I'm like 99% sure that that's John Searle introducing him.

@Oners82

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that was definitely Searle.

@sergiosatelite467

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds close enough to a mechanic, it might be Searle…

Thanks for uploading

I think this might be my favourite philosophy talk ever.

Simple Souls and Complex Brains of the Quantum are well explained . Revitalizing topic for Today.

Chomsky: if you want to know what consciousness is, read a novel. B. Russell: the hard problem is not what is consciousness, but what is matter.

That pause at 2:22 when he's expecting everyone to laugh but no one does.

@stalin2944

7 жыл бұрын

The best hitters rarely bat over .400

Wuddup, homies.

Don't know why 'transcendence' is in the title.

@stalin2944

7 жыл бұрын

It might have been the title of his lecture, I know the word appears several times in his refutation of functionalism, Representation and Reality.

Brilliant man going up against deluded defenders of reason.

@stalin2944

7 жыл бұрын

Where in Putnam's talk is that said?

I'd say Putnam doesn't properly address the following important point. If, in reasoning, we pass from one proposition to another not because we see their logical relation but by virtue of the movements of some parts of our brains, then the intuitive conviction we have that we are making a valid inference must be an illusion, because only logical laws, not physical laws, ensure logical validity. Thus, if our thinking activity is reducibe to brain activity, we should mistrust our reasoning, which would lead us to mistrust any conclusion we have so far reached, even the conclusion that we are but physical systems. As I see it, what is ultimately at issue is the reliability of our confidence in reason in the context of a materialistic interpretation of mind. The question is NOT whether there can exist physical systems isomorphic to validly reasoning minds; this won't solve the main concern, which is: can we rely on our reasoning if it is not governed by mental causation based on the contents of our thoughts but by physical causation that seems not to be based on such contents? WARNING: arguments are welcome; as son as personal attacks show up, the thread will be deleted.

@Oners82

6 жыл бұрын

Laureano Luna Your argument rests upon a false dichotomy - logic or physical. You ignore the fact that the two are perfectly compatible so it is not an exclusive or proposition. The fact is we pass from one proposition by virtue of their logical relation which is determined by the functioning of the brain. And of course to question the validity of reasoning is utterly absurd because you would be left to argue that 7 billion people who agree that 1+1=2 etc. are not reasoning validly, but somehow by pure chance are coming to the exact same but wrong conclusion. To deny that 1+1=2 is nonsensical anyway because it is by its very nature an identity. "can we rely on our reasoning if it is not governed by mental causation based on the contents of our thoughts but by physical causation that seems not to be based on such contents?" Mental causation is the result of physical causation so you are again relying on a false dichotomy. "The question is NOT whether there can exist physical systems isomorphic to validly reasoning minds; this won't solve the main concern" Of course it does because if the brain is functionally isomorphic to a valid reasoning mind then the brain by definition also reasons validly.

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 “Mental causation is the result of physical causation” That’s not a retort. It’s an empty claim. Consciousness cannot be a result of the brain because the brain is a concept created by consciousness.

@Oners82

2 жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo "Consciousness cannot be a result of the brain because the brain is a concept created by consciousness." That is an empty claim and a non sequitur. Consciousness is created by the brain (an undisputable fact), and then our consciousness allows us to understand this fact. There is no contradiction so your assertion that one prevents the other is utterly nonsensical.

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Do you deny that the brain is a concept created by consciousness? What is the definition of “brain”? Where did the arbitrary delineation of that definition originate?

@Oners82

2 жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo You are conflating two things - the physical organ in our heads and our concept of it. It is as fallacious as saying dogs can't exist because dogs are just a concept . Your conflation fallacy is so blatant it is an embarrassingly bad argument.

Putnam's smile bothers me lol

not one of his best talks imho

@stalin2944

7 жыл бұрын

What are some of the talks of his that you prefer?