3 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
12 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@stevenhines5550 10 күн бұрын
Has there ever been a rejoinder to Chomsky's review published by Skinner's friends
@keaswaran0 8 күн бұрын
I linked one such rejoinder in the video description (A re-appraisal of Chomsky's review, 50 years later (by a Skinner sympathizer): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223153/) But there's also a very recent response that invokes Large Language Models: lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007180
@jidiplaygames1244 21 күн бұрын
thank you
@psicologiajoseh Ай бұрын
I love this concept! Reading “together“ influential papers and academic texts. Fantastic!
@MoeAshraf-hx2pr Ай бұрын
Good shit
@vancleef7323 3 ай бұрын
thank you for your dedication
@williampickering6405 3 ай бұрын
Very helpful. Thanks a lot!
@darrellee8194 3 ай бұрын
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
@darrellee8194 3 ай бұрын
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
@darrellee8194 4 ай бұрын
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.
@darrellee8194 4 ай бұрын
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.
@henrydeutsch5130 5 ай бұрын
This helped me a lot for my philosophy class, thank you
@BeelySalasBlair-uy5wn 6 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@dubbelkastrull 6 ай бұрын
47:11 verification 1:23:06 bookmark
@cheez1903 7 ай бұрын
Very well made video, well explained
@ethanjkemp 8 ай бұрын
Nice video
@chronicskeptic 9 ай бұрын
thank you very much for the reading and giving brief explanations.
@sophiajahan5015 9 ай бұрын
appreciate this very good introduction to Turing's work ty
@simplacaca 9 ай бұрын
59:12 Lecture II
@francescamarmol4360 9 ай бұрын
King <3
@ludloft3653 9 ай бұрын
Not now baby, i'm watching the cognitive revolution happens
@VanityPlatesX 10 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for making this
@miguelrios9078 10 ай бұрын
you really helped explain a few of the confusing bits thanks
@siviwejavu8827 10 ай бұрын
Just found your channel. Thank you so much for this!
@sebastiandoyle6299 11 ай бұрын
Thanks so much awesome format for a video! 😁
@andrewdong3875 Жыл бұрын
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.
@brigettepenrod Жыл бұрын
one of the best philosophy resources I have found. Thank you!
@neeldatta3170 Жыл бұрын
38:10 ayoooo ... what the hell was Grace talking about hahahahaha
@neeldatta3170 Жыл бұрын
Grice **
@DarrenMcStravick Жыл бұрын
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.
@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын
I'm doing a few more now. I mainly do them for classes I'm teaching, so I'm likely to do a few more that are relevant for an upcoming class I'll be teaching on introductory philosophy of language, with an eye to what Large Language Models (like ChatGPT) tell us about theories of language. It's possible that some papers on hyperintensionality might be relevant to this, but I expect that most of what I do will be a bit older.
@anujketkar3785 Жыл бұрын
I totally fell for the cold thing
@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын
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?
@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын
If I understand your scenario right, I think that what you said would be false if you don't give the prize or the candy.
@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын
@@keaswaran0 I have just sort of solved the case (I think), because on the truth table p->q v ~p -> r , is always true. So the literal/conventional meaning is true. But it can be argued to be misleading I think
@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын
@@keaswaran0 Because the Conversational implicature would probably contain, the actual promise of giving the rewards. And the speaker therefore does not abide by the conversational maxims
@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын
@@Acez-lf4qk I was interpreting the claim as (p->q)&(~p->r), with an "and" rather than an "or". There would definitely be a conversational implicature of the "and" if you said the "or", but if you actually said the "and" (or said both sentences separately, which I think should be the same as saying them with an "and") then it would just be literally false if you didn't do the thing that you said you would in that case.
@summiyaambreen4886 Жыл бұрын
you skip so many points and you are like doing reading. Try to add your points
@iRosati Жыл бұрын
thank you! this is the reading for my literary theory seminar and it is dense
@sergesolkatt Жыл бұрын
😮 You read so many great books!
@divinaj102 Жыл бұрын
dude you're like a philosophy Adam Driver!!! Great video
@alexc.1661 Жыл бұрын
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.
@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын
Always glad to be of help!
@nothingtoseehere2679 Жыл бұрын
We are reading this paper in my philosophy of human communications class and I was so confused. Your explanations were very helpful! Thank you!
@jorgemittelmann620 Жыл бұрын
This is extraordinarily helpful!! Keep up with the wonderful job !! ❤
@enter-galactic Жыл бұрын
thank you! this is quite helpful
@vozduka7557 Жыл бұрын
nice video
@7scientist 2 жыл бұрын
Bro, he was born Hilaire in France.
@muthusid 2 жыл бұрын
This is wonderful, thanks.
@muthusid 2 жыл бұрын
This is fantastic, thank you!
@lucrativeleadershipconvers5149 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Love how you provide interpretative and embodied listening to research that reveals the evolution of topics.
@virtua5878 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you, i'm glad i found your channel
@weepymeatballenjoyer 2 жыл бұрын
where did i give you the permission to download my dreams to youtube?
@wiltshire6493 2 жыл бұрын
Kenny, these videos are absolutely brilliant, wspecially for amateur philosophers. It's extremely hard to read these papers without a guide. Thank you for sharing!
@PhilosophySama 2 жыл бұрын
i love reading with you bro! please continue! I'm subscribed
@keaswaran0 2 жыл бұрын
Glad to hear people appreciate it! I'll add some more, but it'll probably be fewer while I'm not teaching over the summer.
@exalted_kitharode 2 жыл бұрын
Your channel is exactly what I needed. Thanks for your work.
@knowscope 2 жыл бұрын
Can you please do ibn rochd
@knowscope 2 жыл бұрын
Ty