I agree. System works in accordance to its tiny entities. Usually the stronger feature of these entities rules the system but is at the same time also affected by the tiniest as part of the whole system.
Searle is absolutely right about what it is to be an intellect, how ludicrous it is to think that you are your trivial contingencies, and about what has gone wrong.
1999. Talks about having the courage for elitism, and having a sharp distinction between better and worse, from 45:35 onwards. About inventing yourself as an intellectual (see quote below) from 47:21 onwards.
Finely I found myself in John Searle personality!... If you want to be a philosopher you have to aquire many qualification requirements, among them: you should give away your utilitarianism way of life, and keep searching for deep meanings about everything ...
17:17 - I think that's a slippery slope. Liquidity is still a "mode of physical behavior" - it's still rooted in the *motion* of the molecules. It is by its very definition a particular form of motion, and we *can* talk about the motion of the individual molecules. There are molecules in there that are part of the liquid, and molecules that are part of the vapor state also present, and we *can* discriminate between those using physical reasoning. In the case of consciousness, you've got some completely different mode of behavior for which you cannot point to a basis in the underlying physical laws. It's just a "poof - there it is" sort of thing. Totally different from the water analogy. Anyway, this is an important question. It bears directly on the big question of afterlife. If brains make minds, then it's almost certain that when the brain ends, it's OVER. On the other hand, if minds arise through some unknown natural process and the brain is an "interface device," then we really just can't say (because we don't KNOW about it). So, it's certainly a question worth studying.
15:51 - I think it's fine to *assume* that (that brains cause minds), but it *is* an assumption, and it *might* be wrong. Brains may be more akin to a television receiver - an "interface device." Minds may arise from some natural phenomenon which lies entirely outside our current theories of physics. Or may not - I just think it's arrogant to presume that we know. However, to the extent that you need to lay down the ground rules for your reasoning, making this assumption is perfectly fine.
My two cents? The humanities are all about: can you read, can you reason, can you write, do you understand what is being said to you, can you speak coherently and do you stick at things? More specifically, can you understand the argument in a text? Do you know how to see whether the internal reasoning hold? Are there assumptions made (but not stated) by the author that might be false? Are there things implied (but not stated) that the author might find unwelcome, or are contrary to the author's commitments? How does this text sit with other texts? How could it be used to answer a specific question?
Shakespeare and a cereal box, funny man☺ Mr. Searle talked about waiting ten years to hear what is thought about a teaching, I agree, let time tell the truth. Because of our institutional white dominated perspective of reality it is difficult for many minority perspectives to be heard and understood. Science is important, so is (less?) higher conscience thought?
Blindly following steps doesn't indicated understanding. As for a computer, it doesn't show consciousness either, except for the humans that created the computer..
Truly a brilliant philosopher.
Absolutely not brilliant!
@@edwardjones2202 Why not
The most humble and professional genius.
Besides philosopher he's a fun guy.
I agree. System works in accordance to its tiny entities.
Usually the stronger feature of these entities rules the system but is at the same time also affected by the tiniest as part of the whole system.
It seems impossible that such a kind and calm man has been accused of that sexual assault stuff
Searle is absolutely right about what it is to be an intellect, how ludicrous it is to think that you are your trivial contingencies, and about what has gone wrong.
1999. Talks about having the courage for elitism, and having a sharp distinction between better and worse, from 45:35 onwards. About inventing yourself as an intellectual (see quote below) from 47:21 onwards.
Finely I found myself in John Searle personality!...
If you want to be a philosopher you have to aquire many qualification requirements, among them: you should give away your utilitarianism way of life, and keep searching for deep meanings about everything ...
I agree. I loved the interviewer, I think he's the best host I've ever seen on an intellectual show..
17:17 - I think that's a slippery slope. Liquidity is still a "mode of physical behavior" - it's still rooted in the *motion* of the molecules. It is by its very definition a particular form of motion, and we *can* talk about the motion of the individual molecules. There are molecules in there that are part of the liquid, and molecules that are part of the vapor state also present, and we *can* discriminate between those using physical reasoning.
In the case of consciousness, you've got some completely different mode of behavior for which you cannot point to a basis in the underlying physical laws. It's just a "poof - there it is" sort of thing. Totally different from the water analogy.
Anyway, this is an important question. It bears directly on the big question of afterlife. If brains make minds, then it's almost certain that when the brain ends, it's OVER. On the other hand, if minds arise through some unknown natural process and the brain is an "interface device," then we really just can't say (because we don't KNOW about it). So, it's certainly a question worth studying.
Great guy dedicated to the search of the Truth. Unfortunately One of the last one.
15:51 - I think it's fine to *assume* that (that brains cause minds), but it *is* an assumption, and it *might* be wrong. Brains may be more akin to a television receiver - an "interface device." Minds may arise from some natural phenomenon which lies entirely outside our current theories of physics. Or may not - I just think it's arrogant to presume that we know. However, to the extent that you need to lay down the ground rules for your reasoning, making this assumption is perfectly fine.
This is a razzle dazzle man. And I say that with respect.
I love his work
16:06 my favorite part
Emergence, is what he is talking about.
My two cents? The humanities are all about: can you read, can you reason, can you write, do you understand what is being said to you, can you speak coherently and do you stick at things? More specifically, can you understand the argument in a text? Do you know how to see whether the internal reasoning hold? Are there assumptions made (but not stated) by the author that might be false? Are there things implied (but not stated) that the author might find unwelcome, or are contrary to the author's commitments? How does this text sit with other texts? How could it be used to answer a specific question?
We don’t jam pizza into out brains either. If we are conscious that is separate from our digestive systems.
Searle starting the conversation by talking about his respect for women is quite ironic in 2021
I like his political views better than his philosophy.
Shakespeare and a cereal box, funny man☺ Mr. Searle talked about waiting ten years to hear what is thought about a teaching, I agree, let time tell the truth. Because of our institutional white dominated perspective of reality it is difficult for many minority perspectives to be heard and understood. Science is important, so is (less?) higher conscience thought?
The dreadful sort-of music racket is so ghastly that the mute button is needed immediately
wtf is he wearing?
Chinese room argument is so ridiculously false.
Blindly following steps doesn't indicated understanding. As for a computer, it doesn't show consciousness either, except for the humans that created the computer..
Could you explain why, please? I'm trying to work it out.