Searle: Philosophy of Mind, lecture 2

[@kirasussane1556]

One of the most accesible lectures about philosophy of mind.

[@jacquelinewolf-xw8cs]

Bravo. Thank you. Free access to education of this quality was not universally available when I was young. I am so happy with the quality of education today,

[@ActiveServo12]

thank you for making these publicly available during a time of quarantine :)

[@fernberger08]

I love the way he says, 'the body' :)

[@solomonherskowitz]

You still do?

[@someone1059]

@@solomonherskowitz I am a guy and asexual but his "the body" makes me feel gay for 3 seconds LOL.

[@processpsych]

The person who explored the history of Christian concepts of mind/ body, etc in the philosophical theology realm was Charles Hartshorne, in a great book called "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes".

[@someone1059]

Hey can you recommend some other books related to origin of religiously motivated philosophical ideas such as in islam, christianity, judaism etc? I would appreciate any nice book which you might recommend.

[@davidfost5777]

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

[@NOTurDADDY666]

kzbin.info/aero/PLbqptsLnIiEYGXmLmeKqN1rYaTBuBcVFD

[@TellTheTruth_and_ShameTheDevil]

The reading list can be found at webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/442-phil/Fall2008/Syllabus442-542F2008.htm

[@zuzanka3rozinka]

Does anyone have a link to the debate with a neurobiologist he talks about at 32 minute? Thanks

[@ROForeverMan]

The last 2 minutes are EPIC. hahahaha.

[@StephenPaulKing]

Correct, direct perception of "reality" seems only possible if there is a priori definiteness of properties. This is known to not be true in a general sense due to quantum mechanics. We could defined a weakened version of realism where Reality is defined as: The set of all that is incontrovertible for some collection of intercommunicating observers (assuming no anthropocentric stance)..

[@alute5532]

14:54 20:51 spiritual part beyond SD in Caresian Dualism

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Post-keynsians and austrians have warned about it (the economic crisis).

[@doclime4792]

In America the economicist take very few non-orthrodox theorist seriously and as an Ameican I pray for the day their whole dogmatic academic discipline goes up in flames.

[@Seedofwinter]

So have you watched all the lectures yet? You seem like a pretty educated dude. What are your thoughts on philosophy?

[@PoetlaureateNFDL]

At what point do we capitulate to the religious way of thinking? When does the body stop and the mind begin? How can Dr. Francis Collins be religious and be a scientist at the same time?

[@Alejandro-Te]

What with the noise? So annoying.

[@KigenEkeson]

Thanks for the reply, Stephen but that definition requires too many other things to be clearly defined to be meaningful (or accurate)...recording (and recorder), result, and measurement.

[@OnceUponASpace]

It had bugger all to do with nominalism you could have substituted any "ism" in there, I wasn't claiming Searle is a secret nominalist, I thought that was plain - and I happen to agree that nominalism is kind of silly. Perhaps it came over wrong because youtube messes up the order of multi-part comments? The "How dare this Yankee-doodle" one is supposed to come before the "At the end of the semester" one. Then I think the sense is clear.

[@csandschafer]

why doesnt he tlk about Aristotle

[@bigtexnick2188]

he does, briefly. aristotle just assumed body/mind but descartes wrote on why he believed body/mind, like he did the hard work of trying to provide reasons and lay out a complete theory of body/mind.

[@StephenPaulKing]

Try to understand what I wrote by replacing the word "observable" by the word "measurable" and see if it makes sense. A "reality' that is conceived to exist in some way and yet is independent of its potential to me measured is a act of blind faith, at best, IMHO. Realism needs to be carefully considered before it is wholeheartedly embraced. I am not advocating against Realism per se, but I am against belief in unexamined postulates.

[@OnceUponASpace]

At the end of the semester, the students would pounce in the time-honoured tradition of the "j'accuse!", with a statement such as "Professor, we have deconstructed your lectures, and discovered that you are in fact a secret nominalist!!" The professor would reply along the lines of "Nominalist?? NOMINALIST???!!!! ... damn and blast yer eyes! Nominalism pah! grr humbug wrr mumble students mumble" and potter off to make himself a large whiskey. These yanks want to take the joy out of everything!

[@pgadam5301]

He lost me when he said we can not ask “is there an external world?”

[@KigenEkeson]

Define "observation".

[@OnceUponASpace]

Well ok dude keep your hat on - I'm glad you found it amusing, I thought it was clearly intended that way, and not as a dig at you!! I had a similar feeling to you (I guess) when I was listening that - wow the guy just comes right out at the beginning and says: "Hey I'm a card carrying naive realist and material monist and everything else is rubbish, and I'm gonna basically start from there", and doesn't even bother refuting other positions beyond vaguely rubbishing them.

[@ViviVr777]

❤️

[@OnceUponASpace]

So in a way it was crass and arrogant, and in another way kind of direct and refreshing (even though I don't agree), and I suppose it's his prerogative. This got me thinking about the cultural differences between how philosophy is taught in the US compared to Europe, so I wrote my little screed simultaneously mocking but also demonstrating an implicit grudging admiration for both attitudes, which I claim was a least a little bit above the level of elementary sarcasm.

[@StephenPaulKing]

LOL! We might need to go off into semantic theory! The word reality includes the letters R, E, A. L, I, T and Y. What is your point? Berkeley was not 100% wrong in all of this ideas... It seems to me that you are gripping tightly on anthropocentrism. Try to let it go a little...

[@OnceUponASpace]

Lol I'm a native speaker, maybe I need to brush up on my prose :)

[@justbede]

Ooaaawww!

[@MyKierkegaard]

“Widely held view” ad populum

[@StephenPaulKing]

An independent Reality is an oxymoron, as its definition implies that it is not observable!

[@Seedofwinter]

Your gab is kind of confusing, Is English your mother tongue, or did you learn it secondarily? If so, that's probably why I had a difficult time understanding. You don't really speak English in a Conventional sense; it's sort of confusing.I hope you don't take offense to that. If I spoke another language, I'm sure it would probably be a lot worse than yours. I do see where you're coming from, though.

[@OnceUponASpace]

Ha ha! I agree. How dare this Yankee-doodle-professor be so crass and presumptious as to stake out his position up front and proceed to set it forth in such a forthright, uncompromising manner! Here in Civilised Europe, (ie polite society), the professor would present a number of ideologies from a position of apparent impartiality, and the students' homework would consist in attempting to discover which of those programmes he was secretly sabotaging... (cotd.)

[@Seedofwinter]

This professor really loves to inject his opinion into the debate, in a arrogant kind of way that itches me. Just because we have "learned" more about the physical Universe doesn't take away from the central premise of the question posed by Descartes: how do we know we are getting an accurate representation of things? And what about about knowledge in general? How does knowledge exist without an observer? You haven't disproved Descartes, professor.

[@PoetlaureateNFDL]

To what extent can you trust religion to give a complete account of what lies behind science? Religion is just guessing without evidence. It's not the more complete picture. It appears to be tragically missing something called rationality. It's the intellectually easy answer to say religion and science can peacefully live together. Complimentary, maybe to a small degree. Can intelligent design peacefully live with scientific logic and understanding? I think not. Just being honest.