John Searle: The Philosophy of Language - Sane Society

[@petersrensen6034]

What a privilege it is to live in a world where I have access to a conversation like this merely from the comfort of my own home. Great stuff - thanks for uploading!

[@Chatetris]

+Peter Sørensen Well said!

[@jonathanpoon224]

yeah tok is so fun and awesome

[@jamalan7417]

you can thank language !

[@andrewlee5449]

Tok is still fun and awesome

[@bma1955alimarber]

Very good conversation with professor John Searle. The intreviewer is also very nice person who rises very good questions. Thank you very much for both of you and also to our ability to exchange our thoughts about the philosophy of language

[@beingsshepherd]

Has anyone else noticed the relaxed, colloquial nature of 21st century public intellectual discourse, in contrast to that of the 1960s, '70s & '80s?

[@Chris.4345]

That’s the general trend, most likely. But Searle in particular probably takes some pride in being as colloquial as possible for his profession. A lot like Chomsky in that regard. I suspect it is meant to serve as a stark contrast to the post modernists that they critique (e.g. Foucault, Derrida, etc) who, they sometimes argue, cloak their philosophy in jargon and confusion to protect it from analysis.

[@yarnboyjr3909]

@@Chris.4345definitely not a trend it is more psychological. When you are probing in on conversations from different periods in time we are constantly adjusting to vernaculars and idioms etc

[@redhen]

Very nice slip of the tongue just after 18:34 - on the 'contributions' of Wittgenstein.

[@ryanchiang9587]

love john searle!

[@elinmexis]

one of my great inspirations!

[@csmurphyx500]

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for the upload.

[@bma1955alimarber]

Infinite possibilities to combine a limited number of words, morphems and rules

[@Itsalaugh229]

Ah my philosophy degree was all about Searle, Russell, Wittgenstein Frege etc. Read the books but great to see the writer in person. Only real reason i keep KZbin

[@margaritaorlova6697]

Digestion is an important part of metabolism. Mind is the ruler of body metabolism, so it is a ruler of your body. Rely on it when dealing with the body problems!

[@JoseDiasdoNascimentodias]

Grande pensador da linguagem: John Searle.

[@1cabaretsolstice]

If language creates reality and reality in turn creates language is that not circular and is there any room for the notions of a priori?

[@karenthompson9492]

Oh I'd like for you to go on and on about what you were talking about , it ended way too soon

[@TEbejer]

9:34 I don't accept the emphasis Searle is putting on being able to have thoughts otherwise impossible without language. Languange regiments and isolates thoughts, but those thoughts would still be there in some infinite , primordial, mind-soup, without language.

[@apriorikant685]

One oft the last great major philosophers next to Ernst Tugendhat and Jürgen Habermas.

[@stinkleaf]

+APRIORI KANT He sounds more like a psychologist than a philosopher. he puts his faith in matter science. And that mind does not exist outside of the brain another matter form.

[@avellopublishing5851]

It was a great pleasure for me to welcome Amie Thomasson (University of Miami) to Trinity College earlier. She spoke about the truthmaker approach to ontological commitment in metaphysics. Afterwards we attended John Searle's (University of California) talk about consciousness as a problem in philosophy & neurobiology at Wolfson College, Cambridge. (Jason Wakefield, University of Cambridge).

[@firstal3799]

Great video

[@Davemac1116]

As Chomsky says, simply collecting data per se and even if we had the complete map of the brain neuronal network wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about what consciousness is. Much simpler organisms with only 800 neural map worked out still can't say why the organism goes left or right. The human brain is infinitely more complex. There is a scope and limit to our cognitive capacity. Newton showed the failure of the mechanical philosophy at action at a distance can't be explained by contact. We might be in the same position with theory of mind. This nonsense you hear of "uploading" your mind to a machine in the near future is wholly without merit. We don't know anything about these concepts. As for language, I tend to agree with Chomsky there too: a biological feature, generative procedure recently evolved in the species.

[@kavehafrasiabi8056]

Chomsky doesn't neglect the fact that sentences are used to perform speech act, even Habermas agrees

[@justbede]

Interesting how infinite is still so little

[@leonsantamaria9845]

Don't matter what All linguistics people have to talk about... professor Noam Chomsky...he is the modern father of linguistics....to day....👍😀

[@jipangoo]

Function? Context?

[@luyolomify]

Interesting.

[@jipangoo]

Sounds a bit like the Sapir Whorf hypothesis?

[@jonesgerard]

neurons don't cause consciousness, they are just switches, like transistors, an infinite number of switches cannot give rise to consciousness. It arises in proto consciousness in the microtubules in the dendrites at the quantum level. Its not a matter of merely moving the goalposts to a smaller scale, the micro scale allows for quantum processes and interaction with the universe at that scale.

[@EDHBowman]

Awesome

[@bma1955alimarber]

لا نعرف بالضبط كيف أن الدماغ البشري، ينتج الوعي؟ بعبارة أخرى كيف ان الوعي، هو نتاج عمل او مسلسل عمليات تحدث في الدماغ البشري؟ ما علاقة الدماغ بالوعي؟ كيف يمكن تجاوز ثناءية الروح و الجسد؟... من بين الاسءلة الأخرى التي ذكرها الأستاذ القدير جون سيرل، تلك المتعلقة بوجود عدد محدود من المفردات و القواعد اللغوية، بينما عدد الجمل التي يمكن تركيبها هو لا نهائي!

[@satrapclete3067]

Maybe if we would multiply it by two..??

[@scenFor109]

I reflect on consciousness as holographic waves of energy that resolve into a unit packet of coherent energy at observation. In much the same way that light propagates structured energy in waves until the photon's inherent information is resolved by the boundaries of a surface. If so, then the unit of universal consciousness is similar to a parcel of light. #EndGlobalApartheid

[@antinoris]

he seems too optimistic about this neuroscience. or skeptical about the consciousness itself. or maybe sane?

[@23yinyang]

Vygandas A neuroscience it does explain just about brain's circuits,but not and nothing of about mind's circuits,because it's an alchemical mistery( the Consciousness it's a Bless ).

[@icandypromotionz]

Consciousness created matter from the beginning ... Therefore consciousness is outside the body , The body is a vessel that we use to experience you wont find the connection to body and spirit unless you look for spirit and understand it if not of the body .

[@SaneSociety1]

That is my belief - opinion - experience as well.

[@MrDzoni955]

I think there's a big jump here. I can't even start to imagine consciousness outside of the context of biology. When you damage your brain, your consciousness is damaged, and you lose it completely at worst.

[@hunkarun]

@@MrDzoni955 If you damage the hardware, software can't function properly no matter regardless the level of complexity intrinsic to the software.

[@23yinyang]

the circuit of brain it's a kind of hardware ,where the genetic determinant is scientifically incontestable; the Mind circuit (software) is unfathomable and what defines our wonderful uniqueness or essence (spirit) unique and inimitable.

[@23yinyang]

SOUL'S SINGULARITY neuroscience does explain just about brain's circuits,but not and nothing about mind's circuits,because it's an alchemical mistery( the Consciousness it's a Blessing ).

[@thecreatorsloveequates9742]

Yan Winny agreed!

[@otakurocklee]

Searle is right about units of consciousness, but his view of biological naturalism has a very similar problem as panpsychism. Physical processes are not discrete units... you cannot call the brain "one process" or "one entity" except as an arbitrary classification.... why not some subset of the brain... or the brain plus some layer of cells outside the brain... and even the brain itself... it is not a "discrete" process... so why does the swirl of processes produce one single unit of consciousness?

[@syourke3]

"Architecture is the result of an architect" - How dumb can you get? A computer can be programmed to play chess - does that make it a chess player? A computer can be programmed to design buildings - does that make it an architect? Genes are like computer programs - they cause organisms to create all sorts of complicated organic structures mechanically and unconsciously, not intentionally.

[@izzytaylor134]

Your rhetorical questions at the beginning suggest you think that something without a mind cannot be considered the same thing as something with a mind while doing the same thing as something with a mind. But then at the end you say that genes make us like computers, rather than like our common conception of architects and chess players which suggest that we do things intentionally. Is that what you're saying? Sorry if I've misunderstood.

[@syourke3]

Izzy Rosie To be honest, it has been such a long time since I posted the comment that I am not entirely certain of what it was directed at. But obviously genes are analogous to computer programs in a way - they carry instructions about how to build the organism - and they can also turn on and off, active and inactive, so that certain traits and behaviors can be genetically determined. But I do not think anyone would argue that genes act with purpose or intent. I think that only human beings can have intentions and purposes, not machines and not genese. However, our intentions and purposes themselves can be the result of our genetic make-up.

[@lukekinman4995]

+Steven Yourke This was 8 months ago but I'm thinking about it. A human is a human before an architect; he can assign himself to architecture. A computer can assign itself or be assigned to the act of tecting l'arch there is no such thing as a pure architect unless you consider 'grand designer' perhaps. thought provocative (things you speak of) but you're statements kind of inchoate, not necessarily in line with a truth and highly arguable. I'm not super well read or well thought in this area but it seems to me that more than humans can have purpose; your definition of purpose and intent is skewed. I'm trying to reconcile your ideas with something more sound and get my gears cranking but its kinda hard. You can isolate anything in the universe and strip it of its "purpose/intent" but as soon as you consider even one second of the life span of any object in the universe (in this case all things are objects) you can deduce things about it/his or her "purpose/intent" whether that object is conscious or not. Scientists getting ever closer to discovering how life started on earth study RNA's ability to construct proteins in a mock primordial soup. I don't know anything about the inception of RNA but beginning with its existence on earth it concerned itself with the construction of proteins. I'm questioning myself on all the possible functions and intentions of RNA before life exists but I'm going to draw conclusion in the idea that once life comes into being RNA **completely lends itself to the construction of things living** and is soon superseded by the more efficient DNA to do the same tasks essentially. Genes or DNA you see as void of purpose actually seem to be the most purely purposeful things in this universe to me at this time and I completely retract my statement "there is no such thing as pure architect". I'm kind of insinuating that the more purposes an object could potentially have the less purposeful it really is in comparison. Humans as a collective whole beyond any individuals will - distinctly purpose to live as do other living things but when you consider an individual with all his or her interests that the limitless opportunities render he or she less purposeful. thats only really true in a unique perspective which you seemingly didn't even ry to tap into arguing more so for intentions wrapped in conscious free will. You can really just keep coming up with different perspectives to consider by itself or in comparison so I won't too much more but like.. hinging or more or less a linguistics label that didn't ever have to exist or be used.. the human mind has been called a computer, a remarkably complex computer. Saying everything originates in the mind one may be entitled to analogously label humans as computers and suggest that the computer would only exist with the genes. In that case we would be architecture. Architecture intended by the architect. intended. I could really say more and that last line just got another loop going in my head that I can express elsewhere but just reminded me again of cyclical natures and reflections internal and external relative to humans and everything we know and do so I hope these things are cool to think about and I whoever's your gears moving as well. dude, have some incredible days

[@lukekinman4995]

+luke Kinman I said something about deducing function which I associated with intentionality which, upon further research, I know Searle would dismiss as he thinks intentionality is totally observer relative and cannot exist independently. So I just raised an interesting but epistemically faulty concern. humans and animals can intend He would say but just because a heart pumps blood doesn't mean it has independent intentionality.

[@lukekinman4995]

+luke Kinman but what I said about assign yourself to architecture still stands :)))))

[@AjitisnotamanHeislongdeadBir]

The Correct thing is Langusgeof Philosophy. Philosophy has come from language. This mistake is because the people neither know what is Langusge and what is Philosophy. The Guru of Both is the same Prajapati'Paramesti. One must first distinguish literature and then Philosophy.

[@_MusikDigger]

/ There's no difference between human language and a ghost. They have no smell, no shape, no temperature, no taste, no sound, no mass, no color. The instrument by which we say we know of something is but a ghost. You may say you know of something but what you know of it is not the real of It . . . we humans have tons of knowledge of this world and universe but the knowledge is not the world or this universe . . . maybe, i humbly think, your body know more about this world and universe than your thoughts do. I personally think human knowledge makes us ignorant rather than smart in some extent /

[@rdevaughn22]

He seems to be conflating the brain and the mind. A particular neural pattern corresponding to a particular mental state implies nothing more about the relationship between the physically observable, measurable phenomenon, and the abstract sensation of personal experience. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the part where he acknowledges the pretty obvious problem...

[@talstory]

I bet Searle's dog is smarter than most..

[@vhawk1951kl]

a All speech acts and no act acts speech act-my arse!

[@mindswim]

so less verbally polished but so much ore conversational

[@matthewpendleton7573]

John Searle, nooo. Why did he mention communism with regard to evil invocations of language?

[@oliverbender3764]

In his very own heart, he's still an American. But I like him, though. It's a free world, he's free to say what he thinks. We, on the other hand, need to convince him of the opposite.

[@jamesgorman7846]

G-U-L-A-G

[@MrDzoni955]

Communism is a good example of evil.

[@Zarghaam12]

@@MrDzoni955 ... and so is capitalism!

[@MrDzoni955]

@@Zarghaam12 true

[@hunkarun]

Hasn't this guy heard of "observer effect" in quantum mechanics? He's a philosopher yet having very dogmatic scientism based views.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Of course he’s heard of quantum but there’s no evidence that quantum has anything to do with consciousness. He at least admits his views. So what?

[@hunkarun]

@@christopherhamilton3621 Yet the involvement of consciousness cannot be conclusively excluded scientifically. Sounds like selective scientism rather than objective viewpoint . 😁

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@hunkarun ….. yet. Nothing is complete or truly objective.

[@rakheebtc1071]