วีดีโอ

Thinking a bit about the informal behavior argument: taking "rule-follower" to mean something that always follows a definite set of rules of conduct, it looks like Turing is imagining a syllogism roughly like [1] All rule-followers are machines; [2] No people are rule-followers; so [3] No people are machines. That syllogism has an undistributed middle term (as he says) and is invalid, which is easy to see from a diagram. But if the argument had been that all machines are rule-followers, then the syllogism would be valid. What Turing goes on to say seems to me to suggest that he thinks there are really two arguments here with different premisses to reject. The first goes like [1*] All machines are <implicit> rule-followers; [2*] No people are <implicit> rule-followers; so [3] No people are machines. Turing objects that we have no reason to think that [2*] is true. There might be a physical (?) law of behavior covering all people. The second goes like [1**] All machines are <explicit> rule-followers; [2**] No people are <explicit> rule-followers; so [3] No people are machines. I suppose that Turing rejects [1**]. But he's not super-clear about that as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Does my reconstruction look right?

At 0:27, you say that the machine described in Turing's 1936 work was the first abstract idea of a general purpose computer. But isn't Babbage's analytical engine (described in 1837) Turing-complete and hence general purpose in the same sense?

Really enjoyed they thank you

Thank you. Flow 444

Thank you!!!!

19:28 Speaks to modern day social media. Please don't retweet or repeat things you don't know to be true.

Gracias. I believe you are a gentleman and a scholar. This video is my warrant.

Great paper & presentation. If the font size on your shared scree can be increased, that'll be very helpful.

Asamalaykum

AI is an emulation of language; it's not language (a biological instinct that came about through evolution). A computer can emulate gravity, but it won't tell you what gravity is (a change in the fabric of space-time). It's the same with “language models.”

Has there ever been a rejoinder to Chomsky's review published by Skinner's friends

thank you

I love this concept! Reading “together“ influential papers and academic texts. Fantastic!

Good shit

thank you for your dedication

Very helpful. Thanks a lot!

An intuitive notion amounts to this: We can see that the proposition is true because we can see and/or imagine any number of cases where the proposition holds, and on the other hand, we can't find or even imagine how a counter example could be possible. We have performed and unbounded inductive experiment in our imagination which tells use the proposition must necessarily be true. The best example I can think of is the transitivity of equivalence. I can find many case where it holds and can't imagine what it would mean for it not to hold. Ditto for the transitivity of containment for physical objects. If A is in B and B is in C then A is in C. If you want to call such intuitions a priori go ahead, but I don't see it, and I don't see what it buys you labelling anything as a priori, since anything a priori must also necessarily be demonstrable. What would be the content of any a priori truth, if it had no a posteriori consequences. 14:54

We do not need to give primacy to either. We can use both in equal measure, or whatever proportion seems appropriate to the matter at hand. 2:40

A proper name is simply a label for a specific object (as per Mill) But it only works that way for people already acquainted with the object. For everyone else it has to bring to mind a description which is in whole or in part uniquely identifies the entity that the user of the name would like to pick out (It fails if it picks out too many or none at all). Once the listener is acquainted with the object the description (which may not have been accurate) is no longer necessary to identify the individual.

A proper name is understood to pick out a particular object. A proper name is a relation between a speaker and the object picked out An object is a particular entity with extension and location. Historical figures are not objects that we can point to, at best we could maybe point at their bones, but likely not even that. They are hardly more substantial than a fictitious characters. Some of them are in fact fictitious characters. They may once have been real persons, but now the name refers to a mythic figure, and not a person. Everything we know about Moses may have no factual basis. So the word Moses refers to the common cultural conception of Mose as presented in the Bible and in popular culture (for me, Charlton Heston is Moses). The word may once have been a name that referred to a living person, but now that is just another quality of the word and not its referent. I might go so far as to say that only persons acquainted with the Socrates use the word "Socrates" as a name, and for the rest of us it refers to some shadow of *Socrates*. It's the difference between knowing *Socrates* and knowing of "Socrates". The difference between a person and an idea.

This helped me a lot for my philosophy class, thank you

Thank you.

47:11 verification 1:23:06 bookmark

Very well made video, well explained

Nice video

thank you very much for the reading and giving brief explanations.

appreciate this very good introduction to Turing's work ty

59:12 Lecture II

King <3

Not now baby, i'm watching the cognitive revolution happens

Thank you so much for making this

you really helped explain a few of the confusing bits thanks

Just found your channel. Thank you so much for this!

Thanks so much awesome format for a video! 😁

Thanks so much for sharing Kenny. Enlarging the text size might be a good idea for future, which will make it easier for viewers to read off the screen.

one of the best philosophy resources I have found. Thank you!

38:10 ayoooo ... what the hell was Grace talking about hahahahaha

Will you be coming back anytime soon to do more readings? Would love to hear you analyse some of the recent literature on hyperintensionality, grounding and essence.

I totally fell for the cold thing

What if I said the following: If one of you completes the quest i'll give you a thousand euro, if no one completes the quest you all get a piece of candy. - Afterwards, one person succeeds in te quest, but I dont give him the cash price and I dont give anyone the piece of candy either- How can this be true?

you skip so many points and you are like doing reading. Try to add your points

thank you! this is the reading for my literary theory seminar and it is dense

😮 You read so many great books!

dude you're like a philosophy Adam Driver!!! Great video

Hey Kenny! Just wanted to say a huge thank you for this video! It is a great format -- reading and explanation. I absolutely love it. I was assigned this paper for a philosophy class. Now, thanks to you, I understand what's going on there.

We are reading this paper in my philosophy of human communications class and I was so confused. Your explanations were very helpful! Thank you!

This is extraordinarily helpful!! Keep up with the wonderful job !! ❤

thank you! this is quite helpful

nice video

Bro, he was born Hilaire in France.