Why does "this comparison" have to be a physical process? One could argue that things within the mental world are not material, and vice-versa. We obviously gain knowledge through our intellect, and if the intellect or knowledge are not physical then your argument blows up.
@parliecharker4316 You have raised an important distinction between the materialist view of consciousness and the other philosophical views, such as the various types of dualism. However, I think the notion of correspondence theory, can fit in to both types of views on consciousness.
Was this made in 1998? It is weird they mentioned that Einstein's side on the debate was making a comeback. If anything it is the opposite given the results of Bell's inequality violations that disprove local realism, known since the 80s.
The Word of Truth is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality (That which is). Masses do not curve space. Space is the hollow or volume of magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are inherently curvilinear. In Reality, gravity is inductive acceleration toward a mutual null point of inertia (potential). 0. Potential = Being 1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
The problem is in supposing 'truth' is a single concept that covers everything that we describe as being true. That it is true that the sun is many times larger than the earth is conceptually distinct from it is true that 4 +4 = 8. The former describes a matter of fact, whereas the latter explains a relation of ideas (see Hume). While it is true (matter of fact) that we use ideas to describe and comprehend the world, ideas can only serve this purpose to the extent they are non-contradictory. To say that an idea, or relation of ideas, is non-contradictory is to say that it is true in the latter sense of 'truth' (relation of ideas). Obviously, the two senses of 'truth' are connected because you have to have true ideas (as a prerequisite) in order to give a true description of matters of fact in the world. The confusion arises when these conceptual distinctions between the two senses of 'truth' are either ignored or blurred by a Socratic (Platonic) desire to make every sense of a word conform to a single form (or concept).
Yes, well said. Mathematics intersects with reality in terms of its predictive power as opposed to the conceptually distinct and cohesively true systems of, say, theology and many others that appear to support ideas within their systems but have no foundation in nature. Just because something is true within a bounded system of ideas doesn't make it in any sense true. A theory might help justify phenomena, but without evidence, it simply isn't true.
@@Khuno2 I see... Not sure what charity has to with it, but I obviously misunderstood your question. It's been a long time since I read Hume, so I was thinking I had misstated his terminology. It is now clear that you are not making an editorial critique, but a logical one. It's a good question, and one that I don't think Hume addresses. I, however, would say the distinction itself is a matter of fact -- for, it's certainly not a relation of ideas. I already see where you are probably going with this, but I don't want to misinterpret you again, so I'll let you reply before going further...
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Great. We're on the same page (hopefully). If the distinction between these two types of, say, propositions itself depends upon the way that the world is (is just another contingent matter of fact subject to empirical investigation), then relations among ideas must depend upon the way that the world is, right? But if that's so, then there is no distinction at all. That is, if relations among ideas are distinct from matters of fact (do not depend upon the way the world is for their truth), we could not come to know of them/understand them as we do matters of fact. Yet if the distinction is also a matter of fact, we must, as they depend on the way that the world is constituted. Similarly, if the distinction isn't a matter of fact, but a relation among ideas, then matters of fact would not rely upon the way that the world is for their truth, and that can't be right, either.
With the advance of science n technology, I do not think philosophy has any use other than logical thinking or critical thinking it treasures. But logical thinking critical thinking derive from mathematics. As such, philosophy has no place in this scientific and technological era. It has served its historical function. In the past, natural philosophers. mean scientists in the present days.With evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, we human beings have almost solve every puzzles of universe and life . What remains is perhaps the relationship between mind and matters. Science eventually manage to explore and come up with satisfactory evidence based results. What science has not explained remains to be explored by empirical evidence based method, not by claims or resort to supernatural "explanation" which is not an explanation as such
"With evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, we human beings have almost solve every puzzles of universe and life"? Really? The arrogance is completely off the charts here, my goodness. You desperately need to read some history on the 19th and early 20th century physicists. People like Ernst Mach, Schrödinger, and even Einstein. They all read and thought deeply about philosophy, which was invaluable. From questioning assumptions to shattering common sensical notions on things like space and time. You sound very ignorant and unfamiliar with what philosophy really is. Philosophy is what drove Schrödinger's ideas about the strange behavior of quantum mechanics and his account of what Life could really be in "What is Life.". He admits all of this. Read his philosophical treatise "My View of the World." As Bertrand Russell said, "The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason." This is from his book "The Problems of Philosophy", read it. Science is of course leading the charge in discovering empirical truths about the world and everyone should be as educated in it as anything else but falling under the spell of scientism is a real threat to us all. Read some epistemology, metaphysics, or philosophy of mind to humble yourself a bit. The world is a much stranger and mysterious place than you might think. As the great late philosopher Dan Dennett said, "“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” Philosophy is also not only about discovering what the World is about but also about how one should and ought to live, about meaning. Read some existentialism, ethics, legal philosophy, or stoic philosophy like Marcus Aurelius.
Also, logic and critical thinking are not derived from mathematics. The two fields developed independently. Again, you sound ignorant of the history of philosophy and mathematics. Logicism was the idea put forth by Russell and Frege that all mathematics was logic and was proven wrong after Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The two are deeply intertwined and neither is fully the other. While modern mathematics relies heavily on formal logic, the two are distinct fields with their own roots. Logic serves as a framework for reasoning, and while mathematical logic is a crucial area of overlap, logic extends far beyond mathematics, applying to various other fields of inquiry. Logic can be viewed as more fundamental than mathematics in some ways, as it provides the basic rules of valid reasoning that mathematics, and other disciplines, build upon.
That is your own opinion. It doesn't matter if you're a practicing scientist since there is no way you knew everything in spite of your very narrow specialty.
When every philosopher has their own word for some aspect of truth, it's fair to say that they're lost in space.
Amazing talk
Thank you ✌❤️
Correspondence theory suffers from vagueness. What reality are we referring to… perception?
Why does "this comparison" have to be a physical process? One could argue that things within the mental world are not material, and vice-versa. We obviously gain knowledge through our intellect, and if the intellect or knowledge are not physical then your argument blows up.
lool what
@parliecharker4316 You have raised an important distinction between the materialist view of consciousness and the other philosophical views, such as the various types of dualism. However, I think the notion of correspondence theory, can fit in to both types of views on consciousness.
Is Searle right that in the end we return to the common sense view, i.e. the correspondence theory? Certainly not for some of his colleagues!
Why'd they give Karl Popper a British accent? lol.
Because he was British
@@amulyamishra5745 he was Austrian and speaks with an Austrian accent.
@@amulyamishra5745 he was austrian and lived in Vienna until he was 35 yo. His primary language was german.
@@amulyamishra5745 he was from Austria, but then he moved to New Zealand, and after WW2 to UK, to teach at London School of Economics.
Was this made in 1998? It is weird they mentioned that Einstein's side on the debate was making a comeback. If anything it is the opposite given the results of Bell's inequality violations that disprove local realism, known since the 80s.
The Word of Truth is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality (That which is).
Masses do not curve space. Space is the hollow or volume of magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are inherently curvilinear.
In Reality, gravity is inductive acceleration toward a mutual null point of inertia (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
The problem is in supposing 'truth' is a single concept that covers everything that we describe as being true. That it is true that the sun is many times larger than the earth is conceptually distinct from it is true that 4 +4 = 8. The former describes a matter of fact, whereas the latter explains a relation of ideas (see Hume). While it is true (matter of fact) that we use ideas to describe and comprehend the world, ideas can only serve this purpose to the extent they are non-contradictory. To say that an idea, or relation of ideas, is non-contradictory is to say that it is true in the latter sense of 'truth' (relation of ideas). Obviously, the two senses of 'truth' are connected because you have to have true ideas (as a prerequisite) in order to give a true description of matters of fact in the world. The confusion arises when these conceptual distinctions between the two senses of 'truth' are either ignored or blurred by a Socratic (Platonic) desire to make every sense of a word conform to a single form (or concept).
Yes, well said. Mathematics intersects with reality in terms of its predictive power as opposed to the conceptually distinct and cohesively true systems of, say, theology and many others that appear to support ideas within their systems but have no foundation in nature. Just because something is true within a bounded system of ideas doesn't make it in any sense true. A theory might help justify phenomena, but without evidence, it simply isn't true.
Is the distinction between matters of fact and relations among ideas a matter of fact or a relation of ideas?
@@Khuno2 Made the edit... Good catch !
@@Khuno2 I see... Not sure what charity has to with it, but I obviously misunderstood your question. It's been a long time since I read Hume, so I was thinking I had misstated his terminology. It is now clear that you are not making an editorial critique, but a logical one. It's a good question, and one that I don't think Hume addresses. I, however, would say the distinction itself is a matter of fact -- for, it's certainly not a relation of ideas. I already see where you are probably going with this, but I don't want to misinterpret you again, so I'll let you reply before going further...
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Great. We're on the same page (hopefully). If the distinction between these two types of, say, propositions itself depends upon the way that the world is (is just another contingent matter of fact subject to empirical investigation), then relations among ideas must depend upon the way that the world is, right? But if that's so, then there is no distinction at all. That is, if relations among ideas are distinct from matters of fact (do not depend upon the way the world is for their truth), we could not come to know of them/understand them as we do matters of fact. Yet if the distinction is also a matter of fact, we must, as they depend on the way that the world is constituted. Similarly, if the distinction isn't a matter of fact, but a relation among ideas, then matters of fact would not rely upon the way that the world is for their truth, and that can't be right, either.
With the advance of science n technology, I do not think philosophy has any use other than logical thinking or critical thinking it treasures. But logical thinking critical thinking derive from mathematics. As such, philosophy has no place in this scientific and technological era. It has served its historical function. In the past, natural philosophers. mean scientists in the present days.With evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, we human beings have almost solve every puzzles of universe and life . What remains is perhaps the relationship between mind and matters. Science eventually manage to explore and come up with satisfactory evidence based results. What science has not explained remains to be explored by empirical evidence based method, not by claims or resort to supernatural "explanation" which is not an explanation as such
"With evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, we human beings have almost solve every puzzles of universe and life"? Really? The arrogance is completely off the charts here, my goodness. You desperately need to read some history on the 19th and early 20th century physicists. People like Ernst Mach, Schrödinger, and even Einstein. They all read and thought deeply about philosophy, which was invaluable. From questioning assumptions to shattering common sensical notions on things like space and time. You sound very ignorant and unfamiliar with what philosophy really is. Philosophy is what drove Schrödinger's ideas about the strange behavior of quantum mechanics and his account of what Life could really be in "What is Life.". He admits all of this. Read his philosophical treatise "My View of the World." As Bertrand Russell said, "The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason." This is from his book "The Problems of Philosophy", read it.
Science is of course leading the charge in discovering empirical truths about the world and everyone should be as educated in it as anything else but falling under the spell of scientism is a real threat to us all. Read some epistemology, metaphysics, or philosophy of mind to humble yourself a bit. The world is a much stranger and mysterious place than you might think. As the great late philosopher Dan Dennett said, "“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” Philosophy is also not only about discovering what the World is about but also about how one should and ought to live, about meaning. Read some existentialism, ethics, legal philosophy, or stoic philosophy like Marcus Aurelius.
Also, logic and critical thinking are not derived from mathematics. The two fields developed independently. Again, you sound ignorant of the history of philosophy and mathematics. Logicism was the idea put forth by Russell and Frege that all mathematics was logic and was proven wrong after Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The two are deeply intertwined and neither is fully the other. While modern mathematics relies heavily on formal logic, the two are distinct fields with their own roots. Logic serves as a framework for reasoning, and while mathematical logic is a crucial area of overlap, logic extends far beyond mathematics, applying to various other fields of inquiry. Logic can be viewed as more fundamental than mathematics in some ways, as it provides the basic rules of valid reasoning that mathematics, and other disciplines, build upon.
That is your own opinion. It doesn't matter if you're a practicing scientist since there is no way you knew everything in spite of your very narrow specialty.