Відео

05.08.2024, thank you!

This guy was absolutely insane. How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me.

Oh cool read comments and found it thank tou

I love that your lectures are online and free. All knowledge passed beyond self benefits wisdom. Please include your syllabus in a link so we all can partake individually in this feast when time constraints some of us. Thank you for teaching

1:32:00 première définition du faussaire

1:06:45 on en a fini avec le dur…

Adolf Hitler didn't fear the nuclear bomb as much as this guy.

❤❤❤❤

There's the soul, the spirit, and the body. L'âme, l'esprit et le corps. The soul is all our identity past and future. The spirit is the link between us the living and God, the breath. The body is the test experience of our time on earth. We can lose the body and keep the spirit and the soul. We can lose our soul and keep the body and spirit. But to lose the spirit is total darkness.

Vrai début du cours 42:23

I suppose, in the end, Searle was determined to assault those women.

This man is so amazing. He comes out with some sentences that I want to hear over and over. William Barrett is some one who McGee could obviously talk with for hours. Me too.

Deleuze est le neant de rien entre lui et son monde actuel

Merci! ❤

1:01:51

Je réécoute

❤

wie kann Heidegger so schlecht Hölderlin rezitieren? Dihäresen und Umbrüche werden nonstop missachtet.. verstehe ich nicht.

zhinq!

inwqnr oifnlksnfldsnfldskhnlkdsngkldsnglksngdlskgndlskgnlkdsgnsdklngdsklgndlsk

zhian!

zhina!

Tu tiens le bon bout, gilou

I believe he would reply we do not have the experience of causing something but just the experience of certain mental states being regularly followed by an action. In my opinion, the belief in existance of causality is pretty much in the same situation as the rejection of the solipsism- it cannot be proven correct but it must be assumed to allow us make sense of the world.

Here is the missing piece of the functional explanation on rain dance: people do not question beliefs which benefit them. And social cohesion is a benefit. That does not remove the intentionality from the explanation. But the social stability is still important part of it too.

What about phantom pain

If you have cord section interrupt c nerve signals less likely to experience pain. Pain requires terminal end and emotional part of the brain gets collateral signals

I am not sure that pain argument is a strong argument against materialism

What makes me uncomfortable with the human rights discussion is that Prof. Searle lists some of them but provides no justification of what makes them universal human rights. For instance, what is the fact in the world (or the " truth maker") that makes the sentence "Free speech is a universal human right" true?

Have you been through it all ?

Just as a side note, there was no a century of piece before WWI. Over 600,000 people died in Crimean War (1853-1856). About the same number died in American Civil War (1861-1864). Some estimations claim that over a million people died in the Sepoy Rebellion (1857-1858). Prussians marched into Paris in 1871. Ottoman empire fell apart in 1st and 2nd Balkan wars. That is not to mention smaller affairs such as Boer Wars and Russo-Japanese war.

It is true that people do not move to California or perform rain dances in order to comply with general laws. But the gas molecules in a closed recipient don't know a damn about Boyle's law either. They behave in a uniform way because they are all subject to the same forces. The same occurred with farmers in Oklahoma - most of them were subject to the same economic forces that influenced their decision to stay or to move, and that is the fact that enables the generalization. But unlike gas particles, people also have individual motivation factors that interfer with the precision of the predictions. Of course, the generalizations in predicting human behavior are possible and functional, despite their inherent imprecision. We all do them all day long. Life in society would be impossible if we couldn't assume our fellow earthlings would behave following certain patterns. We have names for those who don't do it, such as excentrics, freaks, and madmans.

Prof. Searle has good reasons to be uncomfortable with his explanation of free will. He believes the consciousness is only a specific description level of the brain biological processes and categorically denies being a dualist. Yet, he believes the consciousness has causal powers which are independent of the underlying biological processes. You can't have both. The levels of descriptions of a single event cannot causally affect each other. I cannot see how free will could stand without assuming dualism.

I am not quite convinced that rationality requires free will. Much to the contrary, the rational decision process is a part of deterministic causal chain, and not something out of it that should modify it. You can hardly call rational decisions that are not causally determined by the best available information. Those are precisely the decisions we call irrational.

1806 nach dem verlorenen Krieg Preußens gegen Napoleon würden die Reformationen verabschiedet, die der industriellen Revolution vorraus gegangen war. Stein, Hardenberg und Scharnhorst waren für das deutschsprachige Europa die Weichensteller. Das Ende des heiligen römischen Reiches deutscher Nation kündet eine atheistische, auf konkurrenz basierende Marktwirtschaft an, die uns alle zu liebes unfähigen Wesen gemacht hat. Erst die Befreiung daraus, kann ein neuer Anfang sein

He’s occasionally not a very good teacher honestly. Not good at explaining things sometimes. But other times really good.

Not 2 chanche Miley cyrus❤ USA Emily osmant ❤ USA Avril lavigne ❤ USa

Fantastic talk, i had no idea he had any break with Chomsky or his views on painting

Un grand penseur irremplaçable

This comment is irrelevant to the main subject, but I can't refrain from making it. What professors says about German army un WWII runs against anything I know about it. The German command doctrine, the Auftragstaktik, calls for orders given only in very general terms, granting to the subordinates broad latitude to adapt the execution to the fluid battlefield conditions. A German officer was expected to sieze initiative as the opportunity appears and not to report it and wait for orders until it is too late. That would be impracticable without giving the subordinates ample situational awareness. They may have been specific situations when the secrecy was of paramount importance and the informations were restricted, but that was by no way the general rule.

one of the tentacles of the Architects of WESTERN Decline

Once you assume the mind is just a specific description level of naturalistic brain processes, you relinquish any possibility of free will. A description level of any given phenomenon cannot have causal powers of its own, different from causal powers of other levels of description of that same phenomenon. Using Prof. Searle's example, you cannot have one level of description of an engine implying the piston in a given moment moves upward (not a Porsche 911) while another level of description implies it moves downward. In other words, assuming the existence of the free will is assuming the mind has causal powers which are independent of the causal chain of bodily biological processes. That requires an ontological separation between mind and body, which equals dualism.

Faut bien s’accrocher. C’est le cours que j’ai du passer le plus de temps à écouter et réécouter

Though it seems implausible that Russel resorts to advanced mathematics to catch the tenis ball, that leaves a mystery. Saying he just puts the mouth where he thinks the ball will be is a true but shallow answer. Why he is most often right while Gilbert is not if there is no algorithm behind? Saying just that is effect of the background knowledge won't do it. Somehow that knowledge needs to be converted in the firing of the right neurons at the right time. I believe the most likely response is that Russel recognizes repeated spead and trajectory patterns from the past experience as, and is able to interpolate solutions for intermediate cases. But you still need some kind of algorithm to organize that.

J'ai rien compris !

I must be a hopeless case, but despite all Prof. Searle's efforts I am not getting which is the point of contention between naive realism and the representative realism. Prof. Searle seems to agree that our experience of the objects is conditioned by the capacity of our senses, by our intentionality and by our background informations. Isn't that information that we are actually able to collect from the objects under such restrictions what the representative realists would call the representation of the object? In the example of the new born baby, aren't the background informations which Prof. Searle presumes "pre-loaded" to the infant's brain exactly what Kant would call apriori sintetical content necessary to interpret the phenomena? Isn't for us that information that a bat is able to collect from an object but we are not, anything different than a pert of Kant's noumena? In any mental operation that we perform, aren't we required to reduce any object involved to those characteristics relevant to such thought? Isn't such reduction a symbolization or a representation?

j'ai du raté 4 cours en 17 ans...de 1971 untill the last=)1987...:/

Vincennes(ou St denis) anyway PARIS 8...;)

En cours d'assimilation, je sais pourtant cet enseignement sera d'une grande utilité pour ma formation. Merci Grand PROF.!!!

Great lecture!