The Logical Structure of Human Civilization (John Searle)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2022
- The distinctive features of human civilization, as opposed to animal societies, are such things as money, property, marriage, government, etc. These are created and partly constituted by linguistic representations. For this reason, they all have logical, propositional structures. John Searle explains how they are created and maintained by certain sorts of speech acts and thus explains the nature of human civilization.
This talk was the second of two talks given by John Searle in 2014 as part of the Patten lecture series.
#Philosophy #Searle
![[UNCUT]”หมอปลา และทนายแก้ว” ลากไส้ขบวนการ เด็กเชื่อมจิต จ่อเอาผิดทั้งครอบครัว I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9zXrAIVBQFo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for making these lectures freely available!
@@cliffpinchon2832 😂💭 Take the nugget(s) and leave the rest!
@@cliffpinchon2832 so you are one that just goes with the flow, maintaining the status quo?
@@cliffpinchon2832 I see you peacock.
The women went to his motel, what was she expecting
this kind of clarity is contagious.
Thank you Professor John Searle for a great lecture on Language and Civilization.
what did you learn? Certainly it was weak on the epistemological part, he asserts "all is one" for particles and politics, but it's all mediated by things we don't understand. I am not particularly a dualist but the dualism door is left wide open.
I love listening to Prof. Searle. He's obviously a very intellectually vibrant guy, but he seems like such a sweetheart too.
Searle remains an amazing teacher as it was many decades ago.
Brasil
Some notes I took just now -
Humanity has 2 unique capabilities
1) we cooperate.
2) we can *assign FUNCTIONS to OBJECTS.*
* _intro to 2001: a bone can be a weapon_
Civilizations figured out that *functions can be assigned to ANY object, REGARDLESS of whether or not the object is intuitively suited for the task, IF ENOUGH PEOPLE agree on this assignment!*
_The five dollar bill 💵 is a COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION!_
The state: prisons and elections
● human consciousness creates the institutional reality, but once created, we can talk about the impact of these institutions factually.
● human consciousness involves worry.
● we can create institutional facts that are larger than brute reality.
● humans can cooperate with each other.
● humans can impose functions on objects.
● objects perform functions that conform with their physical structure.
● but we can assign functions to things like a five dollar bill. We do so socially.
● regulative rules, a system, we all play by them.
● some moves are legal, some moves achieve social ends.
● words, promises, contracts, relationships, benefits, rights, duties, STATUS.
● ALL INSTITUTIONS INTERLOCK IN A SOCIETY.
● we create institutional facts.
● out of thin air. Your money has no physical existence when in your bank. You exchange the numerical values in your accounts for stuff and help.
● you create a corporation by filing some papers. The actual corporation is abstraction.
● language is a signaling system. Represents information in a compact transcendent fashion.
● propositional content + emotional force.
● does the statement fit the reality? True.
● make an order or a promise: you must fit the world to accommodate it. The statement directs the future.
● promise, vow, threat, pledge. Committing yourself to doing something.
● declarations: you’re hired! The world changes because I said so.
● performative: a verb command.
● This note is legal tender for all transactions public and private: is that so? They made it so by DECLARATION. We are creating a reality by declaring it so. If the statement is accepted as creating the reality it describes.
● All of institutional reality is created by representations that are DECLARATIONS. This doesn’t need to be explicit; you can make someone a boss by treating them as such.
● All institutional reality is created by repeated applications of the same kind of speech act, the DECLARATION.
● We assign functions by declaration.
● Status functions are the result of institutional facts. Getting married; we do this all for POWER.
● All institutions are about building POWER STRUCTURES.
● DEONTIC POWERS: rights, duties, authorisations, permissions. You either have a power or not. Institutions cause these powers.
● Declarations create powers. They lock into human rationality; they give you reasons to act that are independent from your own desires. THese are desire-independent obligations. “You gotta x, y, z...” Nobody does it for fun.
● An institutional fact creates a reason for acting.
● WE LIVE IN A SEA OF STATUS FUNCTIONS THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED. Citizen of the state of california.
● It’s easy to make a LAW about these status functions. This is codifying the status functions.
● Is there a set of obligations that go with a given status function? Yes. But some you need to improvise as events unfold.
● Language is the BASIC HUMAN INSTITUTION.
● All institutions presuppose language.
● When we use language to create power, the powers may go beyond the powers of language. Roles in a system assign them powers that are hard to pin down. The powers go beyond what you can talk about. The power to command troops in battle, can cause the president to do things that are unpredictable. But you’re locked into the system. You can’t stop him, those are his powers.
if people accept it, your declaration becomes fact.
● the STATUS FUNCTION DECLARATION is the magic spell that causes changes and institutional power.
● human rights are merely a status function that arise within the institutional framework of a society.
● just being human is a status function declaration according to the declarations of human rights and independence.
● “comrade” - everyone has the same status.
● no more “ladies and gentlemen” for feminists: that phrase accords status functions to the audience.
● vocabulary is the articulation of a status function.
● The LOGICAL structure is a PROPOSITIONAL structure full of logical relations.
● The accepted status functions persist through time.
> you create a corporation by filing some papers. The actual corporation is abstraction.
When productive people produce together in a specific way (splitting investors from management responsibility to easily attract investment), they are a corporation. After the fact, govt merely protects their right to that, like a fence separates one house from another. Corps , however, are abstractions from the evidence of the senses. Merely looking at their activity, provides little knowledge, like a cat looking at a computer.
Reality is prior to language. Language is a rational method for identifying reality. Reality is identity. Language is identification.
min 5:40 Brute Facts v. Institutional Facts... Meeeeh. Shaky at best, sir....shaky at best 🙄I'd go with Natural Harmony v. Human Brutality.
This is great! Thanks ❤❤❤
@@k.t.5405 Rousseauist, therefore jejune.
This man is an incredibly engaging lecturer! I love these sorts of talks but it can be difficult to dive in when so many speakers simply say their ideas instead of presenting them to an audience
Plain spoken and very accessible but still delivering the points on complex subject matter.
Rambling and disconnected albeit knowledgeable. This gentleman offers zero ingenuity.
He is good but I'm early into this and he seems to be an Authoritarian Civilisation fan and subtle One World propagandist... As a Libertarian Centrist AUTHORITY MONOPOLIES KILL, Governmentalist Types.. Mega-corruption is guaranteed, practically useless vanity projects galore too, all liberally tax-funded with no individual Direct Democracy on even the largest governmental spends.
--
We take the view MULTIPLE CHECKERS are needed to replace many regulatory Alphabet Agencies... A private system where companies pay companies to do the check and a private system funded by donations where the freelancers (who can work for charities) preferably do not know each other to stop rotten apples spoiling the brew..
--
Corrupt Corps bribing corrupt state bodies = DOUBLE-BARRELLED CORRUPTION made easy. This applies to at least the FDA and EPA. It may need a small amount of (semi) centralised planning to make sure many different testers visit many different companies, areas, rivers, etc.
At least one spectator almost hit the more important underestimated and controversial point of all the lecture: how can you get a valid description of a world created by linguistic speech acts (which prescribes some reality beyond the extension of the own linguistic act) if the essence of that human existence is made of real prescriptions of facts instead of descriptions of facts? In other way of saying it, how can we deal with a dual epistemology which is simultaneously based on descriptions and prescriptions on the same res extensa of basic particles?
Say. If the behavioral sciences could analyse the humanity by the same way it analyses a society of bees, would Searle still be capable to show the existence of some remaining relevant information about humans due to the fact that no speech act was included as part of that set of complete declarative descriptions of humanity? That's the only deep and fundamental question here but it wasn't tackled by the American students.
Brasil
He has several full lecture courses on TH-cam, plus many interviews with Bryan Magee and others.
This was remarkably good.
Excellent, thank you.
Great lecture
Propositonal structure is the assignment of status function
Propositinal structure - logical relations
Social animals - power structures and hierarchies - alpha males and alpha females
Remarkably rich system of status functions
Ontology of human civilization
Modal auxiliaries
The form of the question determines the form of the answer
Peculiar english modal auxiliary verbs
Rhetorical questions makes a statement by assuming the answer
Beauty of money is fungible, anybody with the money can use it to buy something
Status function indicator will acquire a separate life of their own
Epistemic device
Ontology of basic entities
Some animals evolve consciousness
How the brain creates consciousness
Protons to Presidents
Carbons - Evolution - Language
We’re unlikely the conscious beasts in the universe
Freaks of a certain kind of evolution
Other 96% is dark matter and dark energy
Epistemic darkness
The universe is expanding
Which societies will facilitate human flourishing?
Institutions are systems of constitutive rules. They enable the creation of institutional facts by status functions declarations which without exception create deontic powers, which is a glue that holds civilizations together because they give us a reason for acting independent of our immediate inclinations.
How can you argue against language?
I don’t see how language can be challenged as an institution.
Insightful
That which is, is that which isn't is not.
That which is, is that which isn't is not.
It might not have sounded like it, but this was a great question. 1:06:50
When you hear the answer, I'm sure you'll agree.
it's good to listen once in a while a genius talk
However his "genius" did not deter him from sexually harrassing his research assistant, having sex with his students and watching pornography at work.
As we grow up we're taught to appreciate our own limitations. Our experience is full of stress intending to prove what's been declared to be true, but the rules we abide by are enforced by many without regard for Obedience to the Unenforceable. Where there is no law that determines our course of action, but we know we are not free to do as we would; where taking action to refrain from an indulgence of idol curiosity stems from our conscience as strongly as the need to provide our fancy with her objective: to prove our preoccupation to be true.
Interesting lecture. I’m as far as the declaration. It reminds me a lot of logos.
1:06:13 - Cold climates -> Tough environment -> Selection pressure -> Evolution -> generic mutation -> High Eye Que+++
What a refreshing series of presentations. Duly noted: no notes. Glad I found Professor John Searle (assume PhD if he is on faculty at Berkeley)
Yes, he has a DPhil from Christ Church College, Oxford, UK. Truly an intellectual titan .. and a sex pest, allegedly.
"On June 19, 2019, following campus disciplinary proceedings by Berkeley's Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), University of California President Janet Napolitano approved a recommendation that Searle have his emeritus status revoked, after a determination that he had violated university policies against sexual harassment."
Rightfully so, evidently he is quite a pig
@@m.h.lockesteppe9834 So sorry...Maybe it was a false accusation after all...
He’s turning 90 on 31 July!
How do you know this?
@@martinisreb9502 Wikipedia
Ayyooooo...!!! 🖐
Hellooo....!!! 🖐
One language for a one world government sounds most logical.
He’s a good lecturer
With the help of this channel we see there are many brilliant people both in the past and in our currant time. Why is our govt. Run by such incapable greedy and shallow people. Most politicians couldn't even follow this lecture. Until we can have an altogether smarter govt we are doomed.
POLITICIANS FOLLOW THE MONEY
Government is a control system. Specifically mind control. It begins in the crib and even Searle is a victim. There is no proof and never will be that the daystar is 93 million miles away. Yet this is a "brute fact". Nasa is a grift machine within big government. One of many.
Thank you
*i had classes guest taught by Searle @ UC!* im so glad my partner at the time made me attend. it is one of those fun things, that (even as president od student philosophy at the time >>) i didnt appreciate enough. but i di in hindsight. & it was a fond memory to be conjured byt this vid.
A very interesting philosophy
According to that great philosopher Bill Hicks: "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves."
Excellent
We create institutions not to merely manifest power, but to hold power to account
Really great kind
Information Age and beyond is basically a constant increase in status function related conscious thoughts exercised by the individuals. As civilization become more complex, the number of status functions also increase because you simply have more stuff to deal with as a result of the increased complexity. The complexity itself I don't think arise from an increase in need of the word and reality mapping. The complexity itself arise simply from conscious thoughts exercising status functions and running out of relations to permute on.
If we ever meet aliens and need to explain human civilization to them, John Searle must be our ambassador.
Exactly. Baffle them with bullshit !
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Scholarly bullshit. Don't forget that. He's not Donald Trump.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 "...the existence of the appearance is the reality," acc/to Searle. Im sure that Chamberlain in 1938 Munich would agree.
@@TeaParty1776 yes, thank you for supplying a perfect example of trying to baffle by means of BULLSHIT !
42:00 When he says "they create powers beyond language". What he really means by powers are the ability to punish if those rules are violated.
That is a misunderstanding. We utter grammatical sentences because we imitate others. The role of nature and of social influence is much bigger than the role of punishment (which does have a role).
No. What he means by power is a specific function in a collaborative system recognized by the system.
"The thing I am going to talk about is literally the best thing anyone has talked about ever". And then he does.. in the best way possible
Thank You
I like your choice of video titles..
Power is a reification error like pholgiston (the cause of fire, which must exist because fires exist). Power is a confusion of officium, potestas, imperium and auctoritas.
Errors aren’t necessarily bad. We sort of need useful fictions when knowledge is incomplete or else we’d have to abandon all our empirical models, regardless of how useful they are.
I am not sure would characterize confusion with reification. i might say confusion probably provides near occasions to reify. Cheers!
The ideas he exposed here seems extremely insightful.
Ideas aren't the only thing he's exposed people to.
@@m.h.lockesteppe9834 Surely, I didn't meant that at all. (Unless you're criticising him over some other thing, in which case I'd keep my judgement over what I heard and my discernment between that and anything else).
@@sind6333 I think this is a reference to the multiple instances of exchanges of monetary or academic benefits to students in exchange for sexual acts, which in 2019 led to his emeritus (professor) title to be revoked.
He was a staunch proponent for the US aggressive foreign policy post 9/11, and the "axis of evil".
He fought for the right to freely increase rent prices in a joint move with other landlords, comparing the rent-controls to the treatment of black people under segregation. He won, causing rent prices in the area to soar over the next few years.
This shouldn't take away from his philosophical argument here, but maybe a backdrop of the influence he's had can help to flesh out the views presented. They shouldn't negate his points, but the color they add shouldn't be ignored either.
8:54 Status function pined down in the social contract. Napoleon and French nation.
Complexity!
does anybody have a summary on this?
just to remember the key points, like the type of statements and such
Take notes
Do it yourself.
16:00 his money concept is interesting.
But money is probably the most important law and important authority granted to government. Isaac Newton was Warden of His Majesty's Mint and was noted for hanging counterfeiters.
Nowadays we employ counterfeitrers in central banks...
I see many similarities with Louis Althusser's theory of interpellation. To be interpellated into becoming a subject can esentially be understood as being awarded a status function in a system.
1:05:05 We can prevent collapse by bringing society, by bringing our institutions, into line with basic moral precepts. We have a dishonest market system. Prices do not reflect costs in terms of environmental impacts.
Truth is a primary value. We can make prices more honest by charging fees to industries proportional to how much pollution they emit, resources they extract or wildlife habitat they disturb or destroy in pursuit of profit.
We can make a more fair system by sharing proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people. Fairness is a primary value. We can bring our society more into alignment with basic precepts by making prices honest and by sharing (a monetary representation of) natural wealth to all.
A sustainable society requires that we embody moral precepts in practice. We must respect PUBLIC property rights, too. [Fees charged proportional to adverse impacts on the environment can and should be raised until impacts overall of various kinds are brought into line with what most people think is acceptable. (A system of random polls would be a useful instrument here.) The shared right to decide limits to impacts (and our shared right to benefit from natural wealth) will be manifest in reality.]
Is it an analytical expression of contratualism?
2:37 and I'm hooked.
For as brilliant as Searle is, and there's no doubting that. He has a bad habit of missing/ignoring points. Sir, it's not if you care if any particular group accepts you, I'm quite certain you're honest when you make the claim about Chicago; it's if your *peers* accept you. We uphold our obligations not because it's of benefit to those we're obliged to, but because if fail to live up to our obligations, our peer's acceptance of us declines. While any given person might claim they don't need *peers*, or the acceptance of those *peers*, then I'd suggest they misunderstand what a peer is. We all need peers and the acceptance of such, if for no other reason to provide for our basic needs. You don't fulfil obligations just because you created the sentence, or language. You fulfill them because failure to has a negative fitness score, while fulfilling them has a positive one. It saddens me when great men fail to see simple truths. We cannot create causative frameworks for any complex system, let alone the single most complex system we know of: civilization. We cannot even solve a simple 3-body problem because of intractability. How much more so for systems that are orders of magnitudes more complex?
37:00 Status function == social role.
Declaration doesn't make it a fact. It's the collective on the perspective that defines it as fact. So basically, no matter what the argument, what it all boils down to is this, " Because I/we said so!"
Searle's theory seems very similar to that of *Jürgen Habermas* in _The Theory of Communicative Action_ (1981), doesn't it?
Okay, Habermas did read both Austin and Searle's early work :)
I can offer a real and true example of a communicative or declarative action of the kind Searle uses in his examples. The CEO of a corporation with a few hundred million $ of investments apparently made his lady friend the VP of investments of same corporation. She had the big office and big desk in the corporate headquarters, and she supervised the staff managing the money and investments. The corporation fell on hard times, the press got wind of serious irregularities, and stories appeared describing the alleged misdeeds of the chairman and the alleged complicity of his lady friend, the VP of investments. She sued the press for defamation on the grounds that she was a clerk, not the VP of investments, stating the fact that the corporation's board of directors had never officially given her any position as an officer of the company, so, according to law and the corporate by-laws, she was never a VP of anything. Did the declarative action make her a VP of investments? How was the lawsuit resolved? Sorry, IDK.
I would wonder what his take would be on the institution of mathematics
crows can do these things, including choosing tools apt to specific tasks & desires. but yes, rules-based symbolic abstraction seems unique.
This is only 1% of Prof. Searle's genius.
does believing that you have free will impact the inner structure of consciousness and therefore give you free will
if i program a computer to believe it has free will, does that mean it does?
@@haroldgarrett2932 A computer isn't a human, its not a creation of nature
I think declarative statements are a combination of an order and a promise. For example in the case of money, the US treasure "orders/implores everyone who takes the USA seriously to treat that piece of paper as representative of financial value" AND it "promises to back the currency (somehow, I'm not an economist), and promises violence against those who deface the currency etc etc". I think all declarative statements could be rewritten in order/promise language, I do not believe there is anything special about declarative statements having order/promise meaning implicitly.
Another example, when physicists say "current flows from high electric potential to low electric potential" they mean to say "we implore all physicists to use this convention of speaking about current and electric potential so that we may clearly understand what everyone means, and we promise to behave in the same way". I can come up with countless examples.
All the players or participants in the community or system of financial intercourcourse must agree upon the meaning of money, including the rules or syntax of play.
We spend much time as irrational, unconscious and semi-conscious beings.
And we sleep 1/3rd of our lives.
1:07:08 Look for "Amanpour Weirdest People" here on TH-cam and you'll find an evolutionary psychologist saying the same thing. Considering, here, "civilization" is the type of large social organization based on institutions. (I may have got myself in a loop but, well, I'm watching this for fun).
Is this the same Searle as in the Chinese room?
Yes.
guess i can safely toss everything he says in the trash then. the chinese room is an incredibly stupid thought experiment. single neurons don't understand the information they're passing along a neural network any more than a person passing along chinese characters in the room
How is it he can say that these declarative speech acts can be inferred without speech in some instances and then say animals cannot do it? How can you prove animals don't do it if it can be inferred through action among the group like hierarchy or power structure?
The statement that the fundamental particles (he should have said particle / wave fields) are mindless and meaningless IS and assumption. We have no way of objectively measuring the presence of other minds and we do not even know what it might be to ascribe intention and meaning to the fundamental fields. We therefore have nothing to say about this matter (excuse the pun). To claim that they are mindless and meaningless is an article of RELIGIOUS FAITH. John Searle, of all people, ought to know this.
Animals create functional roles. Eg a member if lion group may have easier time most of the day but has riskiest role in the hunt or a special function.
🖤
if he scrambles an egg without it sticking to the frying pan, he accomplished his personal goal. we call it breakfast for a reason.
32:35 That's not a power - it it a potential.
" In June 2019, Searle's status as professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, was revoked for his repeated violations of the university's sexual harassment policies.[8][9] "
NFTs are representations of status functions - John Searle
Yuval Noah Harari has based his basic assumptions on the growth of human civilization upon human capacity for collective declarations, he just doesn't state them as such.
Yup. Do you do Zoom?
the status function is a symbol. This proposition aligns well with symbolic philosophy and the role of symbols in language.
Trying to explore this more on my own channel currently. Appreciate your efforts!
Hello Hello dear fellow mortals! As soon as perception enters, objectivity flies out through the window. As simple as it can ever get. Take care and live well.😇❤
Human rights start phenomenologically with the priority of the other - you start by protecting the rights of the other guy, rather than with a contest of wills, and it objectifies into a reciprocal system. Developed in Levinas "The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Other," in _Outside the Subject_ p.116 ff. The priority of the other is developed in _Totality and Infinity_.
Your rationalizing altruism. Rights are a moral view of freedom of action in society. Mans independent mind needs freedom from force to guide his life. Morality is the minds guide to mans life.
Mans Rights-Ayn Rand
@@TeaParty1776 Levinas develops that ethics comes before ontology. Think of it as social arrangements stabilize the world so that objectivity becomes possible, similar to Wittgenstein's private language argument. What makes something moral is its defining who you are. Before you're called on, you're anonymous and interchangeable. Once you're called, you're unique. The self arising that way is not altruism-based but phenomenology-based.
@Bagpuss Bagpuss How human rights came to be a gift to the world from the West, as if the rights were a priori.
@@yclept9 Indeed, there is the example of Pope Paul III in 1537 taking the side of the missionaries and opposing the Spanish government, in declaring that the idigenous people of the south Americas were in fact rational agents and capable of recieving the the scaraments. Julian Garces, a Bishop of Tlaxcala wrote "...who would be so presumptuous and brazen to affirm that they are incapable of faith if we see how capable they are in the mechanical arts."
It's not as if these "gifts" as you put were "a priori" as you put it. Many of the peoples of this land had already been slaughted or enslaved. The missionaries had debated over a long period of time and it was their experince with these 'other' peoples that confirmed to them they were just like themselves 'rational agents'...
@@yclept9 Existence exists. Consciousness is the consciousness of existence.
Consciousness does not cause existence. Existence is metaphysically primary. Consciousness is metaphysically passive.
Metaphysics (including ontology, its basic part) is the widest, most basic knowledge, the context of ALL other knowledge, inc/science and ethics. This has been known since Plato and Aristotle. Wittgenstein and phenomenology are radically false and destructive philosophies that literally disintegrate the mind. The minds power of integrating knowledge is mans most important power. Isolated facts are worthless in guiding mans survival. Mans survival basically depends on thinking of many basically similar things as one thing because the effects of the many basically similar things are basically similar.
Man needs a philosophical framework for the minds function in guiding survival.
Man is not a brute animal cognitively trapped in each concrete situation but with physical powers and instincts to survive in the moment. Mans life requires long-range planning, ie, integrating past, present and future.
Morality is the minds guide to mans survival in concrete reality. This is vastly more important than social relations. Independence is a major moral virtue. There has never been a rational defense of altruism or any other version of sacrifice. IF you want to live, you SHOULD value your own life more than anything. If you dont want to live, dont.
Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand
Virtue Of Selfishness-Ayn .....Rand
Excuse me sir I'd like to have your advice and maybe 2% help along the way with me and my professor we have a different theory on dark holes black matter if you could review, think outside the box, but please start in 1960, there was only only light and sound waves known at the time? Magnetism and heat for magnetism was not known yet? We have a different Theory if you could help us I'm just an old cowboy. My age is 64 I'm a theoretical scientist and a sophomore and Applied Mathematics at this time. Thank you sir. Just an old cowboy
The Purpose Of Life
As with any philosophy: the moment a person sees a flaw in one aspect - the whole thing will, and should, collapse.
For example, The Principle of Polarity says: anything that is polarised, such as black and white, are basically the same thing - colour.
However, that does not mean black is white or white is black when we say they are both aspects of colour.
Black is black and it always will be black.
White is white and it always will be white.
Of course ... it is possible to see both as grey but this (colour) is still black and white pixles / areas creating the illusion of grey.
This goes for everything we perceive - including dreams - since light is light and darkness is darkness regardless of subjective identification.
Thus, all philosophy is rendered worthless - because it makes perception malleable within the expression of delusion.
Perception, without delusion, allows all of reality to function eternally.
Therefore, the purpose of life (in this world) is to engender an eternal estate in preparation for the next world.
This is to say, we are required to leave any delusional estate (sin) to embrace the perfected mindset (Christ).
...because the next world is eternal.
This reality will ultimately pass away - along with those who embraced some delusional estate.
Bless ❤️ The Name
The Three Pillars
lnkd.in/e8NKKpb
Alpha and Omega
Adam and Eve were told they can partake of any tree except the one that has knowledge of good and evil - so we know two things:
1) They had consciousness prior to partaking the forbidden fruit - because they understood what they were told to avoid.
2) They were allowed to obtain knowledge - because the other trees did not bare fruit that contained the mixture of lies and truth.
They were (basically) warned to avoid anything that causes delusion - so we know the creator genuinely cares for His creation.
After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit: they realised they were naked - which means they became aware they have a defiant attitude toward the creator (with a sense of vulnerability that took effect) and, thus, felt shame.
This caused consciousness, present in man, to become corrupt which then allowed him to exploit the opportunity to assert dominion over others he considers inferior.
This is why God told Eve, "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall 'rule' over you."
She was, after all, the weaker vessel - so she would become subject to the misogynistic attitude of those lacking in understanding.
Therefore, it is attitude that has been evolving or devolving through the ages: and consciousness, being a composite of attitude, has forged institutions that have galvanized class within hierarchical structure.
This situation was exasperated by a class of angels called "the Watchers" who left their eternal estate to found early civilization and establish religions that exalt their own interests.
These interests include the liberation of lust - where they exist as a demonic possession in those who embrace the assertion of authority over others.
Their religions (including false Christianity) depend upon a faith in the mystery, rather than Yahshua, to draw the unsuspecting into the delusion of thinking hierarchy is a vital component of civilization.
For this reason: secular society cannot function without religion: and, as you should have guessed by now, religion is not sanctioned by the creator - so we know civilization, past and present, bares no resemblance to the (prophesied) Kingdom of Heaven.
Yahshua told us not to get angry with another nor lust upon another - because these (attitudes), being sin in the heart, are the manifestation of one's assertion of authority over others.
...and sin (delusion) is when a person seeks to justify wicked behaviour as righteous.
Yahshua showed us the eternal estate is available to those who practice humility - which is to say: the body of flesh, we have, allows us to develop a faith that facilitates a return to perfection.
The correct attitude will facilitate greater hermeneutic understanding: and this can adjust conscious awareness - but salvation comes to those who acknowledge the authority of Yahshua (in faith).
He told us to love one another as He loved us - so the Father in Heaven can see He loves the Father.
Bless 💖 the Name
The Three Pillars
lnkd.in/e8NKKpb
Well...I'm a behavioral scientist rather then a philosopher...yet relationships are very important
> behavioral scientist
Religion also splits body from mind.
Wow.
We humans developed "right" to deal with fact (that evil bitch, mother nature) and so we could live in co-operation as in our basic nature- justice according to Aristotle.
Very useful to understand these concepts if you are seeking power. Of course people should seek power, but where I slam people is when they try to seek the wrong type of power.. what I call the lower power, as opposed to seeking to align themselves with the higher power. The lower power will always pretend they are the higher power, but when people realize they are false powers, they resort to violence and getting angry etc to try to maintain their status. It obviously works, but they would rather people not know that that is how they are maintaining the world in its masonic strata form because their power would not be as effective or they may lose it completely if too many people feel like they are in immediate danger. That is your best leverage in life, aligning yourself with the higher power and seeking to use the lever of popular transparency to prevent the lower power from attacking the hell out of you.
Some declarations can be false though sworn to be true. In other words, liars often declare.
Sober acid trip. Mind blown to dust.
I love how this is all an analytical philosophy breakdown of why Nietzsche was right. Institutional reality is ultimately a long-ride refinement of the will to power.
But he shortchanged the Chicago economists who believed that no one ever did anything because of a desire-independent reason. Whoever that economist was, was right. There is a desire associated with keeping promises, and it usually goes back to reputation. That the desire is couched in an inevitability of how directive language works, but that still doesn't stop there from being a desire of some kind prodding basically all human action. Directive language works because we want to maintain something in our status as a person, which is obviously deeply attractive compared to being effectively exiled. Social powers have a different set of desires behind them, but they can still be understood as desires.
Wasn't what I thought it would be based on the title. Still watched the whole thing. Go figure. 🤷🤓
But the 5 dollar bill does perform (at least partly) its role in virtue of it's physical structure. The very fact that it's a 5 dollar bill and not a 100 dollar bill comes down solely to the physical properties of the bill.
Sure our attitudes partially dictate the role of dollar bills... but our attitudes also dictate the roles of pens and combs.
Still a representation though…
@@christopherhamilton3621 Not sure what that means
@@gerhitchman Thought not. He explains it though.
@@christopherhamilton3621 Could you paraphrase what you think he means by it?
@Bagpuss Bagpuss "Contrary to your claim, the fact that it is a 5 dollar bill and not a 100 dollar bill does not come down solely to the physical properties of the bill."
I didn't say solely. I said partially, and that seems to be obviously correct. Other than that, I agree with what you said. So I still don't know what distinction between money and combs/pens Searle was trying to make. The function of any object has to do with both the physical properties of that object and the attitudes that we have towards it.
Yeah, the essence of the universe is particles, or strings, or something or another... we'll figure-it-out later... But starting with this as our foundation of what we now know about the universe, as knowledge grows, and, as we know more now than 300 years before, but we still don't know its essence, we are now ready to discuss human existence. Wait.. WTF ?!
Due to arrow of time, entropy increases and and it creates structures like humans and we have learned the ability to create structures through evolution. So our feeling of being smart is just an illusion that we can objectively agree apon. Social groups and status allows us to evolve and seems to put us on the top of the food chain.
Complexity seems to be created out of random probability.This seems like we live in a perposturiuos universe.
What motivated me to write this comment is the weird fact that the comment I'm making is so similar to a comment I made two hours ago and it in line with the narrative of this vidio.
This is oviously due to You tube algorithm that made this vidio come up on my status. The problem I have with the arguments on this vidio is that we do not fully understand conciousness. Therefore I personally I prefer to keep an open mind as I do believe that there is some element of truth, that I have personal choices in life.
Yes. Same as we are capable to talk about carpentry without explicit know what wood, trees, life or matter is
@@horaciozini5446 But a carpenter would not start telling you about the essence of life and matter in order to explain carpentry ! If he wants to talk about human existence, there is no need for him to start with a vague understanding of particle physics as a preface. We already have a direct knowledge of what it means to be a human, just as a carpenter already has a direct knowledge of what it means to be a carpenter.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 I agree with that statement. I think I misunderstood your original comment.
if one of you go's rog and decide to assign real property to my name (money or a parking space... ext), can it be done?
IF so... who manage it? who take it away?
is it the same story world wide?
the final comparisson of a lab in leipzig and white house was unfortunate!
Why did we develop speech , because we were driven to by our passions, not to merely out of reason.
It's analogous to dissecting how a car functions, but not why it functions .
haven't overdosed on SEARLE in monthssssss... i'm rollin' up my sleeve and pullin' the belt loop tight with my stained teeth, P.O... shoot me up!... you know i'm good for it...
I think the idea that humans can create a reality simply by declaring it to exist is catching on more and more.. by creating the reality that it describes. When we talk about something and describing a situation and it is accepted that can and does become reality. This shows the incredible power words and communication have on shaping our existence. I like how the professor began talking about the universe on a micro level how natural sciences show in observance how the universe exist, and that our reality/realities are all based on our consciousness. On a singular level and collectively. it is quite interesting how humans as a species has not changed much in the last 30,000 years but we have advanced so far in the last few centuries. collective consciousness is shaping our realities and as humans begin to realize that and accept it we will advance further and faster. which is undoubtedly happening.
Would not ir be easir to assume that mind comes firts than matter? To show that something “comes” from another thing is already relational, a logical relation, therefore really we are assuimg that mind is first than matter always. Because it is just a dogma to say that the structure of the world is due to elementary particles. Why is that the case?
Perhaps language is first? Information of a difference which allows mind to decide and matter to exchange.
Universal human rights to exist, these people should be happy with the overturning of Roe ;)
So what's his point?
On one breath
Taking materialism for granted? Déjà-vu.
Are we living in a meaningful or meaningless universe ? The first thing you should notice about this question is that it is NOT a scientific question. There is no branch of science that studies values and/or meanings as fundamental aspects of the universe. Moreover, there are no scientific methods in existence that can answer this question. This is because the paradigm of modern science is based upon ignoring the possibility of final causes (see Aristotle) as real modes of explanation. In other words, the paradigm of modern science restricts its fundamental modes of explanation in terms of the existence of efficient causes. For example, the efficient cause of the so-called 'Big Bang' is supposed to be the fundamental explanation for the existence of our universe. The question of whether God created the universe is not answered, but rather ignored altogether by the paradigm of modern science. This is because God and his so-called 'Grand Design' would be considered a final cause for the existence of our universe, and modern science simply ignores the possibility of final causes as being real modes for the explanation of our universe. This ignoring is often interpreted as modern science 'rejecting' final causes. However, it is important to understand what this so-called 'rejection' is based upon -- as there are no scientific discoveries nor experiments that disprove the existence of final causes. Rather, the paradigm of modern science ignores the possibility of final causes simply because it finds them to be UNNECESSARY for its OWN PURPOSES. In other, words, once the cosmologist explains the origin of the universe in terms of the efficient cause of the Big Bang, he has served the purpose of the paradigm of modern scientific explanation. He hasn't disproved the existence of God, however, he has simply made the existence of God unnecessary for the purposes of explaining the origin of the universe in terms of the paradigm of modern science. But finding something to be unnecessary for your OWN PURPOSES of explanation is not quite the same thing as disproving its existence. A deterministic and mechanistic account of human behavior might serve the purposes of a materialistic philosopher, thereby making our desires, beliefs, emotions, values, etc. UNNECESSARY for his paradigm of explanation of human behavior, but he is far from proving the non-existence of these mental phenomena as real modes of explanation and motivations for our actual human behavior ! Modern science doesn't disprove that we are living in a meaningful universe, it simply ignores the possibility altogether.
I was fated to see this video. It seems he takes the bottom up procedure that most materialist scientists use as it is en vogue. However, there is a growing chasm between his perspective and the top down religionists. Where meaning comes first and foremost, then the details trickle down. It seems we won't be going into space long term so maybe a little devolution will occur amongst our comrades here on this lone planet in an infinite void. Which is of course one way of looking at it. As I see it, there is no proof that protons exist except for the names we give them. In other words, they may be a useful way of creating technology, but how far can the existence of protons be stretched in any meaningful, useful way? Soon, the whole world will be addicted to proton worship (computer graphics) but will this way be our saving grace?
The chairman cannot adjourn the meeting by saying "the meeting is adjourned." He has a good chance but it's not guaranteed.
The promise is a much better example. It could be a lie but the promise has been made - it points to a reality in a stronger way than an order.
It's not just declaring it that makes it a reality, it's the acceptance of the others and the value that they connect to the statement.
So his "strongest statement" goes awry. There is something else that is needed to accept a declaration. So the declaration in many cases would be just a description. "Person XY is the boss" - declaration or description?
No strings, sir.
Let the electrons, protons and particles to the physicists, John has already said he does not know much about those things. Philosophers should understand three non-physical things: consciousness, mathematics and the relationship between consciousness and mathematics. We know mathematics is not material, it is eternal, it is true, it is universal, it does not obey the second law of thermodynamics since it does not decay. All the mathematical theorems we know today have been true since the beginning of the universe, and even before there was any universe. It is apprehensible to consciousness in professional journals and conferences as theorems. Isn't it something that merits the attention of philosophers when they talk about one world or two worlds? Think of any particular theorem like Poincare conjecture. It is a single instance of mathematics that is consistent with the rest of the body. What can be said about consciousness? We do not know if it is eternal, or universal. We don't know for sure whether consciousness has a similar existence to mathematics. Consciousness is apprehensible in human language. Is consciousness independent of mathematics?
Allow me to disagree with the following:
"All the mathematical theorems we know today have been true since the beginning of the universe, and even before there was an universe". It seems to me that you believe that mathematical theorems are atemporal because they "hold true" irrespective of time and context. What do you mean by "mathematical theorems"? Suppose we designate the mathematical theorem A to be: "all internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees". This "mathematical theorem" is a linguistic item, namely an assertion in the form of a sentence about triangles. "Behind" the linguistic item there is no "mathematics". The truth valuation of the theorem is dependent upon the existence of the triangle. Modern mathematics have disposed of the objects of the study of mathematics (namely shapes and distances) and so modern theorems usually take the form of algebraic statements about axiomatic systems. For any mathematical theorem to be true, its axioms are taken to be true. Take set theory for example. Entire textbooks dismiss certain axioms in favour of others. What exactly is "atemporal" about the truthness of mathematical theorems? All theorems presuppose their axioms, do you then suppose ALL axioms to be eternally (or atemporally) true? Clearly this cannot be the case, as demonstrated above axioms are a matter of choice. Choice itself is something much more interesting than mathematics, which is mere language. The last hundred years of the modern study of Logic and Semantics have demonstrated that axiomatic systems are, at bottom, language, namely a lexicon of objects that are related to each other through predicates or "relations". In other words, to make the triangle is to establish the truthness of the theorem, i.e. to invent an axiom is to establish the truthness of its subsequent theorems, even before the theorems are found. But one first requires triangles, just as one first requires axioms. Where do the axioms come from? This is the true gold to be found regarding the question of mathematics. Modern physics have dug down all the way into matter to finally and rather unsatisfactorily exclaim : "Alas! At bottom, it is probabilistic!". And so did the subatomic particle obtain Choice. It cannot just lie still "as it is" for us to observe it in its being, it must choose to present itself to us as such or such. Observation in the face of Probabilistic Particles are exactly analogous to Truth Valuation in the face of Choice (axioms). The rules must be decided "in-advance" (i.e. by choice) for any verification to be even possible.
Of course, these concepts that humans created to explain the universe must be true! Because human intelligence and perception must be objectively true about all time, right? Of course, let us forget that there are no perfect circles, squares, triangles, etc. naturally in the universe whatsoever, because that would really undermine everything
@@flatballoon45 Dude your comment is incredible
@@fakeemail4005 Thank you
Is he still cancelled?
Maybe we are entry level consciousness
1:01
The comment at the beginning of the lecture that if there are electrons means that naturally there will be presidents does not take into account that from electrons to presidents there have occurred a great number of natural and probabilistic events that have influenced that evolutionary path from electrons to presidents: viz if we had never invented democracy. The natural events of forces creating gravity, a solar system, a planet with water and oxygen in the goldilocks region were natural, but the events leading to a tidal locked moon, the arrival of a number of mass extinctions due to meteors are probabilistic. So we can really not draw an unfettered line from electrons to presidents, sorry Dr Searle.