All religions are man made, all religions including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are nonsensical and contradicts science, history and rationality. 1:05:27

He makes the claim that you have to "postulate an infinitude of universes" as a precondition for accepting realism (I assume he is referring to philosophical realism as regards the physical universe?). But he doesn't explain how he arrives at that conclusion? There are certainly alternatives that allow for realism that aren't predicated on any many worlds or multiverse hypotheses.

A foundation whose sole purpose is to promote a philosophy? That's kind of... vague. Why is a foundation needed for that? What are the philosophies it intends to promote, and how does it intend to do so?

'It is so complicated that if at the end of it you are sort of not left befuddled -I just don't think you actually were doing it seriously. ' summarises it perfectly.

I think the thing i struggle with on higher order theories is that they seem to only say things about what consciousness is, not how. To me the how question is where the really cool progress happens.

I would never freely choose to eat dog feces. Is that a violation of my free will?

The Christian is saying free will is necessary. But if God created us with a nature that cannot help but choose sin, then we are not free to not sin. That is a violation of the free will of mankind. That just means the Christian holds the two opposing views that 1) humans have free will necessarily 2) humans don’t have free will

Wanted to say hello!

One more brown, I am curious, how do you have faith in physicalism when nothing ever exists in lieu of consciousness? Further, how do you reconcile with the fact that quantum mechanics evidences physical properties are contingent not absolute

It would be great, if we get Podcast with him ❤

Oh, I noticed the chair. That damned chair.

To understand the subject-object notion that consciousness is the witness to which objects appear I would recommend looking into the teachings of Ramana Maharshi in which it is taken through a process known as self-inquiry which denotes that You are That, or you are pure consciousness, the witness. For example Ramana may point to a person who does not understand something intellectually to inquire, 'To whom does this misunderstanding appear, whom is the subject to which all varying opinions you have held through your life appear to, which has not changed, what is the witness of all these states?' or "To whom do thoughts appear?". The obvious answer is "I". Then he may ask someone to inquire "Who Am I", What is that I? Is it the body which it is aware of, is it the mind which appears to it? Has it changed with the changes of the objective reality? Is it not the subject to which all these changes appear? Sink away from the content of your experience and into That and it is Bliss itself. It is Existence Absolute, Being-Absolute, Bliss Absolute which is where the Vedantic term "Sat-Chit-Ananda" gains its name, that being Existence (or Being)-Consciousness-Bliss. Again this just helps you to understand the whole Advaita Vedanta view. The life of Ramana Maharshi too is interesting to study.

Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.

Así, su formulación del concepto de regla constitutiva recibe una notable influencia de Jhon Rawls y su concepto de «reglas de la práctica» (rules of practice), de un artículo de Rawls que data de 1955, donde el autor de Teoría de la Justicia afirma que las reglas «son lógicamente anteriores a los casos particulares en el sentido de que, si no existieran, los términos referentes a las acciones especificadas por ellas carecerían de sentido». La normatividad y el pragmatismo, por influencia creciente del nuevo imperio hegemónico norteamericano, vuelve a introducirse en el eximperio inglés, como vimos que lo hacía en Wittgenstein por vía del economista Plumpton Ramsey, quien le introducía en Pierce. Searle constituye en este sentido una síntesis de las tesis de Austin y Rawls. La profundización e intensificación teóricas en la dimensión pragmática del análisis alcanza nuevas cotas tanto en Searle como luego en Strawson, los cuales llegan a identificar actos locutivos e ilocutivos (que en Austin aparecían más bien distintos), pero en una absorción en los actos ilocutivos de los locutivos.

No free will seems correct - but notions of "will power" and "good will" (in the Kantian sense) are a big deal, with or without free will.

I wish RB was talking the most

Kastrup's philosophy: Q: Why are we not aware of the mind of others ? A: Because our minds are separated by dissociative boundaries. Q: What is a dissociative boundary? A: The thing that separates our minds. You could'n make this up . Moliere made fun of the learned for answering the question why opium makes people drowsy with saying that it has dormitive virtues.

PS: Great ending! - Heaping praise is fitting and well deserved.

Heyho, although feeling slightly out of place in presuming to be in the position to make a suggestion regarding whom you could talk to, especially since you are very busy rn, I want to bring to your attention, at least for the duration of you reading this, and therefore thusly prime you with the name (of), Iain McGilchrist, who has very curious things to say about the role of the respective brain hemispheres in our experiences. Speaking egoistically, I would very much enjoy such a conversation, but further I believe, that this could be mutually enjoyable, if not downright beneficial between the two of you. Regards

Why wouldn’t people say their favorite detergent is the… detergent that they buy? Why would they buy Brand X and then say they like Tide because there’s a picture of the sea in the room? I dunno, I smell a rat.

Congratulations on your book!

I pity the fool!

Nice ! Listened in the car first, now checking the Tube. Great stuff - so thoughtful and well-meaning. Better without the beard btw ( - since first on Jamie's KZbin). Subscribed...

What was the book mentioned at 2:01:40?

A conversation... with yourself?

i translated; the physics statement; "for every action..."; into my poetry; which sometimes flows like this; for every reaction; there are equal and opposite reactions; unless i'm wrong;

Thanks a lot for that well structured lecture. It helps me a lot while studying Kant. ❤

This is not counter argumentation, just ‘I don’t agree with him’ diatribe…

Two crackheads in a meaningless debate...hard to decide, who´s the more annoying one.

BK: "The things out there are pure abstractions" But they are not! What my visual system identifies about objects - distance, size, shape. local surface orientation and curvature , reflectance, etc. - are genuine intrinsic properties of objects. What's more the representations the brain creates of these properties are largely homomorphic to the physical properties that they describe because they interact (interrelate) the same way as the external ones do. My mental operations of imaging rotation or reflection of an object has the same constraints as the real geometrical transformations do. This is easily and extensively demonstrated in various psychophysical experiments. So as a general claim this is just sophomoric silliness. Specific sensory representations, aspects of color, smells etc - are indeed "arbitrary" in the sense that the brain does not generate representation about them that capture the underlying the causal relations that govern their properties. But this is neither surprising nor a reason for inventing science fiction stories about magic blue light of consciousness flickering inside electrons.

*Consciousness doesn't appears to itself as it is but as all objects which can't really be called consciences. U cannot experience consciousness, U can only recognize urself as conscious. If u experience something and called it consciousness then according to advaita it's not consciouness because consciousness is not an object so it cannot be experienced directly. So when u say I know that I am aware, U are just acknowledging the fact of being aware u are not actually experiencing the consciousness itself. If u could experience consciousness then we would be able to experience conscioussness of every other person too but we cannot/\.*

*U cannot classify consciousness as "This" because it is not an object, it's a subjective entity and U cannot point it out to call it this.*

Plz plz do a podcast with him. He will be happy to have a talk or debate. We would find some good arguments from both sides.

7 + 5 = 12..is not a priori. 7 & 5 & + & = & rules for constructing problems and solutions using an alphabet of numerals and operators makes 7+5=12 necessarilly true. space, time, material, multiplicity of types of material, a method for individual things to sense and move relative to other things...these are the bare minimum a priori things for there to even be a minimally interesting universe of which something could be spoken.

6:21 bookmark

would you agree with me that if a creature kills a human its a murderer?

Great talk. Passes the test of time. The history was interesting. The Thales joke was funny. See the Timaeus for Plato’s few comments on the brain, particularly 44d and 73b-d.

2:52 I think the reason that there is so much vitriol in these debates is because it matters very much what the primary "substance" is. If it's consciousness, then inherent in consciousness is feeling and therefore ethics, whereas if it's matter then in the end, you can basically do what you want and treat people like crap and destroy the planet and anywaay who really cares, because it's just matter. So I think it matters a lot.😂

6:39 In the physicalist paradigm, given one sort of language to deal with one emergent level, say that of atoms and molecules, and another having to do with an emergent level above it, say the pressure of a gas -- in _both_ of these the overarching explanatory metaphor is mechanical. It has to do with movement, force, mass, etc. Therefore, it is easy to visualize how excited atoms at the lower level can add up to pressure at a higher, because the entire explanatory story has mechanics as its basis. But there is no way to move further to an emergent level with a non-mechamical language like consciousness out of that. To speak of feelings, experience, qualia, rather than objects and forces. It's as if Carroll thinks the brain can make consciousness in the same way that the bladder can make piss. Is it not obvious that the metaphor of mechanical production no longer works?

You either love or hate Searle's bravado, definitely a polarizing figure, though he surely has had plenty of worthwhile contributions, especially in the philosophy of language. Regarding the allegations, I treat them as just that unless a judge hits their mallet on the block and announces that they are more than just allegations, you never know these days with all this PC and cancel culture crap. Either way, I'm a separate art from the artist kinda guy.

1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water

Its seems your ego is baised and colding the way you see and only persevering what you want.

I think I know why I like your youtube stuff so much, but it would be a shame to articulate any reasons.

the person in pink dress is not knowledgable enought to make any comments......

This is the definition of consciousness written in hindu scriptures thousands of years ago: "Not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive, not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive, unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark, non-thinkable, that cannot be designated the essence of the assurance of which is the state of being, one with the self, the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second (a-dvaita)". - Mandukya Upanishad

Ive always loved how Dr. Chopra is quoted in the front of Bernie Baars's big book on gws

where can we download the song ✌🏻

🔥🔥

Oxford is not trash! I’m excited for you and I look forward to it!

Nice.