Searle: Philosophy of Mind, lecture 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2024
- John Searle
Philosophy of Mind, lecture 1
UC-Berkeley Philosophy 132, Spring 2011
MP3s of the entire course:
skydrive.live.com/?id=6BB0887...
The current year's course can be found at: webcast.berkeley.edu/series.ht...
Philosophy of Mind course:
lecture 1 Cartesian Dualism, Mind-Body Problem, Perception
lecture 2 Descartes’s Problems & Solutions, Other Positions
lecture 3 Behaviorism, Identity Theory, Functionalism
lecture 4 Recap, The Computational Theory of the Mind
lecture 5 Eliminativism, Anomalous Monism, Absent Qualia
lecture 6 Rigid Designators, The Chinese Room Argument
lecture 7 Strong AI, Cognitivism, Machines, Panpsychism
lecture 8 Cognitive Science, Vision, Connectionism
lecture 9 Consciousness, Thought Experiments, Objectivity
lecture 10 Observer-relativity, Searle’s Mind-Body Solution
lecture 11 Zombies, Supervenience, Mental Causation
lecture 12 Extended Mind, Mysterians, Causal Reduction
lecture 13 Searle’s Solutions to Descartes’s Problems
lecture 14 Property Dualism, Structure of Intentionality
lecture 15 Intentionality, cont., The Background
lecture 16 Overview, Intentionality of Human Action
lecture 17 Basic Actions, Naive Realism vs Representation
lecture 18 Perception, Twin Earth Argument, Determinacy
lecture 19 Intentionality of Vision, Perception, cont.
lecture 20 Perception, cont., Internalism vs Externalism
lecture 21 Externalism, Mental Causation, Extended Mind
lecture 22 Hume on Causation, The Problem of Induction
lecture 23 Sociobiology, The Connection Principle
lecture 24 Unconscious Rules, Indeterminacy, VOR, LAD
lecture 25 Aspectual Shape, Current CogSci, Free Will
lecture 26 Compatibilism, Quantum Indeterminacy, Self
lecture 27 The Background, Personal Identity, Self
lecture 28 Animal Minds, Review of the Philosophy of Mind
From the course reader:
Meditations on First Philosophy: Meditations II and VI (Descartes)
Logical Analysis of Psychology (Hempel)
Nature of Mind (Armstrong)
Brans and Behaviour (Putnam)
Sensations and Brain Processes (Smart)
Mad Pain and Martian Pain (Lewis)
Descrates’ Myth (Ryle)
What Mary Didn’t Know (Jackson)
Naming and Necessity (Kripke)
What is it Like to Be a Bat? (Nagel)
Eliminative Materialism and the Propisitional Attitudes (Churchland)
Consciousness (Searle)
Identity and Necessity (Kripke)
Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation (Kim)
Mental Events (Davidson)
Meaning and Reference (Putnam)
Background of Thought (Stroud)
Minds, Brains, and Programs (Searle)
Can We Solve the MInd-Body Problem? (McGinn)
Extended Mind (Clark, Chalmers)
Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist new-Darwinian conception of nature is almost… (Nagel)
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
@@santiagomathison9158
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
John Vervaeke is very interesting. Highly recommend.
Nice thank you
I love that your lectures are online and free. All knowledge passed beyond self benefits wisdom. Please include your syllabus in a link so we all can partake individually in this feast when time constraints some of us. Thank you for teaching
I had the pleasure of taking two courses from Prof. Searle at Cal, "Intro to Philosophy" and "The Philosophy of Language". They were great.
lecture proper starts at 2:38
Just finished watching the whole 28 classes, started again. Excellent course, so much knowledge.
I guess you have done also the two other Searle lectures, excellent stuff! (philosophy of language, philosophy of society)
Dear Alexandre,
what would be feasible or helpful when you have memorized all this after your fourth, fifth listening?
Dear türkmen mecnuni,
Why there has to necessarily be a "feasible" or "helpful" reason to do something? And even more intriguing...does it cause much vertigo to look down from such a high utilitarian, condescending platform? lol
@@turkmenmecnuni2193 consider the fact that it is fun to learn things instead of being a fucking ascetic robot slaying any joy in sight lololololo
Try his book the philosophy of mind along with these lectures. You will love it.
A huge thank you for the uploading all the John Searle lectures
this is so helpful for my course right now.
I understand more from his lectures than my class lectures
A mind expanding information one can feel the difference in perspective after finishing this course
Highly appreciated and recommended
I miss philosophy so much. It has been along while since graduating from the University. My major is Philosophy. Mr. Searle is one of my favorite philosophers.
Great lecture! Thanks for uploading
This topic has been a focus on my channel recently. Thrilled to find others exploring the same ideas.
Can't thank you enough for uploading these phonographs
Thank u so very much for the link to the whole audio course 😍
A truly wonderful resource. I was wondering if anyone knew if there was a link to the readings for the course anywhere online?
It's hard to find words for the appreciation of Minds like Mr. Prof. John Searle - not to fan be, but yes!
John Searle is an amazing philosopher
Searle describes it as biological naturalism. it’s framework that explains consciousness as being very real and not an illusion whilst still being reduced to naturalistic materialism but it is also designed to bypass the problems of materials and consciousness for how something like non conscious matter produces qualia. It marries dualism with materialism whilst rejecting both simultaneously. I only had this clarified to me last week during an interview with him
Nice, Thank you very much for the upload.
fascinating lecture
This is awesome!
people really underestimate the internet.
+Theo .Getic
Back in 60s people thought only about good opportunities of WWW, and now most people think that internet is all about cats, memes, and tumblr
So sad -_-
Theo .Getic I agree. the Internet is mainly used by people to scare themselves or fuel their own crazy thoughts. people forget the Internet can be used for self education and exploration.
Ron Garger Internet if you ask me, does better job in removing inequality (as far as education is concerned). Atleast in developed and developing worlds.
Isn't internet amazing? :)
Franco Formicola absolutely agree.
There are 2 parts of the internet:
1) the multimedia encyclopedia part
2) everything else
as far as i'm concerned (1) is wonderful, probably the pinnacle of human endeavour thus far, should be open to all, as free as possible, and protected and (2) can go fuck itself as it has been co-opted by corporate/political interests, which is what happens to anything that has the potential to be powerful.
i wish creators/scientists would consider this when they unleash their "excellent ideas" on the world. it only takes an ounce of cynicism/realism to ask "if i were really evil/pathological, how could i royally fuck this up?". The answer to that question invariably plots the eventually trajectory of the technology. [see ballistics, hydrocarbons, nuclear energy etc]
Internet amazing just for English speakers... in others like Arabic it’s bullshit .. Imagine that you are in front of great lectures like these, but you cannot pass them because you are weak in English..it is annoying
@@Zan-hh9qo it only takes one bilingual arabic-speaker to make an effort and put subtitles on this :-)
صدقت يا فرانكو، صدقت
We need an account of the human reality based on a combination of spiritual and scientific thinking. This reminds me of some great lectures I heard at Ripon College from Spud Hannaford, Seale Doss and Vance Kasten. I should have majored in philosophy. Interesting that he was part of a group that publicly opposed Senator Joe McCarthy at U of Wisconsin in the 50's. What a bright man for the age of 80.Cartesian dualism, cool. I now know why one of my psychology prof was so obsessed w/mind/body!
My own thought (to move onto the second part of your question) would be that the objective ontology maintains the basic formulation and experience of the subjective ontology. The social-existential self extrapolates itself from the material self and, rather than being reduced to one or the other, both are fluidly indistinct; i.e. function simultaneously. (P.S. I don't mean to berate or demean, if I came across that way, I apologize)
He is a genial teacher. And the best philosopher in the last 30 years.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
The reading list can be found at
webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/442-phil/Fall2008/Syllabus442-542F2008.htm
Searle gives the most commonsense arguments in the Phil. of Mind. I agree with most of his positions.
Thank you!
Great lecture!
Wish you post the video ,the way we could see the prof.& words written on the board .
Man, when I was a kid, this is some of the stuff I wished was real.
What was the recommended literature for this course?
What a great lecturer and philosopher.
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Why are you telling me that 'great' and 'lowly' are relative? Yes, in a relative sense -- as in compared to other lecturers and philosophers -- he is great. Do you object? Do you have a problem with my using that adjective? I don't get your comment. Did you call me a slave? LOL
@@penssuck6453, I am patiently awaiting your response to my question, SLAVE. ☝🏼
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I hope you don't think your name-calling is bothering me. It's not. It's amusing at best, in the sense that you're juvenile enough to think something like that would bother a grown person. Am I vegan? No, I'm not. There you go, REVEREND.
@@penssuck6453, did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, do you ADMIT that you are an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
Pity about that odd background noise - like scrunching up paper - that seems to occur frequently
thanks!
That's just because you watch those sorts of videos more than others. It's google's analytic engine that looks at your history and suggests based on that.
Thoroughly enjoyed this presentation, John Searle in his usual no nonsense style goes straight to the point he wants to make. Have to agree with the main point he makes that whatever is that we call consciousness is all natural and present in our physical reality. That said, blaming dualism, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel for a misunderstanding present in modern philosophy is not quite fair IMHO. Leibniz couldn't have invented the calculus if he held that there is a gap between what we call today mental states and the perceptions we have. In fact, it was Leibniz who first mentioned something akin to the subconscious mind existing and influencing our conscious perception/awareness, stating that there is difference between ideas having different levels of clearness or distinctness. ,
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
I have an important question.
What is happening when a mind is within a lucid dream? When the mind is able to create whatever it wishes and their is no object literally being sensed, it's all being created by the brain. What is driving that process?
where can i find the reading?
What is the relationship between a image I see in my mind and the object itself?
Interconnected. What we perceive is just electrical signals interpreted by our brain
Or did we find an evidence of the existence or reality (whatever) of conscioussness and gave it a name?
Mind the difference (interesting use of the word) between "conscioussness is an illusion" and "it is an illusion that consciousness exists".
How can it not?
"Cheating" is the property of Cognitive Dissonance. It happens when the mind creates an excuse or justification to avoid shame, blame or guilt.
What is the relationship between a image I see in my mind and the object itself?
What is real? if where talking about what we can see and touch then "real" is only electrical signals interpreted by our brain to determine what we see
I want a subtitle in file
help me ")
The Man^^
I am very happy with these lectures on Philosophy of the mind. I wish to know how I can access certified training in Philosophy of the Mind online.
Recent discoveries in neurology show that our mind operates is like a quantum computer, so consciousness just might be an illusion in the sense of a metaphysical definition.
What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?
@@richardgamrat1944Exactly!
Um, @ around 14:30 Searle is supposed to have said that bodies are known indirectly, not minds.
You are smarter than him.
2021, 10 years later
Wow, I really enjoyed this! Lol good luck finding the answer to how mindless physical properties can produce conscious life. There’s possibly no topic more interesting though.
You seem to be taking the position that the only form of knowing that counts is total certainty. That's not so - the vast bulk of the things we "know" we merely have high confidence in. it's not *necessary* to have total certainty about things to survive successfully in the world.
May be my question is very fundamental. can anyone explain me different between the philosophy of mind and psychology?
philosophy primary use the method of deduction (Reason), whereas psychology primary use the method of induction (empirical research). Philosophy are interested in many topics, whereas psychology is the scientific studies of behaviours and mind.
Thank to both of you so much for kind response!
Philosophy translates to love of wisdom - it is not a study (-ology), it is respect for, the virtue of, or, reverence for wisdom. Wisdom obtains knowledge (empirical verification). Psychology is the study of psyche (which translates to self, breathe or much less usefully: soul or spirit). Philosophy is heuristic. The conclusions of psychology are merely opinion, not the advancement of hypothesis, in short, because the self cannot be rationally assessed. Philosophy (not to be confused with the history of philosophy) is well described as battle against the bewitchment of our senses by means of language.
Terry White Right and wrong are not idioms of philosophy and neither is agreement. You are confusing the acceptance of a mathematical proof with the rational assessment of a truth value. "View" is no more relevant to respect for obtaining knowledge (read: philosophy, love of wisdom) than opinion - if it were then a mirage and an oasis would have ontological and epistemic equivalence. They do not.
nickolasgaspar if it lacks heuristic value, then it is not (read: can not be) philosophy (read: love of wisdom, i.e. respect for obtaining knowledge) and this is simple, etymological fact. Philosophy requires knowledge, not ideal, not principle, not study, not explanation, not data, not metaphysics: knowledge. Knowledge is empirical verification of what is (the case, the world, states of affairs, etc.) - else how do you know what is?
There's the soul, the spirit, and the body. L'âme, l'esprit et le corps. The soul is all our identity past and future. The spirit is the link between us the living and God, the breath. The body is the test experience of our time on earth. We can lose the body and keep the spirit and the soul. We can lose our soul and keep the body and spirit. But to lose the spirit is total darkness.
"There are no naive realists."
What about Aristotelés or John Duns Scotus? (Btw, almost every scholastic philosopher was naive realist.)
sensory deprivation -exact same thing. But being in a tank and all that does not sound attracting enough or even challenging for newage writers. somehow it diminishes the oneness notion. hmmm.....
Cartesian dualism was a disaster? I like this man. A philosopher that realizes philosophy is a disaster but teaches philosophy? What an attractive contradiction.
Conscioussness is just a word. It doesn't stand for anything. It Is just a form of expression, based on an analogy. Instead of saying I am conscious of x, we can say x is in my conscioussness. Just different form of expression, with the same meaning. Because, linguistically, consciousness is a noun, one is misled to the idea that consciousness is "something", that it is "real"(whatever that means) and goes crazy trying to find it.
Why no video
Oh cool read comments and found it thank tou
is consciousness something that already exists, or is it an inherent property of mind?
What do you mean?
does consciousness exist on its own? or does it come from a mind? I'm really interested in philosophy and enlightenment/awakening, and people are always talking about that which is unchanging, eternal, the unconditional love, or awareness. there are many other words to describe this being-ness, which is also known as "the one" or the experience of "oneness". I'm wondering if these words are all pointing to consciousness, and if so, my question is: is consciousness coming from the mind or is it something that is already there? note: plants and trees have consciousness but they don't have brains like we do, and animal consciousness is different from rational human consciousness.
***** We have no recorded cases of mind existing seperate from the body, therefore also no cases where consciousness would exist seperated from the mind,and by mind I mean the subjective expirience of purely physical mental processes. I'm not sure what consciousness without a mind would even be...The universe itself isn't conscious, neither are inanimate objects or plants. How could they be? Now,we can't be sure about the animals, but i think it's most likely that consciousness exists in animals, in proportion to complexity of the nervous system. But any talk of consciousness indipendent of the body isn't supported by anything empirical, and i would add, not even by the common sense.
MikiDeFacto123 Plants are conscious and it has been proven. Plants can even be depressed, and they can be stressed out (myth busters did a study where they put a flame close to a plant and it caused stress reactions in the plant as a response to the stimuli, which was the flame). As for consciousness without an object, have you ever been aware in deep dream sleep? This phenomenon is very strange because there is an aware presence, but there is no object to be aware of, and thus there is pure consciousness without an object. This is what I was referring to when I talk about consciousness. There are also new studies surfacing that talk about single-cell consciousness, which is another very interesting phenomenon because we are made up of trillions of cells that, according to these studies, are themselves conscious. If conscious organisms live inside of us and contribute to our general well-being then who's to say that we as human beings aren't contributing to the sustainability of a greater being-ness? I think if every living thing has consciousness then consciousness must be something independent from organisms that is actually present at all times. That being said, although living things have subjective consciousness I think the individual consciousness each living thing has that is "subjective" is really just part of the same ONE consciousness that is. Hope that makes sense..
***** Well,you could say that plants can expirience stress if you define stress as broadly as ''An organism's bodily response to the enviroment''. Biological definition of stress isn't the same as the psychological one.But then i see no reason not to think outside the box...you could say thay that a piece of paper is conscious, because it responds to the stimulation (again,flame and combustion) ,and you define that response as stress. I'm very skeptical about the consciousness of one-celled organisms,what does that even mean? I'm curious,how would you define consciousness, both on the personal level and on that universal ''oneness'' level? That is critically important for me to understand where you're coming from. :)
If Searle would be open minded enough to try a good batch of mushrooms he would then truly understand the power of the brain to alter perception thus creating it's own reality.
Since that reality is caused by the mushrooms. That would just confirm that the body and the mind are more alike than dissimilar.
As far as "brains cause minds, therefore, brains are minds" goes, I would have to say that you are fundamentally mistaken. Brains causing minds implies the existence of a brain distinct from a mind. The statement that, then, these distinct portions of the formulation of consciousness are simultaneously indistinct (i.e., "brain = mind") is a direct contradiction.
32:39
So whether you know it or not, professors have higher risk in developing Schizophrenia. How? Cookies perhaps with rainwater? So mixture of acetones applied on your nails should fix it.
Very entertaining, but very partial lectures. HIs aim seems to be to turn his students into tokens of the type "John Searle" rather than to give them a broad understanding of philosophy of mind.
you are commenting on the very first lecture, did you watch the rest? I dont know if I want to listen to 30 hours reiterating the problem of dualism
As I recall, the first half of this course is the destructive part, where he bashes dualism, idealism, and of course the computational theory of mind (his Chinese Room argument). Then he gets into his own theory of intentionality, speech acts, etc.
He's a great lecturer and it's worth persevering, despite the terrible audio in places. I've listened to all three of his lecture series that are available here (mind, language and society). I found the Philosophy of Society course the most interesting, and it does include all the key content from this Mind course.
I don't think that is fair at all, he also explains all of the arguments against his own positions but that is hardly "bashing", it is presenting positions and then analyzing them for potential flaws - a bit like philosophy ;)
So since then I've seen this series twice already, and he does give a fairly broad spectrum of views, but he is pretty arrogant as highly intelligent people often are, but not as arrogant as stupid people, so I'd forgive him.
He literally puts it out there which views he agrees with and which ones he disagrees with. It's up to the students to adjudicate between the arguments and form their own judgments. It's not the instructors responsibility to make the students think for themselves. Only they can do that.
What the hell is that noise? It sounds like he's frying a steak...
Lots of potential psytrance samples here
go to the website of the truth contest and read the present you will discover new revelations about life and your mind
you're credulous
Ethics aesthetics
Political philosophy social philosophy
Philosophy of language
I wouldn't call your second form of solipsism by that term. I would only call it solipsism if someone believes completely that theirs are the only mental states that exist. If you want the word to carry power in arguments you really should restrict it to the proper meaning.
its funny, because stephen hawking discusses cartesian philosophy in his show on netflix.
granted he prefaces the episode by saying philosophy is dead, and physics is all you need. but then he dives into cartesian dualism (which he confirms as correct) and the brain in a vat thought experiment (Which is an epistemological thought experiment advocating solipsism [though not metaphysical solipsism, which searle feels is the only one worth discussing, despite the fact it is the least philosophical and most nonsensical form of solipsism])
who would have thought stephen hawking would be more literate in philosophy than a philosophy teacher?
but then i guess berkeley teachers aren't renown for their intellectual capacity, lmfao
Can you provide a link for that video in which Stephen hawking says he is a dualist
Tristan Dry he doesn't explicitly say that in so many words, but its pretty clear that he supports the concept if you watch into the universe with stephen hawking, its one of them. i couldn't find it with a cursory google, and i don't remember offhand but it's out there
At the core of all the natural sciences, such as biology, thermodynamics, botany, chemistry, etc. is physics. So, from this perspective, I could see how one could argue that all the natural science is physics and all you need is physics, however, I think it is a bit arrogant to say that philosophy is dead! Just as physics is at the heart of all the natural sciences, philosophy is fundamentally at the center of all of EVERY science. The philosophy of science dictates the methodologies and structure employed in every science and, additionally, every other academic discipline you can think of.
If Hawking really made a general statement and said that philosophy is dead, then he is just plain wrong. Philosophy is everywhere from the foundation of science to the very fringes of science. Philosophy is not limited to the sciences either, it is at every human experience.
Here's an example of what I'm getting at...
When we talk about math, we generally do so abstractly. For example the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, have no real value or application in the physical world (physics) until I define what they represent in the physical world. The words you're reading here on the screen are simply abstracts just like the numbers. There is no physical representation of these words; they, and language too, only exist in the mind.
Now, if you want to get technical, they are in the brain as neurochemical and electrical interactions. These physical interactions from one neuron to another in the brain mean nothing without the aggregate whole of several groups of neurons and very likely other interactions with the rest of the body on a whole. Further still, unlike a computer, these interaction between each of the neuro receptors and transmitters (over a hundred discovered so far and there are likely more, by the way) are NOT like a digital computer with a binary system (i.e. 1's and 0's) they ARE analog signals and we don't know as of yet how many frequencies there are for each transmitter. This makes the brain much more complex than previously assumed by many.
Judging by your other comments, I don't think you actually finished the course nor do you really have even a general understanding of philosophy. Also, I don't you understand John Searle's position as it sounds as though you think he is arguing a spiritual dimension or something when in fact he's not. He takes the position of monism as opposed to dualism and he make a good argument for it but like most of philosophies it is not without it's problems. Monism draws from the principle of Occam's razor and basically states that the physical world can describe the causality of the mind or that our minds are just our brain in action and we need no other (dual) explanation outside the realm of the physical to do so. Dualism suggests that their needs be another explanation and is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. There are other forms of dualism but Cartesian Dualism refers specifically to the theory that somewhere in our body or brain there resides a soul operating our brain to give rise to our mind.
Searle also argues that there is a physical causal relationship to the mind, however, examining it with scientific reductionist methodologies won't necessarily reveal the nature of the mind. Just as we can know the frequency of a given color, we cannot, using this frequency as a definition, explain it to a colorblind person and have them vicariously experience the color. In other words, we cannot properly convey or communicate with abstracts a physical experience without another having experiential sense data to use as a frame of reference.
If a person is inteligent like Searle and realize that the others are telling dumb things, why this person should not say that? His ways are healthy against the political correctness of mediocrity.
Subjectivity is a disaster.
The net is amazing but advertising is crass.
So basically he gives a history lesson about all the things that old philosophers were confused about but which every child with a minor interest in science can answer today. OK... and you wonder why nobody wants to hire you with your bachelors degree in philosophy?
This is a beginning of a series of lectures on the introduction of the philosophy of mind.
Your comment is like listening to someone doing an introduction to computer science and teaching the professor explaining light bulbs, and switches and complaining that every kid knows how a light bulb and switch works.
@@ZacharyBittner Light bulbs and switches are still relevant today, this nonsense isn't. You can't even form a single sentence that reflects actual reality. ;-)
Such a shame that you can hear so much noise (scrunched up paper) amongst so much Truth. smh
Great. Now I'm going to be annoyed--and hungry. ;)
Certainly your arguments are at Searle's level, Claudio. I mean, no arguments at all.
Searle, in these lectures, comes off a bit vain, egotistical, and stubborn; which does not make for good philosophical discussion.
Not an argument.
How can it not?