I would 'define' meaning as an expression of that 'internal structure' of life experience, and reserve the term 'significance' for conventional, rule-based language, which may inhibit or misunderstand the individual 'meaning'.
The mind is not formal? Show me something that isn't formal. No one's found any alternative. The most fundamental "substance", is information. Waves with no medium.
That whole "I think, therefore I am" gets taught at such a young age that it must be removed by force. I've had so many people throw it in may face in the comments. Even when I point out that Decartes was worried about demons tricking his senses, they can't let it go. You would think that watching the Matrix trilogy would exorcise the demon of "brain in a jar", but for some people, it is stuck for life.
@@caricue we cannot translate the Cogito of Descartes in Chineese neither in hebrew. In Hebrew the present of the verb to be doesn't exist. We can said only "I think therefore I have been" or "therefore I will be". The present of To Be is reserved to God and is expressed by the "renversif vav". The letter vav the forme of "I" is put in front of the past or the futur of to be : VeAya "VaYeye". Therefore a formula that cannot be translated in the two oldest langages must be false.
@@yvanguez2077 It depends how you interpret that. If it means "I am thinking, therefore I exist", then it can be expressed easily in Chinese. 我在思想，所以我存在。
My friend the schizophrenic knows when he is not perceiving the real world. For one thing, he knows that in the real world, he does not "see" molecules.
So does every physicist. It doesn't take a fight against schizophrenia to know "what is real and what is not". Paying attention in high school science usually does the job nicely.
They have no self-destined purpose to being natured & stationed, assembled, dispensed, this how, when, & where they are in the whole of things, and you know this 4 a fact. I objected to the guy's statement that particles were lacking meaning, implying that this absence was a sort of negative attribute that he could test & confirm; I wouldn't have written a thing if he had just said that meaning is an irrelevant concept when taking any single particle in isolation. It would've been a boring truism but not an objectionable manifestation of metaphysical hybris & impudence, vainly depreciative of phusis & any possible moïra, furthermore deceptively pushed in the guise of science, reason, positivism... That statement rubbed me the wrong way. I don't like hypocritical nihilistic snobs who take their audience for a lot of dulls to manipulate supreptitiously. Anyway I'm busy & I don't remember what he said in that speech but you get my drift I'm sure.
Get him a lobotomy and sell him 2 some Saudis as a hammam boy. That'd be what's most pleasant 4 you. Have whores who don't speak english on extasy with the dough.
A subjective hallucination is reality until rejected by objective reason. E.g. if the color blind were in the vast majority - and the regular sighted were in the minority - then the regular sighted would be deemed color blind and the color blind would be deemed regular sighted. Red would become green and green would become red.
There must be a skeptic who has forgot a history in which there were normal sighted people in the majority. The nature with the probability for a color blind mutation might come in handy.
God is the all, soul is the self, and its immortality is true insofar as we will eternally have done what we did, and its effects, and the effects of its effects.
These two major mistakes are zombiefied by dysfuntional curriculums of schools, colleges and universities all around the world only because each field of knowledge, each class is presented in historical terms. Both natural science classes, as well as social science classes should start right at what we understand now, and not with Euclid, Newton, Platon and Kant.
I think he is overcompensating and dooming his whole endeavor by letting his opposition to the religious view push him to one side in his premise, instead of starting in the neutral, and following the evidence to the best conclusion. Since religion said that life was special, he has to assume life isn't special (even in a naturalistic way). Religion posits dualism, so he will not even consider anything but a strict monism regardless of whether it could be useful in finding a materialist explanation. The Earth was created special for a purpose says religion, so we must maintain that the Earth is ordinary and average, even against the current evidence. I consider all religions and religious views to be nonsense of the highest order, so I will not let it circumscribe my search for knowledge, and Searle should know better as a Philosopher. Then again, he literally quoted god in the middle of his atheistic talk. I'm not sure what compulsion ties these really smart people to fear the sky daddy so much that it infects everything they do.
@@greenftechn Thanks for that concise evaluation. I am obviously projecting my own disdain for anything mystical onto a philosopher, which is not likely to be accurate or helpful. Strangely enough, I am not a proponent of reductionism even though I am a pragmatic materialist. Having said all that, I still stick by the point that his premises and assumptions doom him to wander aimlessly in a metaphysical minefield of his own making, but then we are all bound by our own perspectives.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
It's pleasure to follow his thoughts!
Searle is a sort of Wittgenstein calm and confident
Well here as a human he is rather short in his communication. I think he was rather tired from the journey and suffered from jet lag 🙂
how does he kill it so hard?
Jeremy I think his time and space helps. NorCal in the present has some savages.
I would 'define' meaning as an expression of that 'internal structure' of life experience, and reserve the term 'significance' for conventional, rule-based language, which may inhibit or misunderstand the individual 'meaning'.
One wonders how it could have taken 2,000 years, or 10,000 years, to arrive at John Searle.
It didnt. We just used to kill men like this for daring to think.
Status function is an answer to the Kant's relational question to duty.
Syntax means that something has to do with structure and time.
12:55 Intentionality means that something has to do with will.
39:17 That's because power is a noumenon. People have been delegated with power since Saul from the Old Testament.
Body - Soul - and the Spirit.
The mind is not formal?
Show me something that isn't formal. No one's found any alternative. The most fundamental "substance", is information. Waves with no medium.
Searle seemed to say that mental activity is comparable to digestion and so is no formal . Perhaps he means formal is not abstract.
Excellent!
Only in philosophy do you need to prove that you and everything else actually exists for most of the lecture
That whole "I think, therefore I am" gets taught at such a young age that it must be removed by force. I've had so many people throw it in may face in the comments. Even when I point out that Decartes was worried about demons tricking his senses, they can't let it go. You would think that watching the Matrix trilogy would exorcise the demon of "brain in a jar", but for some people, it is stuck for life.
@@caricue we cannot translate the Cogito of Descartes in Chineese neither in hebrew. In Hebrew the present of the verb to be doesn't exist. We can said only "I think therefore I have been" or "therefore I will be". The present of To Be is reserved to God and is expressed by the "renversif vav". The letter vav the forme of "I" is put in front of the past or the futur of to be : VeAya "VaYeye".
Therefore a formula that cannot be translated in the two oldest langages must be false.
@@caricue So you are telling us that philosophers are borderline mental? Far out. \sarcasm
@@yvanguez2077 It depends how you interpret that. If it means "I am thinking, therefore I exist", then it can be expressed easily in Chinese. 我在思想，所以我存在。
Social reality means that something has to do with a family.
My friend the schizophrenic knows when he is not perceiving the real world. For one thing, he knows that in the real world, he does not "see" molecules.
So does every physicist. It doesn't take a fight against schizophrenia to know "what is real and what is not". Paying attention in high school science usually does the job nicely.
How are particles supposed to be intrinsically meaningless, exactly?
+Evagre Mone Because its humans who confer meaning on the world (including particles) so they have no intrinsic meaning.
Yep. "Meaning" is an entirely human concept. Nothing has inherent meaning, all meaning is bestowed by human beings.
They have no self-destined purpose to being natured & stationed, assembled, dispensed, this how, when, & where they are in the whole of things, and you know this 4 a fact. I objected to the guy's statement that particles were lacking meaning, implying that this absence was a sort of negative attribute that he could test & confirm; I wouldn't have written a thing if he had just said that meaning is an irrelevant concept when taking any single particle in isolation. It would've been a boring truism but not an objectionable manifestation of metaphysical hybris & impudence, vainly depreciative of phusis & any possible moïra, furthermore deceptively pushed in the guise of science, reason, positivism... That statement rubbed me the wrong way. I don't like hypocritical nihilistic snobs who take their audience for a lot of dulls to manipulate supreptitiously. Anyway I'm busy & I don't remember what he said in that speech but you get my drift I'm sure.
Get him a lobotomy and sell him 2 some Saudis as a hammam boy. That'd be what's most pleasant 4 you. Have whores who don't speak english on extasy with the dough.
Whatever you say, sensei.
A subjective hallucination is reality until rejected by objective reason. E.g. if the color blind were in the vast majority - and the regular sighted were in the minority - then the regular sighted would be deemed color blind and the color blind would be deemed regular sighted. Red would become green and green would become red.
There must be a skeptic who has forgot a history in which there were normal sighted people in the majority. The nature with the probability for a color blind mutation might come in handy.
26:23 35:00
God is the all, soul is the self, and its immortality is true insofar as we will eternally have done what we did, and its effects, and the effects of its effects.
These are propositions which you project onto your experience. God is made in man's image. None of this has any validity otherwise.
34
These two major mistakes are zombiefied by dysfuntional curriculums of schools, colleges and universities all around the world only because each field of knowledge, each class is presented in historical terms.
Both natural science classes, as well as social science classes should start right at what we understand now, and not with Euclid, Newton, Platon and Kant.
I think he is overcompensating and dooming his whole endeavor by letting his opposition to the religious view push him to one side in his premise, instead of starting in the neutral, and following the evidence to the best conclusion. Since religion said that life was special, he has to assume life isn't special (even in a naturalistic way). Religion posits dualism, so he will not even consider anything but a strict monism regardless of whether it could be useful in finding a materialist explanation. The Earth was created special for a purpose says religion, so we must maintain that the Earth is ordinary and average, even against the current evidence. I consider all religions and religious views to be nonsense of the highest order, so I will not let it circumscribe my search for knowledge, and Searle should know better as a Philosopher. Then again, he literally quoted god in the middle of his atheistic talk. I'm not sure what compulsion ties these really smart people to fear the sky daddy so much that it infects everything they do.
Excellent points. Maybe he's not same sort of reductionist you think?
@@greenftechn Thanks for that concise evaluation. I am obviously projecting my own disdain for anything mystical onto a philosopher, which is not likely to be accurate or helpful. Strangely enough, I am not a proponent of reductionism even though I am a pragmatic materialist. Having said all that, I still stick by the point that his premises and assumptions doom him to wander aimlessly in a metaphysical minefield of his own making, but then we are all bound by our own perspectives.
This is contradictory. One of Searle’s syntax structures
wish he would work off a script. He uses a 100 words when 20 words could be used. Yawn.