Daniel Dennett vs Keith Ward • Are we more than matter? Mind, consciousness and free will

High profile atheist philosopher Daniel C Dennett goes head to head with Christian theologian Keith Ward in the 5th episode of The Big Conversation, debating whether mind, consciousness and freewill are best explained by naturalism or theism.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.


The Big Conversation series:


The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust

[ImperialGoldfish]

A fantastic discussion, with great speakers. I was very impressed by the host - he was even-handed, totally free of aggression, and he always kept the conversation within the audience's understanding and interest. Even though I'm an atheist, and fully convinced of Dennet's position, I felt completely welcome as a listener, and I'll definitely come back to this channel!

[jonathanhatch]

Dan is morphing into Darwin with every passing day 😂

[ruaidhri]

This guy is the best moderator on earth. I've seen him many times before. He's always level, courteous, fair and timely with his interjections.

[stefanconradsson]

Brilliant moderator I have to say. Nice discussion.

[oliverwinks]

Although I sometimes get infuriated with the people debating, I must say that Justin Brierley is an absolutely fantastic host. Completely even handed, keeps the discussion flowing without interrupting, brilliantly summarises sometimes very complex arguments, he's always kind and generous to the speakers. I suspect Justin and I would disagree about a great many things, but I always enjoy listening to Justin's shows and would love to meet him in person. A fabulous host!

[ProjektKlover]

It's always so interesting to listen to professional philosophers and academics discuss various things because they are so civil, eloquent and knowledgeable.

[giorgirazmadze]

The problem of investigating conscienceness is that it needs conscienceness

[jasonjackson]

"From Bacteria to Bach and Back" What a great name for a book.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.


Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.


Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.


Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.


Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

[luamfernandez]

If conciousness is an illusion what's there to be tricked?

[jakuleg]

One of the best moderated shows I know of. Even though the moderator has a bias (I assume at least, when I see it's on "Christian Radio"), you never ever notice. Always fair, always civil, never strawmanning, always giving opportunity for rebuttal and he really seems to know his stuff too, being therefore able to summarize positions and drive the discussion towards interesting directions.
Thumbs up!

[janetgerl]

Dan Dennett’s position clearly was without convolution. Keith needed trampolines and catapults to comprehend.

[nupraptorthementalist]

This has to be the first one of these kinds of debates I've seen with a great moderator.

[vjntstar]

keith's position that consciousness is something extra boils down to 'i dont understand how the brain could produce internal experience, intentionality
an idea of the future, an idea of purpose etc... therefore it is a non physical soul'. sounds a lot like the god of the gap

[strumspicks]

I’m in no way a Christian or part of any religion for that matter. I have to say Ward makes his points with more nuance and no arrogance in his tone which makes me like his contribution alongside the host

[brettrobbins]

Just discovered this channel. My new favorite. The moderator is the greatest.

[WORTHYLAMB]

It would be funny if Keith called Dan “your brain” instead of “you” during the duration of this discussion

[michaelrobinson]

"The brain is 'DESIGNED"

There goes an atheist using that word

[Dinoguy]

I appear to be thrilled by this discussion. But am I really thrilled?

[ambientescape]

Great moderator. In every way. Enjoyable amicable discussion. I could have listened for another hour quiet easily.