Dennett, Daniel

DennettDaniel Dennett
Center for Cognitive Studies
Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy
Tufts University

One of our pages with Dennett  And, another

YouTube: There are hundreds of videos!

Most recent email:  2 February 2018
On developing a reference page to your work and my notes to you.

Dear Prof. Dr. Daniel Dennett:

I am writing to you, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris this morning. Tomorrow, I open a discussion about the finite-infinite relation with references to your work and to the fact that both sides of the equation (i.e., the atheists and the religionists), no thought leader has evaluated our chart of  base-2 notations from the Planck units to the age and size of the universe.

The thoughtful within both sides of this hostile equation might benefit by going back to the Newton-Leibniz debate. Perhaps Leibniz was closer to the truth. Perhaps space and time are derivative, finite, and quantized and the infinite is all about order-continuity, symmetry-relations, and harmony-dynamics.

Generally, I do not impute “religion” to those words. Each word has a special place within the scientific traditions.  However, one might readily conclude that Euler’s equation is the best description of our universe; and if everything is wrapped and tied together so tightly, one might conclude that there is an immediacy within that knitting and every thought, word, and deed effects our little universe.

Yes, I suspect both sides of the equation will be unhappy with our work!

Now, to facilitate discussions tomorrow, my link to our summary page
about your work is here:
The link to Richard Dawkins is here:
And, the link to Sam Harris is here:

I hope you are well. Winters in New England can be brutal!

Best wishes,

Second email: 15 February 2017 "Would you help us?"

Dear Prof. Dr. Daniel Dennett:

First, may we ask, “Does everything start simply?”
Maybe that’s wrongheaded concept! We also believe
mathematics creates a certain continuity of form
and function. Maybe that’s also wrong.

We checked with a Nobel laureate, Frank Wilczek (MIT),
and he thinks Max Planck’s numbers, especially Planck Length,
Planck Time, and Planck Mass are OK and these numbers
“…can be multiplied by 2 or any other number you want.”

We were tiling and tessellating the universe with tetrahedrons
and octahedrons. Simple. Complete. Perfect. Then we started
dividing the largest by 2 all the way back to the Planck scale.

There are just over 202 notations (from the Age of the Universe
to the Planck Time, and from the Observable Universe down to
the Planck Length). We were so pleasantly surprised.
But, is it a model? What is it telling us? We are turning
to experts like you to find out.

We thought we had a simple STEM tool, but it now looks like more.
What can we say about our numbers and model?

Thank you.

Most sincerely,


First email: 5 September 2014
RE:  "If minds outside the causal system do not exist,
do we understand the casual system?

Dear Prof. Dr. Daniel Dennett:

We have no business writing to you. We are probably not even wrong, absolutely idiosyncratic, and in desperate need of being kicked into the straight and narrow.

Five high school geometry classes and one sixth grade AP science class have dissected the tetrahedron and octahedron, then using base-2 exponential notation, we went right down to the Planck Length. We then multiplied that original tetra-octa by 2 until we were out to the Observable Universe, i.e. 112 steps down to the Planck and 90 steps out to the Now.

That gave us a grid, but so much more. We have summarized our two years of work in a one-page document and I personally know that I speak for everyone when I ask, “What is our most egregious mistake?” I am sure we are making many mistakes.

We may have gone too far out there for most people, but most of this work can be readily reeled in. This is high school after all. A quick mea culpa and we’ll all stick closer to our textbooks!

Anything you say will be helpful.

We are also writing to thank you for all that you do for scholarship! We are now starting to link all the best scholarship we can find on the web to one of the 202 notations and of course, and eventually we are discussing a place on the grid for the Mind somewhere in the range of the 50th to 60th notations. It will be within the causal system!

It is all quite fascinating, possibly just whimsical, and hopefully not too misleading.

Most sincerely,
Bruce Camber

PS. I was born in Jamaica Plain and once had a home on Lowell Street in Andover….