphors: organization as organism, organization as machine, organization as political system, organization as psychic prison. You know, metaphors open the door to possibilities, but they also can shut down possibilities. And so, understanding the metaphors that we're approaching organizations with, I think is incredibly important for what it means for an organization to shift its way of being. And I know that this form of coaching, the woman who is our master coach does a lot of this with teams and groups. And I know that you can also apply the narrative in the metaphors to them, and I think it's definitely scales up to the organizational level as well. Jorge: Yeah, I suspect that. It takes us back to the topic we covered earlier about creating a particular culture in the organization so that they understand themselves differently. Andrea: Yeah. Jorge: I'm curious about this idea of using metaphors as a way of inviting you into new ways of being. Do you have an example of what that looks like? Andrea: Yeah, I mean it's tied up with the approach in the methodology. So integral coaching is really about, you know, there's different types of coaching for compliance coaching for outcomes Etc. And interview coaching is developmental. It takes, like I mentioned earlier, there's usually like an opening someone will come to you with some problem They're having or something they want to work on. Through the methodology you look at everything else that's going on in their world as well this idea that you have to look at the whole system and starting to get a sense of what's really happening underneath that that core thing and what it's like for that person to be in the world and where they're getting stuck and through that you start to understand what's the metaphor that might… Their experience in the world right now. And I will share it. We joke, the cohort that I was in. We recently went through certification, and you have to coach someone live in front of a panel and also part of your class. And we share a list of metaphors that we've used, narratives with our clients. And we're joking, “Hey, Let's use an oak tree and Joan of Arc. Like everyone can have an oak tree and Joan of Arc. It's going to fit we're going to try to do it.” It was a total joke because we definitely want to be present with the person you're coaching. But the idea would be like, yeah, maybe you are like an oak tree right now, and you're kind of grounded, but you're not connected whatever and if there was some opening for them to be maybe I don't know Joan of Arc riding into battle or whatever. It might be but something. That very particularly connects with your felt sense of what they're experiencing, and what's possible that type of thing you keep coming back to: “Oh, but what is it like to be in the world in this way?” Or another example, I recently got from my coach was to be of the whale. Jorge: A whale? Andrea: Yeah, to show up like a whale. And so, that's how I think about each day. It's like, what is that? And I'm exploring this way of being in the world. So it's like a whale, and it does open up completely different possibilities. Jorge: Can you unpack the whale metaphor a little bit? Andrea: I think for me, and what I've been working with the being in the world and a whale way is in its embracing the bigness right of just like being here not being small, but also not being affected by things right? You're just kind of… You're a big whale. And you can smack the little boats if you need to. But yeah, it was a new narrative. It was offered to me about a month ago. So I'm still exploring it and working with it. Jorge: I find this fascinating, this idea that you can take really what is kind of a verbal construct, and allow that to become an embodied way of being different in the world. Andrea: Yeah, well, and that's the beauty of integral coaching is it is somatic, it is heart-centered, and it is head-centered. So all of these centers have to be online, and you have to work with all of them for any shift to happen. It can't just be an intellectual activity. It has to be felt, it has to be embodied, and it has to be connected in your heart. Jorge: That's a wonderful place to wrap up the conversation. Where can folks follow up with you? Andrea: I'm on Twitter as pnts; [it's] probably the best place to follow up with me is Twitter I have a site pnts.us I have a very sporadic newsletter that I send out, but I need to finish one and get it out the door, but… And I'm on Medium as well. Jorge: Fantastic. Thank you so much for being on the show. Andrea: Thank you for having me.

Notes Transcript(machine generated) LA Times Article Podcast: The Hubert Dreyfus Collection (coming soon) Website: The Hubert Dreyfus Collection (coming soon) The Present Age by Soren Kierkegaard Dreyfus Auto-Biography interview Dreyfus on Moby-Dick Music Brahms - Piano Trio No.3, Op.101 - 1. Allegro energico (C minor) Preformed by Claremont Trio, provided - Provided under a Creative Commons (CC) Licence Mendelssohn - Lieder ohne Worte, Op.19b - 6. Andante sostenuto (G minor) Performed by Bui-Nguyen Trieu-Tuong - Provided under a Creative Commons (CC) Licence

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Today we're going to look at the Tech Model Railroad Club, an obsessive group of young computer hackers that helped to shape a new vision for the young computer industry through the late 50s and early 60s. We've all seen parodies it in the movies. Queue up a montage. Iron Man just can't help but tinker with new models of his armor. Then viola, these castaway hack jobs are there when a new foe comes along. As is inspiration to finish them. The Lambda Lamda Lamda guys get back at the jock frat boys in Revenge of the Nerds. The driven inventor in Honey I Shrunk the Kids just can't help himself but build the most insane inventions. Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters. There's a drive. And those who need to understand, to comprehend, to make sense of what was non-sensical before. I guess it even goes back to Dr Frankenstein. Some science just isn't meant to be conquered. But trains. Those are meant to be conquered. They're the golden spike into the engineering chasm that young freshman who looked like the cast of Stand By Me, but at MIT, wanted to conquer. You went to MIT in the 50s and 60s because you wanted a deeper understanding of how the world worked. But can you imagine a world where the unofficial motto of the MIT math department was that “there's no such thing as computer science. It's witchcraft!” The Tech Model Railroad Club, or TMRC, had started in 1946. World War II had ended the year before and the first first UN General Assembly and Security Council met, with Iran filing the first complaint against the Soviet Union and UNICEF being created. Syria got their independence from France. Jordan got their independence from Britain. The Philippines gained their independence from the US. Truman enacted the CIA, Stalin accounted a 5 year plan for Russia, ushering in the era of Soviet reconstruction and signaling the beginning of the col war, which would begin the next year. Anti-British protests exploded in India, and Attlee agreed to their independence. Ho Chi Minh became president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and France recognized their statehood days later, with war between his forces and the French breaking out later that year resulting in French martial law. Churchill gave his famous Iron Curtain Speech. Italy and Bulgaria abolished their monarchies. The US Supreme Court ordered desegregation of busses and Truman ordered desegregation of the armed forces and created the Committee on Civil Rights using an executive order. And there was no true computer industry. But the ENIAC went into production in 1946. And a group of kids at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology weren't thinking much about the new world order being formed nor about the ENIAC which was being installed just a 5 or 6 hour drive away. They were thinking about model trains. And over the next few years they would build, paint, and make these trains run on model tracks. Started by Walter Marvin and John Fitzallen Moore, who would end up with over a dozen patents after earning his PhD from Columbia and having a long career at Lockheed, EMI Medical who invented the CT scan. By the mid-50s the club had grown and there were a few groups of people who were really in it for different things. Some wanted to drink cocacola while they painted trains. But the thing that drew many a student though was the ARRC, or Automatic Railroad Running Computer. This was built by the Signals and Power Subcommittee who used relays from telephone switches to make the trains do all kinds of crazy things, even cleaning the tracks. Today there we're hacking genes, going to lifehacker.com, and sometimes regrettably getting hacked, or losing data in a breach. But the term came from one who chops or cuts, going back to the 1200s. But on a cool day in 1955, on the third floor of Build 20, known as the Plywood Palace, that would change. Minutes of a meeting at the Tech Model Railroad Club note “Mr. Eccles requests that anyone working or hacking on the electrical system turn the power off to avoid fuse blowing.” Maybe they were chopping parts of train tracks up. Maybe the term was derived from something altogether separate. But this was the beginning of a whole new culture. One that survives and thrives today. Hacking began to mean to do technical things for enjoyment in the club. And those who hacked became hackers. The OG hacker was Jack Dennis, an alumni of the TMRC. Jack Dennis had gotten his bachelors from MIT in 1953 and moved on to get his Masters then Doctorate by 1958, staying until he retired in 1987, teaching and influencing many subsequent generations of young hackers. You see, he studied artificial intelligence, or taking these computers built by companies like IBM to do math, and making them… intelligent. These switches and relays under the table of the model railroad were a lot of logical circuits strung together and in the days before what we think of as computers now, these were just a poor college student's way of building a computer. Having skipped two grades in high school, this “computer” was what drew Alan Kotok to the TMRC in 1958. And incoming freshman Peter Samson. And Bob Saunders, a bit older than the rest. Then grad student Jack Dennis introduced the TMRC to the IBM 704. A marvel of human engineering. It was like your dad's shiny new red 1958 corvette. Way too expensive to touch. But you just couldn't help it. The young hackers didn't know it yet, but Marvin Minsky had shown up to MIT in 1958. John McCarthy was a research fellow there. Jack Dennis got his PhD that year. Outside of MIT, Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby were giving us the Integrated Circuit, we got FORTRAN II, and that McCarthy guy. He gave us LISP. No, he didn't speak with a LISP. He spoke IN LISP. And then president Lyndon Johnson established ARPA in response to Sputnik, to speed up technological progress. Fernando Corbato got his PhD in physics in 1956 and stayed on with the nerds until he retired as well. Kotok ended up writing the first chess program with McCarthy on the IBM 7090 while still a teenager. Everything changed when Lincoln Lab got the TX-0, lovingly referred to as the tikso. Suddenly, they weren't loading cards into batch processing computers. The old IBM way was the enemy. The new machines allowed them to actually program. They wrote calculators and did work for courses. But Dennis kinda' let them do most anything they wanted. So of course we ended up with very early computer games as well, with tic tac toe and Mouse in the Maze. These kids would write anything. Compilers? Sure. Assemblers? Got it. They would hover around the signup sheet for access to the tikso and consume every minute that wasn't being used for official research. At this point, the kids were like the budding laser inventors in Weird Science. They were driven, crazed. And young Peter Deutsch joined them, writing the Lisp 1.5 implementation for the PDP at 12. Can you imagine being a 12 year old and holding your own around a group of some of the most influential people in the computer industry. Bill Gosper got to MIT in 1961 and so did the second PDP-1 ever built. Steve Russell joined the team and ended up working on Spacewar! When he wasn't working on Lisp. Speaking of video games. They made Spacewar during this time with a little help from Kotok Steve Piner, Samson, Suanders, and Dan Edwards. In fact, Kotok and Saunders created the first gamepad, later made popular for Nintendo, so they could play Spacewar without using the keyboard. This was work that would eventually be celebrated by the likes of Rolling Stone and Space War and in fact would later become the software used to smoke test the PDP once it entered into the buying tornado. Ricky Greenblatt got to MIT in 1962. And this unruly, unkempt, and extremely talented group of kids hacked their way through the PDP, with Greenblatt becoming famous for his hacks, hacking away the first FORTRAN compiler for the PDP and spending so much time at the terminal that he didn't make it through his junior year at MIT. These formative years in their lives were consumed with cocacola, Chinese food, and establishing many paradigms we now consider fundamental in computer science. The real shift from a batch process mode of operations, fed by paper tape and punchcards, to a interactive computer was upon us. And they were the pioneers who through countless hours of hacking away, found “the right thing.” Project MAC was established at MIT in 1963 using a DARPA grant and was initially run by legendary J. C. R. Licklider. MAC would influence operating systems with Multics which served as the inspiration for Unix, and the forming of what we now know as computer science through the 1960s and 70s. This represented a higher level of funding and a shift towards the era of development that led to the Internet and many of the standards we still use today. More generations of hackers would follow and continue to push the envelope. But that one special glimpse in time, let's just say if you listen at just the right frequency you can hear screaming at terminals when a game of Spacewar didn't go someone's way, or when something crashed, or with glee when you got “the right thing.” And if you listen hard enough at your next hackathon, you can sometimes hear a Kotok or a Deutsch or a Saunders whisper in your ear exactly what “the right thing” is - but only after sufficient amounts of trial, error, and Spacewar. This free exercise gives way to innovation. That's why Google famously gives employees free time to pursue their passions. That's why companies run hackathons. That's why everyone from DARPA to Netflix has run bounty programs. These young mathematicians, scientists, physicists, and engineers would go on to change the world in their own ways. Uncle John McCarthy would later move to Stanford, where he started the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. From there he influenced Sun Microsystems (the S in Sun is for Stanford), Cisco, and dozens of other Silicon Valley powerhouses. Dennis would go on to found Multics and be an inspiration for Ken Thompson with the first versions of Unix. And after retiring he would go to NASA and then Acorn Networks. Slug Russell would go on to a long career as a developer and then executive, including a stop mentoring two nerdy high school kids at Lakeside School in Seattle. They were Paul Allen and Bill Gates, who would go on to found Microsoft. Alan Kotok would go on to join DEC where he would work for 30 years, influencing much of the computing through the 70s and into the 80s. He would work on the Titan chip at DEC and in the various consortiums around the emergent Internet. He would be a founding member of the World Wide Web Consortium. Ricky Greenblatt ended up spending too much of his time hacking. He would go on to found Lisp Machines, coauthor the time sharing software for the PDP-6 and PDP-10, write Maclisp, and write the first computer chess program to beat world class players in Hubert Dreyfus. Peter Samson wrote the Tech Model Railroad Club's official dictionary which would evolve into the now-famous Jargon file. He wrote the Harmony compiler, a FORTRAN compiler for the PDP-6, made music for the first time with computers, became an architect at DEC, would oversee hardware engineering at NASA, and continues to act as a docent at the Computer History Museum. Bob Saunders would go on to be a professor at the University of California, becoming president of the IEEE, and Chairman of the Board during some of the most influential years in that great body of engineers and scientists. Peter Deutsch would go on to get his PhD from Berkeley, found Aladdin Enterprises, write Ghostscript, create free Postscript and PDF alternatives, work on Smalltalk, work at Sun, be an influential mind at Xerox PARC, and is now a composer. We owe a great deal to them. So thank you to these pioneers. And thank you, listeners, for sticking through to the end of this episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're lucky to have you.

Continuing on "The Present Age" (1846), plus Hubert Dreyfus’s "Nihilism on the Information Highway: Anonymity vs. Commitment in the Present Age" (2004) with guest John Ganz. Does K's critique actually apply to our present age? We address K's view of humor, romance, authenticity, actual community vs. "the public," the leveling that occurs without anyone specific actually doing it, and the virtue of silence. Start with part one or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL! End song: "Wry Observer" by Aaron David Gleason, as discussed on Nakedly Examined Music #71. Sponsor: Get three months of unlimited access to The Great Courses Plus at thegreatcoursesplus.com/PEL.

On Soren Kierkegaard's essay "The Present Age" (1846) and Hubert Dreyfus’s "Nihilism on the Information Highway: Anonymity vs. Commitment in the Present Age" (2004). What's wrong with our society? Kierkegaard saw the advent of the press and gossip culture as engendering a systematic passivity and shallowness in his fellows, and Dreyfus thinks this is an even more apt description of the Internet Age. With guest John Ganz. Don't wait for part 2; get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL! Sponsor: Try the OmniFocus to-do list manager at omnifocus.com.

What if instead of improving our lives, our technology is actually making them less meaningful? Many of us live in a hyperconnected world. Hourly, we’re responding to messages, writing emails, browsing social media, and combing the Internet. By the end of the day, we’re left wondering why we feel so unproductive and exhausted. These are feelings that Cal Newport, author of Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World, associates with the addictive nature of our devices. Cal believes our tech addictions have set us on a path for lives that feel less meaningful and less in our control. In this interview, he argues that, “It’s this sense of losing autonomy. That you signed up for these things…then you look up years later and see that you’re using them more than is useful…feeling like it’s manipulating the way that you feel and what you believe.” But rather than providing simplistic solutions, Cal describes a robust philosophy he calls digital minimalism. He explains how it challenges us to ask bigger questions like, “Do I like my life? Am I living a life worth living? Do I feel meaning and satisfaction? Do I feel a sense of authentic engagement?” Cal Newport is Associate Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University. He writes the Study Hacks Blog and is the author of five other books, including: So Good They Can’t Ignore You, and Deep Work. Episode Links Steve Jobs announcing the first iPhone in 2007 Adam Alter Tim Wu Leah Pearlman on the perils of Facebook’s “like” button Tristan Harris Sean Parker Digital minimalism defined Matthew B. Crawford Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig All Things Shining by Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly The Attention Merchants by Tim Wu Curious Minds interview with Tim Wu Lead Yourself First by Raymond M. Kethledge, Michael s. Erwin, and Jim Collins Reader, Come Home by Maryanne Wolf The Shallows by Nicholas Carr Crossfit Benjamin Franklin’s and the Junto for structured social gatherings Generation Z Tim Berners-Lee The Slow Media Manifesto If you enjoy the podcast, here are three ways you can support the work we do. First, subscribe so you’ll never miss an episode. Second, tell a friend or family member, so you’ll always have someone to talk to about it. Third, rate and review the podcast wherever you subscribe, so you can help listeners find their next podcast.

This is a conversation with Pennsylvania based theologians and podcasters Bill Borror and Scott Jones of New Persuasive Words. We discuss the dehumanization within society and how to live in light of that reality. Show Notes Bill Borror (https://www.residentexile.com/) Scott Jones (http://www.scottkentjones.com/) New Persuasive Words podcast (https://npw.fireside.fm/) Books referenced No Man Is An Island by Thomas Merton (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99690.No_Man_Is_an_Island) Confessions by Augustine (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27037.Confessions?ac=1&from_search=true) The Temple by George Herbert (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/199264.The_Temple?from_search=true) A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4473.A_Prayer_for_Owen_Meany?ac=1&from_search=true) Love Alone Is Credible by Hans Von Balthazar (https://www.amazon.com/Love-Alone-Credible-Hans-Balthasar/dp/0898708818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544890143&sr=8-1&keywords=love+alone+is+credible) Everything Is Borrowed by Nathaniel Popkin (https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Borrowed-Nathaniel-Popkin/dp/099955011X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544890189&sr=8-1&keywords=everything+is+borrowed) All Things Shining by Hubert Dreyfus, Sean Dorrance Kelly (https://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Shining-Reading-Classics/dp/141659616X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544890222&sr=1-1&keywords=all+things+shining) Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesteron (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/87665.Orthodoxy) Tomas Halik (https://www.amazon.com/Tom%C3%A1%C5%A1-Hal%C3%ADk/e/B001JRX3W0/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1544890296&sr=1-2-ent) On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt (https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544890364&sr=1-1&keywords=on+bullshit) Annie Dillard (https://www.amazon.com/Annie-Dillard/e/B000APWASA/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1544890416&sr=1-2-ent) When Breathe Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi (https://www.amazon.com/When-Breath-Becomes-Paul-Kalanithi/dp/081298840X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544890448&sr=1-2&keywords=paul+kalanithi+s+when+breath+becomes+air)

This is one of the papers from our 2017 Annual Conference, the Future of Phenomenology. Information and the full conference booklet can be found at www.britishphenomenology.org.uk The question regarding the pertinence of using Heidegger’s analytic of Dasein as a guide for empirical research arises from contemporary attempts to bring Heideggerian phenomenology and cognitive science together. I will focus on one of the main figures behind these attempts, Hubert Dreyfus. I will start by showing that Dreyfus argues in favour of the idea that Heideggerian phenomenology can be naturalized and made continuous with scientific research on the basis of two implicit premises: (a) the interpretation of the analytic of Dasein as a regional ontology; and (b) an account of the relation between phenomenology and science as a relation that holds between two disciplines of the same kind, but that stand at different levels. The aim of this paper is to show that it is not possible to defend these premises on Heideggerian grounds. I will do so by analysing Heidegger’s considerations regarding anthropology, psychology, and biology, and their difference with the analytic of Dasein. I will argue that the main difference can be found in Heidegger’s definition of phenomenological concepts (i.e. formal indications). Finally, I will argue that, although Dreyfus fails to take into account the nature of phenomenological concepts as a relevant methodological matter, his project of naturalization raises a valid concern regarding the possibility of taking Heidegger’s ontology back to a relation with the ontic sciences.

This is one of my all-time favorite success/self-development books and one that I regularly gift and recommend to others because I attribute much of my own success in business and other areas of my life to the lessons found in Mastery--lessons that I believe can transform anyone’s life for the better if they’re truly taken to heart.The premise of the book is simple: any one of us can become an elite performer in a skill or field if we simply embrace and embody established attitudes and behaviors that have produced past and current champions, and more importantly, that every one of us should strive toward greatness if we want to lead fulfilling lives.I think these messages are sorely needed because they’re in stark contrast to much of our mainstream culture, which is producing more and more people who are less and less interested in self-actualization than worshipping and pursuing meaningless materialism, entertainment, and distractions, and who are then dismayed when they realize that their lives feel hollow and insignificant.This philosophical argument was explored in another book that I recommend called All Things Shining, wherein philosophy professors Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly argue that throughout history, we’ve placed tremendous importance and value in notions of sacredness and meaning, but since the Enlightenment, we’ve moved away from these concepts as a consequence of the radical political changes that saw individual autonomy rise above the social order imposed by a God or king. In short, when we abandoned religious and royal dogmas, we tasked ourselves to identify what’s meaningful and what isn’t, and quite frankly, we haven’t done a very good job of it. Hence, the creeping nihilism and widespread malaise of modern life.There’s a pragmatic argument for choosing mastery over mediocrity as well, as our current economy pays a huge premium to people who are willing to do the hard, deep work necessary to demonstrate mastery--if you want to make a lot of money, get so good at something that people can’t ignore you and you’re halfway home--and tomorrow’s economy is going to demand mastery, as more and more simple, shallow, redundant work will be passed off to machines. Want to be notified when my next book recommendation goes live? Hop on my email list and you’ll get each new installment delivered directly to your inbox. Click here: https://www.muscleforlife.com/signup/

Bauman and Dreyfus: remembering two greats who engaged deeply with powerful forces of our time.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/nihilism-and-meaning. The ancients believed in an enchanted universe – a universe suffused with meaning and purpose. But with the dawn of modernity, philosophy and science conspired together to disenchant the universe, to reveal it as entirely devoid of meaning and purpose. Must any rational and reflective person living in the 21st century accept such nihilism? Or is there a way to re-infuse the disenchanted universe with meaning and purpose? Join John and Ken for a thought-provoking discussion of nihilism and meaning with Hubert Dreyfus, co-author of "All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age."

2012 begav sig Thomas Lunderquist till USA och träffade filosofiprofessorn Hubert Dreyfus vars bok, All Things Shining, handlar om att läsa litterära klassiker för att finna mening i en sekulär tid. Konflikten mellan tro och vetande har blossat upp på nytt. Nyateister som Richard Dawkins går till frontalangrepp mot allt som andas religion. Men det finns också ett ifrågasättande av den hårda religionskritiken: Även om man inte är religiös eller tror på något övernaturligt, så söker människor mening, förklaringar och sammanhang. Boktips: Hubert Dreyfus och Sean Dorrance Kelly: All Things Shining. Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age. Boktips i Dreyfus och Kellys bok: David Foster Wallaces Infinite Jest, Homeros Odysséen, Aischylos Orestien, Bibeln, Augustinus Bekännelser, Dantes Den gudomliga komedin, Herman Melvilles Moby Dick.

Does Santa Exist? A Philosophical Investigation (Dutton Books) A humorous philosophical investigation into the existence of Santa--from a co-executive producer of "The Big Bang Theory," the #1 sitcom on television. Metaphysics isn't ordinarily much of a laughing matter. But in the hands of acclaimed comedy writer and scholarEric Kaplan, a search for the truth about old St. Nick becomes a deeply insightful, laugh-out-loud discussion of the way some things exist but may not really be there. Just like Santa and his reindeer. Even after we outgrow the jolly fellow, the essential paradox persists: There are some things we dearly believe in that are not universally acknowledged as real. In Does Santa Exist? Kaplan shows how philosophy giants Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein strove to smooth over this uncomfortable meeting of the real and unreal--and failed. From there he turns to mysticism's attempts to resolve such paradoxes, surveying Buddhism, Taoism, early Christianity, Theosophy, and even the philosophers at UC Berkeley under whom he studied. Finally, this brilliant comic writer alights on--surprise--comedy as the ultimate resolution of the fundamental paradoxes of life, using examples from "The Big Bang Theory," Monty Python's cheese shop sketch, and many other pop-culture sources. Finally Kaplan delves deeper into what this means, from how our physical brains work to his own personal confrontations with life's biggest questions: If we're all going to die, what's the point of anything? What is a perfect moment? What can you say about God? Or Santa? Praise for Does Santa Exist? "Eric Kaplan's Does Santa Exist? is the funniest book of philosophy since...well, ever."--Matt Groening, creator of "The Simpsons" and "Futurama "and author of "Life in Hell" "If you can put this book down, you should see a doctor. Kaplan's message burrows into the mind, beats up a few beliefs and then leaves with a triumphant bang."--Michael Gazzaniga, Professor of Psychology University of California Santa Barbara, Director of the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind, and Founder of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society "Exceptionally interesting, rigorous and I found it not only weirdly funny but deeply moving."--Hubert Dreyfus, Professor of Philosophy, University of California Berkeley, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences "This is truly a book that I wish I had written. Eric brings great clarity of thought to some of the deepest questions of the mind and our understanding of the world. And he's really funny." --Daniel Levitin, New York Times Bestselling author of This is Your Brain on Music, Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience at McGill University, Dean of Arts and Humanities, Minerva Schools at KGI "Eric Kaplan is more than a talented comedy writer. He is a deep soul, an intellectual master, and a brilliant communicator of the subtleties of the intersections between faith and logic. He will have you laughing, thinking harder than you've ever thought, and falling in love with the process of intellectual exploration all over again. A masterpiece."--Mayim Bialik, PhD (neuroscience, UCLA), actress known for her roles as Blossom Russo in "Blossom" and Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler in "The Big Bang Theory" Eric Kaplan is a co-executive producer of (and writer for) the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory. Previously he wrote for The Late Show with David Letterman, Futurama, and Flight of the Concords. Kaplan graduated from Harvard and is currently completing his dissertation in philosophy at UC Berkeley.

While the question concerning the truth of determinism may be an empirical question, that is, it will be settled by the various sciences, philosophers are particularly interested in whether or not the hypothetical truth of determinism would rule out free will. In this lecture, we look at two opposing positions on this issue: those who think that determinism is compatible with having free will (compatibilists) and those think that determinism undermines freedom (incompatibilists). Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

While the question concerning the truth of determinism may be an empirical question, that is, it will be settled by the various sciences, philosophers are particularly interested in whether or not the hypothetical truth of determinism would rule out free will. In this lecture, we look at two opposing positions on this issue: those who think that determinism is compatible with having free will (compatibilists) and those think that determinism undermines freedom (incompatibilists). Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

If the world is causally determined, does this mean people no longer have free will? Or is being free compatible with determinism. In this lecture, I discuss two opposing positions regarding the existence of free will even though both agree that genuine free will is incompatible with determinism. On the one hand, there are hard determinists who think that because determinism is true, then this means that free will does not exist. On the other hand, there are libertarians who think that the falsity of determinism leads to the actual existence of an agent that chooses freely. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

If the world is causally determined, does this mean people no longer have free will? Or is being free compatible with determinism. In this lecture, I discuss two opposing positions regarding the existence of free will even though both agree that genuine free will is incompatible with determinism. On the one hand, there are hard determinists who think that because determinism is true, then this means that free will does not exist. On the other hand, there are libertarians who think that the falsity of determinism leads to the actual existence of an agent that chooses freely. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Two of the most vocal critics of the idea that information processing machines may be said to think, or show intelligence, are Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle. This lecture briefly addresses some of Dreyfus' thoughts in this regard, which hinge on the contrast between know-how and knowledge-that, before turning to consider Searle's famous "Chinese Room" thought experiment and the various replies that have been made to it. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Two of the most vocal critics of the idea that information processing machines may be said to think, or show intelligence, are Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle. This lecture briefly addresses some of Dreyfus' thoughts in this regard, which hinge on the contrast between know-how and knowledge-that, before turning to consider Searle's famous "Chinese Room" thought experiment and the various replies that have been made to it. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

This lecture introduces students to the work of Alan Turing and the project of creating Artificial Intelligence that he played a significant role in inaugurating. We consider some of the objections to standard forms of AI (but not necessarily all) posed by Hubert Dreyfus in various of his books. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

This lecture introduces students to the work of Alan Turing and the project of creating Artificial Intelligence that he played a significant role in inaugurating. We consider some of the objections to standard forms of AI (but not necessarily all) posed by Hubert Dreyfus in various of his books. Copyright 2013 Jack Reynolds / La Trobe University, all rights reserved. Contact for permissions.

Om man inte tror på gud, vad ska man då tro på? Möjligen räcker det inte att konstatera att religionerna är hokus-pokus. Möjligen behöver ateisten något annat för sina existentiella funderingar. Men vad? I förra veckans program föreslog filosofiprofessor Hubert Dreyfus något slags sekulär polyteism à la Homeros. Vad föreslår veckans OBS-debattörer, tillika dagens gäster i Filosofiska rummet, cancerläkare och terapeut Pia Dellson, ambassadör Ulla Gudmundson och religionshistoriker Olav Hammer? Med detta program knyter vi åt säcken om P1:s temavecka Vad ska man tro på? Se faktaruta! Programledare är Lars Mogensen, producent Thomas Lunderquist.

I Filosofiska rummet Utblick beger sig Thomas Lunderquist till USA och träffar Hubert Dreyfus, filosofiprofessor vid Berkley-universitetet i Kalifornien, vars senaste bok, All Things Shining, handlar om att läsa litterära klassiker för att finna mening i en sekulär tid. Måndag till torsdag 15-18 oktober följer OBS! upp de här frågorna med inlägg av tre tänkare - religionshistorikern Olav Hammer, onkologen Pia Dellson och Sveriges ambassadör vid den Heliga stolen, Ulla Gudmundson - och en intervju med Alain de Botton. Fredagen den 19 oktober intervjuar programmet Människor och tro dessutom religionskritikern Richard Dawkins, debatterar nyateismen och rapporterar om ateisternas ställning i USA - en helt annan än i Europa. Boktips: Hubert Dreyfus och Sean Dorrance Kelly: All Things Shining. Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age. Boktips i Dreyfus och Kellys bok: David Foster Wallaces Infinite Jest, Homeros Odysséen, Aischylos Orestien, Bibeln, Augustinus Bekännelser, Dantes Den gudomliga komedin, Herman Melvilles Moby Dick

Transcript -- Philosophy professor Tim Crane explains what he sees to be the main philosophical issues in the area of Artificial Intelligence

Philosophy professor Tim Crane explains what he sees to be the main philosophical issues in the area of Artificial Intelligence