Dedicated to the advancement of philosophy in all its forms. Here you will find our series of philosophy lectures, events and debates, including the Royal Institute of Philosophy's Annual Lecture, presented by a philosopher of international standing. Plus our annual themed lecture series has seen philosophers speak on subjects such as the social dimension of knowledge, passions and emotions, and what a philosophers' manifesto might look like.
For more information, visit www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org
If you have two competing theories, and they're empirically equivalent -- that is, there is no way you can ever determine that one of them is false -- that's a strong hint that you're trying to understand something that doesn't actually exist.
FIRST! 🎉 Equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exists in abstract ideas such as mathematics and arguably on the sub-atomic level ALONE.🤓 UNFORTUNATELY, it requires an intelligence quotient above double-digits in order to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts. 😛
A - Prove the existence of God B - Prove your own consciousness A - Look I have a brain B - I just see electrons and neutrons moving around, where is your consciousness? A - Come on, there is an experience behind these physical processes!!! B - Now apply this to universe...
The question about the existence of God does not call for material evidence, but call for evidence of a consciousness in universe. At the moment there is evidence for consciousness in universe, us. So God is a valid possibility... not just that... maybe it is the only possibility.
Schizophrenic: *stabs mother to death during a psychotic episode because they thought she was a demon* What these people want the mental health clinician to say: "You stabbing your mother to death was VALID!" What are we even talking about here!
I honestly have no idea how this is what you took away from the lecture. Emotional validation =\= justification of actions Validating emotions to foster agency in vulnerable people such as those with mental health problems, is what they're trying to show people how to do
Hugely important and under-appreciated perspective. The psychological sciences--including psychoanalysis would benefit from a more fine-grained appreciation of subjectivity. It would promote more empathic therapies and more respect for the differences in others' experience that are often explained away by the mechanistic/objectivist frameworks that undergird conventional mental health models.
Fatal flaw: the impoverished are undeniably the most oppressed people on earth, regardless of any other group. I didn't even see poor people on that list, but Paki is a slur tantamount to Yanke? Canuck isn't on the list, presumably that's because we've named a sports team after it, and we all know sports teams always have moral purity in the nomenclature. As a Canadian I'm not offended by racial, or gendered, or orientation because I realize all of that prejudice is clearly meaningless to anyone who has a brain. What is treated as meaningless but actually is the worst subjugated (poverty), is never addressed - including this lecture (unless conjecturing with prejudice that the poverty must be a symptom of race and couldn't possibly be a person or the state's infantalization of a "group"... Don't you see the contradiction here? You presume knock on effects of words and exclusion to combat what you perceive as painful to others, but none of this matters to a mildly educated person, yet the biggest factor of financial status or mental health doesn't even trip the radar because you just know these people over here and there because they were oppressed the most, despite the data. Hate speech is a joke when you pretend society thinks it's ok because since growing up in the 90's, I've never been in a public place where everyone around didn't chastised a person performing hate speech even though it isn't illegal. It's a moray, and one of the strongest I can think of. But nobody even cares about debt traps and predatory commercialism to the impoverished, openly and casually even though they're the most oppressed in North America by far. It's borderline hypocritical, imho.
Main part of speech is 53:20 to 56:00. He makes it clear throughout he detests nationalism, and although he doesn't believe in ceremonies, he thinks it would be a good idea to use "subnational and cross-national groups identified through the mechanism of ceremonies" to undermine nationalism. That is why he is studying ceremonies. But is nationalism all bad? Why does he want so badly to undermine it?
Interesting topic and I really tried to power through, but the speaker’s manner of talking is very incoherent to me. It’s really difficult to follow when a sentence or thought isn’t fully formed before moving on to the next one.
Language is only necessary for consciousness if your definition encapsulates introspection as a prerequisite for consciousness. Which I find patently absurd. I would argue that all mammalian animals possess consciousness but are not introspective in the way that necessitates language.
This was a wonderful talk! I hope we will see more consideration of the Power Threat Meaning Framework and other alternatives in the field of mental health
The Royal Institute of Philosophy seems to be in a death spiral, as nearly all the lectures end up blaming white men for the ills of the world. Here we have two women who suggest that all mental problems are a result of power imbalances, and all their examples are of female survivors, as if men don't count. Men are more likely to commit suicide, but who cares? Not them.
It distinctly starts about healthcare, but then veers into Black Lives Matter and the Me Too movement, and completely forgets about healthcare. Then the usual beatification of minorities and demonisation of men, politicians, the police and white people.
Seems an elaborate theoretical framework for some pretty basic practical points. And ones that don't have much to do with philosophy so much as specific ethical guidelines for mental health, which is applied ethics at most.
So primitive questions about consciousness.. you guys just like squirrels in a wheel. That's all you have to do is to accept that the mind has intangible nature!
Surely the potential of consciousness and unconsciousness existed before, during and after the big bang ... long before homo sapiens became aware of consciousness and named it. If this is true, then how might the potential of consciousness and the potential of unconsciousness exist without either being aware of their individual and combined potential?
Starts at 3.15. Goff and Antony seem to prioritize clarity, in stark contrast to the others, who insist on the jargon of academe. I vote for Goff and Antony.
It is natural a system has an internal existence. It is strange its waste is useful as well. As if not itself. Human, and AI, can see beyond self to create. I have no idea why encircle more unless makes life easier.
My take on it after listening to everything I can find in consciousness is: Consciousness is an organisms subjective, predictive experience and memory of its internal and external environment with the goal of obtaining energy to resist entropy. It emerges from the unified accumulative processes of living cells and organisms that have evolved in a community for an evolutionary advantage to keep the sum and parts of the system alive. It is the reactive narration of our sensory experience of the environment by the many organisms that have symbiotically evolved inside us. As the sum of our parts are neither alive or consciousness then the whole cannot obtain something from nothing. It is a complex chemical conversation our atoms are having with the external world. The language... Chemistry and physics. It is why when you are sedated and your senses are Numb, and thus your internal organisms and systems receive no input, so have nothing to say, our collective voice (consciousness) goes silent. It's just unfathomable to imagine the amount of cells and time that 1 cell had to harmoniously evolve into trillions to create the perception of 1 voice and why AI may simulate but never achieve our level of consciousness.
1:27:00 Everyone should be taught that sound reduces by the square of the distance. i.e. The sound energy impinging on a microphone when the lips are 1x distant is 4x greater than the energy impinging when the lips are 2x distant.
Looking at the panel I doubt anyone suggesting that consciousness could be transcendental will be taken seriously. We think we know so much but that's just arrogance. We don't know there isn't a deity.
So great that they are stymied and will always be stymied by consciousness. It is one thing that cannot be interfered with by people who do not know what they are doing, Consciousness is not dual, it is beyond motion, the three forces etc. It is beyond the range of duality of good and evil. Consciousness is where material science reaches its limits.
Is it possible that the mind, body problem seeking a common connection is almost the same dilemma as the classic physics and quantum physics connection. I wonder?
i think that philosophy in this century is all about "talking" and "giving weird theories" without any specific proves or something that make it seems real.
