Epistemology is plagued by presupposing what it ought to demonstrate. To say, for instance, that belief stands in a causal relationship with my environment already presupposes a mechanism of belief formation that cannot be verified by the believer. I think it is fair to say that the ordinary-language semantics of believe are such that believe stands in relationship to something outside the believer, but one should still drop the causal claim, because the semantics is all about intention.

Ray Kurzweil in his 2024 book 'The Singularity is Nearer' does a very good job promoting Panprotopsycism. There's a lot to the argument, but he focuses on the mathematical Cellular Automation theories. Basically a set of rules you can establish at step 1 that build upon themselves to create systematic results, yet the randomness of the algorithm prevents anyone from knowing a single point in the system (until the algorithm calculates every equation up to that point). So basically you can't predict the future even if you know the algorithm, the future is unraveling in real time by calculating the next step in the equation. The Panprotopsycism relates to the fact the neurons in our brain may have deterministic properties, but those properties can't be revealed until all of the past equations are 'solved' eg time moving forward. It's a good book even if just for the philosophical sections

Is David Lewis basically saying that qualia are not information? They are something far more mysterious which can't be represented in not only physical form but not in spiritual media either without having them. At least that's the gist of it as I may or may not understand it.

@ 11:05, let's take the example. According to you, what Professor Kim Was trying to explain About the agent. Let's think about cloud structure, as computer networks! We don't know where the location of the cloud / Command Center. We have 8 billion of them, one for each human! Connecting to 8 billion, VPNs And connecting Eight billion devices. As well as other configuered gateways based on unique, relationships ( father, daughter, boss, teacher, etc.)Each device is a human. 100, 0000 instructions or more in terms of MIPS coming in from VPNs or authorized gateways to devices ( humans = laptops, tablets, smart phones, etc.)of the commands coming from the cloud command center. There are certain commands that stay resident ( ROMs) in each device/ individual. By using the keyword, agent Commands are being received In order these devices to function accordingly, like to go downstairs in a kitchen and get a glass of water Etc. At the end of individual life cycle, such as 60, 70, 80, 90 years, the devices are deteriorated, heading for the bodly death. The Associated cloud goes dormant, await for the new body, perhaps with the same IP address, as it is resurrected! As this may be the Devine's mystery of life and bodily death. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

@8:34 just like Boolean Algebra AND , NAND operators! BTW was Lewis realted to C.S. Lewis?

I wonder as to what your thoughts are about Allan Kardec's work and theories? alao professor do you lecture on Theology as well? What about eastern philosophy, such as Rumi or Avi Ali Sina?

Or like Cathars ( good men), in 13th century, right?

Great pace with clarity in explanation of subjects! Thank you! Ok, so that was supernatural miracles by prophets, saints, etc. Sort of like sure shot to eliminate almost any doubt!

The term 'intentionality' causes cognitive dissonance, the winner of the mental battle between intentionality's two different meanings gets applied within the current thinking context and the winner may not be the better fit. The same goes for 'imaginary numbers'. To a young well read student who had developed an excellent understanding of the meaning of 'imaginary', the new mathematical meaning of 'imaginary number' could exert only a very feeble modulation of one's thoughts in comparison to the old, deeply embedded, massively influential original meaning thus demanding far more concentration effort than would have been the case if the coiners of the meaning had realized the problem and come up with a brand new word, like 'peculian numbers', for instance. Voila, no cognitive dissonance.

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe. A painting of a pipe is a representation of a pipe. 'Representation' is the foundation of the being-conscious-process. Ponder that until your own thoughts find the truth in that assertion. Certainly, a representation is *of / about* some 'object' and though it is too obvious, I feel a need to emphasize the fact that representations and their objects have radically different natures. Sense organs transduce the world into neural-discharge-timing-pattern-encoded representations. Thoughts are what we call neural-discharge-timing-pattern-encoded representations. Brain neuron synapses enable these thoughts to intermodulate. This activity constitutes the thinking process. All thoughts represent some 'thing' that they are not except in the unique case of the thought that does represent its self. The concept of the self evolved in culture and that concept became the thought that represent its self and that we refer to as 'The Self'. Since it is my self who is conscious I have a clue. When 'other' thoughts modulate my self thought the changes wrought are of what my self is conscious. It's not the substrate that is conscious. It's what's going on in it that is. Yes?

This video could be 4 videos or 5, I’d love it dissected even more with visuals. Great job!

The cat is called......?

Great video. I really liked the pop up text boxes.

In the first argument, it wouldn't work since the first condition is justified true belief and our senses alone can be justified proof for a belief. The information we get from our senses is not true knowledge since any one sensation can be for many things both known and unknown. In the sheep example, it wouldn't be justified true knowledge that there's in fact a sheep cause the only proof obtained was from the senses. You have to do something processing of crude information to turn in from mere information to knowledge, which I don't think necessary has to be true in a global sense Justified knowledge, I think, is meant more like the knowledge we have of numbers, or colors, or smells, etc. In the case of the sheep we can't put a label on what we are seeing but we can be sure the colors, sounds, etc are really there

I watched the entire video! Loved every moment and made me think about different kinds of power and it's distribution! Would love to know your opinion on what I think in response! Keep doing what you do! You're awesome and entertaining! :D

Credibility, or trust, in a person's testimony or way of existance is subjective. The "just" amount of credibilty should not be responsible to only individual opinion. To assess credibility proper, I believe a process of experimentation should occur. For example, in your hypothetical of your friend telling you about a sale, your assessment was valid to you for good reason; They said there was a sale, yet there was none. However, consider the possibility the friend did not know the sale is only on a certain day? In your position, doubt in the friend's information would seem warrented, but your limited knowledge influenced what would be a rational conclusion. Let's say, in your frustration, you talked to the clerk. They clarify the sale is always on Wednesday. So you go back next Wednesday. The sale is there. You go again. The sale is back, so on and so fourth. Through experience, and more awareness of the sale's conditions, you gain more confidence in the credibility of both the clerk and your friend. You gain confidence by the claim's consistency. In summary, I believe that we can only do so much as rational agents. We will always be limited by what we know and perceive. In my opinion, we should not have absolute trust to the point of worship, or absolute doubt to the point of toxic skepticism. Nor should we as individuals only rely on our subjective measures of credibilty. We should assess any and all claims for their accuracy (how specific are the details) and precision (how consistent is the fact, how susceptible to change). To gather as much information possible before determining our confidence and us to test a claim's credibility through its utility.

Why is it, that some sentences formed by mixing words do not make sense?

Really brilliant video, you speak about such a complex work so clearly. Thanks Professor!

Terrific class. The best explanation of intentionality on the web.

Very helpful

Thanks for lesson

Thanks for lesson keep going 🤠 greeting from Morocco

Thanks for lesson keep going 🤠 greeting from Morocco

Alex from Modern Family

6:55 is actually false. There's no way you seeing a boat is me seeing an island rather it is ALWAYS the case for me that when YOU see a boat you for sure see a boat. And if it is TRUE and it is KNOWLEDGE for YOU that you see a boat then it s also true and it is also knowledge for me that you truly possess knowledge of true boat...🤷‍♂️

Thank you very much! Do you have any plan for a video on Aristotle's "Sense and sensibility"?

thanx a lot from Syria, hope you complete your series ❤

Thank you. This was very helpful. I have been generally familiar with epistemological problems through familiarity with Plato, Descartes, and Kant along with views of truth, such as coherence and correspondence. Along with categories like rationalism and empiricism. But the modern debates about internalism and externalism and justification and warrant, were difficult as I could not connect how these all fit together. I have listened to several descriptions of the Gettier problem, but your presentation along with the your video on externalism and internalism have been so helpful in putting the big picture together. So helpful! It’s all still settling down, but the insight that one of the major issues here is the “sufficient condition” problem and whether when we think we know something, we actually know, or if we are just getting lucky. Anyway, thanks so much. The way you have presented the problem and the possible solutions clicked for me. Objects in the room of epistemology no longer feel like they are randomly flying about.

I believe I have a complete answer for this thought experiment. I am actually very curious to know if the landscape regarding this thought experiment has changed. I feel a far better way to characterize what is going on. One which is clear and explains very specifically what and how is going on. I can also explain how any system working under the same constraints could be described and would result in precisely the same type of problem caused by what is described in the Mary experiment.

I enjoyed your presentation. Well done.

Great job, Professor. Best collaboration of conciseness and clarity. Because this is not easy to explain. Well done.

Love how casual and elaborative these are. Im also reading and writing about plato and my dream is to be professor of ancient philosophy 😊

Term is sign from which simple propositions are made as prime matter is that out if which nature is made. Sign is "that which signifies to something other than itself". Proposition is saying something about something. Syllogism is when from certain things being something else follows. Where sign is has immediate reference to a being syllogism has meditate reference to something( middle term is mediates between major and minor terms). It's called term or end because it is that into which all else that pertain to logical art is reduced( syllogism into propositions, and propositions to terms). Major, minor and middle refer to degrees of universality. A is B C is A S, C is B If A is white coloured things, B things that reflect light and C snow. White coloured things are things that reflect light Snow is a white coloured thing So, Snow is a thimg that reflects light. All the texts of Aristotele refers to these logical procedures. Logic ought to be prior in order of learning to philosophy. That's one reason why he was able to be so clear and make investigate such difficult subjects yet ve confident whereas we wouldn't be sure of such things would only be shooting in the dark

Hi prof, I enjoy your lectures,please if you can, do us three-level philosophy of mind or the philosophy philosophers are doing. Also, do us philosophy of social science and philosophy of economics. Thank you, you are great.

Knowledge is power

I wish we had been taught this properly in undergrad psychology. Psychologists don't need to disappear down some of the rabbit holes of philosophy but do need to have better than rudimentary awareness of philosophy of mind and causation and mental causation.

I wish we had been taught this properly in undergrad psychology. Psychologists don't need to disappear down some of the rabbit holes of philosophy but do need to have better than rudimentary awareness of philosophy of mind and causation and mental causation.

Like Always your lecture was combination of beauty and knowledge.Thanks

This was so incredibly helpful currently writing a philosophy thesis on the topic and the way you explained everything is so helpful!

You're extraordinary 💖😂

💗💗

❤❤

💗💗

Like this ❤❤

💗💗

💗💗

💗💗

💗💗

🥰🥀❣️

🥰🥀❣️