What is true and the real use of Justice. To center thought around one world, carry a baseline, then go into with wonder knowing nothing is full grown or atleast fully blossomed. Then to contemplate to creating examples to help add to the paradigm of understanding to the best words could for one in the chain of growth for the inner sun that passes infinitely to all that put a hand on it, that hold hands with it, that learns to walk with it. Justice, what a word. Beauty, what a focus for the word.

The pyschos rise to the top

hes like "how come you didn't commit suduko yet?"

Theirs back and forthing is helping me 💤

Greek tragedy is not pessimistic life would be painful but it is good

Thank you… Can we say that A.I has problems understanding the way of thinking of those who are not grown up yet (kids) and Those who are well grown up (philosophical thinking)

Why he keeps using the word "observations" instead of sensations? What mind tricks does he think he is attempting? All "observations" untimately boil down to humans registering sensations. Yet, he attempts to keep human experience out of the conversation. And if an asteroid hits earth and everyone goes, what exists? Well, ccording to quine: matter and energy and maths textbook floating around the solar system. Lol. Every thinkers ideas tell more about the thinker than about the world, every f**king time. He is dreaming of a world, run over by unbridled scientism. He lives under the spell from Vienna and he refuses to let go of the spell.

12:52 Una propisicion significativa, como tal describe un posible estado de cosas

Aristotle's law on non-contradiction, would not agree with " uncommon common sense"

Kant los conceptos que imponemos al mundo pueden no ser los correctos hay una interracion entre lo que aportamos y lo que descubrimos

Goto 2:45

I had a total different biography of Plato = a slave and gay. His third realm of mathematical ideas is actually "buit-in prenatal & pre_birth ideas"

Is russel high on his semi-esoteric and platonic notions of mathematics? How can you possibly calculate the relative probablities of purely metaphysical statements? What is the probability that m*rder is actually wrong? And what is the probability that any metaphysical question has a correct answer? What will the sample set be?

Kant cannot cant

Elle dit vrai " elle se suffisait". Dans le livre de Gilbert Joseph (une si douce occupation, Simone de Besuvoir et Jean-Paul Sartre 1940 - 1944. Page 123 " elle n'aimait pas les enfants, donc elle ne se laissait pas exploiter par l'homme.

Anderson's lectures are great! Have you got the rest of this cycle? (I've heard the one on Mill )

He is not just such a great writer and thinker but also a very impressive speaker.

Dreadful. The only one of these videos to make me less interested in the subject

Thank you. To. 1️⃣2️⃣3️⃣4️⃣❤ you know who you are. ( i feel you Around. ) Thank You. 🌸💝🌈🌞🌸💝🦋💜🪷💫🌀⚡️🌏💖🔥🔥

He couldn’t foresee that AI would have the world’s knowledge to draw upon on the internet. It’s still a great lecture that points out the problems still facing AI, but ultimately he was shortsighted on the issue. Still super interesting: the realization of how much contextual knowledge is taken for granted.

He had me right up until the end where he said that science and philosophy should not intersect and that there is no way to create meaning within a scientific framework. I very much disagree with this. The biological human is the framework on which the human being is built. We should use science to help us understand how and why we act and think the way we do. In particular, why do we even crave meaning to begin with? No animal creates meaning or seems to need it, so why are we different? I feel like building a wall between science and philosophy is a huge mistake. It's a false dualism ala Mind and Body or Subject and Object.

Muchas gracias

In summary: Spinoza and Parmenides are the Goat's of philosophy and Aristoilet and Thom ass Aquinas are wrong with their multiplicity of being act and potency bullshit.

Anyone recall the late night 1980s UK Channel 4 Philosophy discussion show called 'Voices'. Searle featured on that show a fair bit. Wish I could find some of those episodes here on KZfaq.

Someone gotta get Barrett a glass of water

idealism is cope : i don't like reality so it doesn't exist !

According to TIMEISM, There is no Time, butt only Timing.

I wonder if she is implying is that they are nested. That is who I see it myself. I suppose seeing them as nested, or not, depends on complexity of your semantic framing. I'm going to have watch the full interview (maybe check out some of her book even). Just to clarify the way I see it is (like in Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief") is that spontaneous doubts may co-inhibit one another (becoming inert habit) which is implying a part-whole conceptualization: A complementary higher-order co-inhibition of both (1) over-synthesis and (2) over-inhibition, that is a functional synergy (avoid_F <--> believe_T) where believe_T is just qualitatively more inert, or a habit/belief, resulting from the saturation of some lower order internal avoidance: (avoid_F <--> avoid_F) In only low-level terms "(avoid_F <--> believe_T)" might be diagrammed as: (avoid_F <--> (avoid_F <--> avoid_F)) if we are thinking of these as processes that have stablized, but I suppose the whole point is that the higher coupling of the two layers is not so obviously convergent as the first layer. In fact though this will be a sloppy metaphor, it is interesting to note that in AI determining the convergence of a Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) is known to have issues... but in the human world this non-convergence, or at the very least, not apparent convergence is called living.

Such a good lecture! It must have been given in the early eighties, because he talks of the government "recently come into power" of Alfonsín.

Soul😇

Comments 9💪😇

Thank you, I was searching for this lecture for years. Used to have it and knew it existed somewhere.

I am a huge fan of Magee. He had such insightful philosophical abilities across nearly the entire spectrum of philosophy and philosophers.

It’s like Arthur “Two Sheds” Jackson on steroids

I think he was more damaging than helpful to the world of philosophy...

42:56. N was anti Darwin! I thought they would go together like a hand in a glove. Surprising. (Maybe he was referring to Nunez playing a false 9 for Liverpool?)

ARISTOTELES habilidades-virtudes

Almost as interesting as how I got to Paramenides!😯

Lord Russell confuses me by saying there are no absolutes when he believes some statements have self-contradictory denials. What truth could me more absolute than one with such a denial?

He made more sense than Cybil did when she spoke at Delphi.

احا

Maxism, it seems, would give the person(s)who in reality is the opposite of the most handsome, the ability to acquire this type of person without having to earn it by having the same character and personality if that person was given the same opportunity and treated the same way. One of the easiest ways to get them is to keep them poor and deny them access to luxury and prestige, unless it includes the person(s) who are trying to acquire them without earning them. A way to make it look like they earn it, is to falsify their position in society while allowing them to have total anarchy with their thoughts, behavior and actions, in a silent way of moving the people on their chessboard and making decisions to maximize their time and taking one of these handsome people.

❤

Magee seems more, not hostile, but maybe more pressing in this one. I don't think he is being unfair. But it does seem like a departure from his usual style.

The two most impressive things about this video: 1. John Searle used the term "begs the question" correctly. 2. The people in the comments seemed to have learned the exact wrong lesson

Better never to have been.

The I from A.I. needs some definition. If Intelligence is considered the ability to perceive reality, to witness existence, consciousness etc; rather than an imitating mechanical function i.e. input output, then it does not matter how sophisticated the arrangement of functions, that does not indicate intelligence, true cognition. So what are we talking about? My friend had an answer phone that just said 'hiya how you doing?' I thought it was intelligent because for the input (calling him) I got an output 'hiya' that perfectly fooled me, this does not make his phone intelligent. Setting standards or tests to pass for an AI seems arbitrary, and perhaps more a test for our lack of intelligence rather than an airtight test of mechanical intelligence. What are we really talking about?

Knowing the law and being the law are two different things

It's really fascinating to hear this lecture, given before the development of neural networks or even distributed systems. I think it's just as interesting to hear what he got wrong as it is to hear what he got right.

Searle's attempt ascribe causality to both the mind and the brain is a confused mess.