Any 'concept' could be examplified by many examples but could never be defined, OR it could be defined by the combination of other concepts but those concepts would run into the same problem, and so on.. until infinte regress that ultimately no definition will be found at all? Not sure whether that is what this video is trying to say. It reminds me if someone has to define 'red', he could make as many examples as possible, or define it in many ways as possible, but ultimately it will fail to fully define "red" until the person actually sees the 'red' color? Then the question is, what pattern in the physical brain for causing the ''red' perception? Red is a classifcation in mind, and classifcation needs membership function; for any classifcation in physical world without consciousness involved, it only requires a particular mapping in that membership function in mechanical process, not requiring the whole memory of membership function be invoked in one shot. For perception of 'red' in consciousness, however, it always require the specification of the whole membership function in one shot to define 'red' perception; so during the red perception arising, the whole membership function of redness in one shot should be involved. However, if the whole membership function in one shot is involved in mechanical process for producing red perception, then what is differentiating that membership function in one shot for 'red' from another membership function in one shot for another color (e.g. green?), it requires another set of membership functions to do that, and so on, until the problem propagates into infinite regress! Therefore, it seems no pure mechanical process in our physical world is sufficient to produce 'red' perception in our brain! (despite this, membership function for redness should still be defined by classifiation module in brain, but the memory of the membership function, after being specified by the brain module, may not be stored in our physical world; or otherwise the infinite regress problem would be produced!). It prompts me to guess that our physical world may just be a simulation (Simulation Hypothesis); and for consciousess, its requires something (soul?) in addition working behind this simulation? Nevertheless, consciousess's functioning to this simulation (our physical world) is inextricably dependent on physical brain; otherwise we may know that it is a simluation! There is something working behind trying to keeping us from knowing?
會不會講講萊布尼茲既時空觀？
這一輯會引介西方哲學史，估計約40講。西方的哲學史由古臘到現代歐美，表現對真理鍥而不捨的尋求；黑格爾說西方哲學史是一系列思維的英雄追求絕對真理的奮鬥史 ，相對於其他古明巴比倫、波斯、印度、中國都難以並匹。我們祈求認識西方文明的深層結構，可以從科學、歷史、藝術、宗教各方面入手，本輯提供一個蹊徑，就是接受一次西方哲學史的理性洗禮。
感恩陶教授和嘉賓的精闢講解😃
謝謝支持！
Any 'concept' could be examplified by many examples but could never be defined, OR it could be defined by the combination of other concepts but those concepts would run into the same problem, and so on.. until infinte regress that ultimately no definition will be found at all? Not sure whether that is what this video is trying to say. It reminds me if someone has to define 'red', he could make as many examples as possible, or define it in many ways as possible, but ultimately it will fail to fully define "red" until the person actually sees the 'red' color? Then the question is, what pattern in the physical brain for causing the ''red' perception? Red is a classifcation in mind, and classifcation needs membership function; for any classifcation in physical world without consciousness involved, it only requires a particular mapping in that membership function in mechanical process, not requiring the whole memory of membership function be invoked in one shot. For perception of 'red' in consciousness, however, it always require the specification of the whole membership function in one shot to define 'red' perception; so during the red perception arising, the whole membership function of redness in one shot should be involved. However, if the whole membership function in one shot is involved in mechanical process for producing red perception, then what is differentiating that membership function in one shot for 'red' from another membership function in one shot for another color (e.g. green?), it requires another set of membership functions to do that, and so on, until the problem propagates into infinite regress! Therefore, it seems no pure mechanical process in our physical world is sufficient to produce 'red' perception in our brain! (despite this, membership function for redness should still be defined by classifiation module in brain, but the memory of the membership function, after being specified by the brain module, may not be stored in our physical world; or otherwise the infinite regress problem would be produced!). It prompts me to guess that our physical world may just be a simulation (Simulation Hypothesis); and for consciousess, its requires something (soul?) in addition working behind this simulation? Nevertheless, consciousess's functioning to this simulation (our physical world) is inextricably dependent on physical brain; otherwise we may know that it is a simluation! There is something working behind trying to keeping us from knowing?
謝謝回應！閣下是從科學分析討論知覺，跟萊布尼玆從形上層面尋求實體（Substance）的進路不同，不能輕易討論，請留意下講的經驗主義，會與你的思路合流。再謝！
@@taokwokcheung8714 謝謝回應！有些東西，的確不是那麼容易，可以簡單表達出來，會造成一些誤解。其實我的目的，是想用無限迴歸(infinite regress)所造成的"不合理"，來推導現代基本已被放棄的心物兩元論（Substance Dualism），有可能是對的！有空時，我會再想想如何更簡單地表達出來（不容易）。之前我用英語表達，是因為西方的某些有用概念，一時間真的不太容易翻譯成中文（要查），所以先講了再說。將來要用中文表達，也會是一種鍛練。有空玩味一下形而上學的東東，也是一種享受。謝謝！至於萊布尼玆從形上層面尋求實體（Substance），我聞到好像與笛卡尔(Descartes)的Substance有些相似(我不熟，也有可能是誤解)？所以借此發表一下我對心物兩元論（Substance Dualism）的看法。那Substance好像與西方哲學裡的靈魂(Soul)有些關係。提示: 西方哲學裡講的靈魂(Soul)，指的不是鬼，而是意識(Consciounsess, mind)的根本所在來源。意識(Consciousness)的產生來源，到現在還是個謎。現在只知道肯定需要大腦活動產生。但如何產生？它的本質為何與物理世界的其他客觀東西很不一樣？假如不用傳統生物大腦，可不可以人造個意識出來？這在西方哲學，有很多種說法，可每種說法都有嚴重問題，所以一直爭論不休，到現在還沒有滿意答案！西方分析哲學(Analytical Philosophy)裡的Philosophy of Mind，就是專攻意識問題。我覺得Philosophy of Mind，現在看來沒用，可會對將來解決生死問題，或如何做到意識轉移（Mind Uploading）的操作，會有實際有用的影響。
@@KenChan-d2k 再謝你的回應，很好的分析與分享！我比較傾向從東方的心性論討論自我問題-人經實踐以純潔化其生命，達至真人、菩薩或聖賢之境。此中可以消融心物的對立。
@@taokwokcheung8714 謝謝你的回應。是的，西方哲學裡的分析哲學(Analytical Philosophy)，目的是想尋求自然真相，並不理會人的因素（心理滿足因素）。其他例如基督教，或中國的哲學，重點是關懷人的心理滿足，心性休養等；真的是各有千秋。