Searle: Philosophy of Mind, lecture 12

[@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

[@doasido5757]

Glass isn’t a liquid, it is an Amorphous solid

[@PCH12r]

ask chemists. not Searle

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Pedantic: not a refutation of the main point being made. Glass is a solidified, quenched liquid. He is alluding to the age old phenomenon of old glass panes thickening towards the lower parts because of the combined effects of amorphicity (I.e. lack of a regular crystalline lattice) & related micro- to macro-heterogeneity & fabrication processes & thermal history over time. We might yet see this in modern glass over centuries hence.

[@doasido5757]

@@christopherhamilton3621 No. he was pointing out that people could be wrong by pointing out that we “discovered” later that glass is a liquid. Lmao 😂 ps: I wasn’t trying to refute his argument. He just gave the wrong example.

[@paulk8224]

let me get this right in the case of epistemic subjectivity the subjectivity names the circumstance, that an judgement is in an relevant way influenced by or dependent on the subject, which is making it. then what does "ontological subjectivity" mean if it is the mode of existence of cs? does this mean cs existentially depends on an subject which is intentionally directed at it/experiencing it?

[@johnnycatsup]

8:14 He got modus tollens wrong! This is by far the worst thing John Searle has ever done or been accused of.

[@FredRBP]

he gave a false description of the logical operation of modus tollens... he said p--->q, ¬p therefore ¬q. it's actually p--->q, ¬q therefore ¬p

[@dlj7770]

44:28 "I won the Chinese Room" ... Nope, you didn't. :D

[@PCH12r]

actually he did, but nobody knows still.

[@Autists-Guide]

@@PCH12r Haha. Good one.

[@SeanMauer]

But you do need intelligent information for life, natural undirected forces can't account for the information needed for biological systems.

[@MrPatrickDayKennedy]

You are proof to the contrary