Northeastern University London offers innovative undergraduate and postgraduate degrees that are designed to provide students with in-depth study of their subjects, while developing a range of practical transferable skills, gaining real-world experiences, and exploring a variety of complementary disciplines.
Always a pleasure. Thanks. I am happy that youtube is available to provide a venue for the minuscule handful of Brights that give voice to the expanding fund of genuine knowledge that is available to us all.
Tractatus good. Philosophical Investigations bad. British empiricists good. Continental idealists bad. Aristotle good. Plato bad. William of Ockham good. Aquinas bad. Darwin good. Creationists bad. Anterior cingulate cortex good. Amygdala bad. Strange how these things sort themselves out like this. Try to think up some yourself.
RIP Like a lot of materialists he thought matter was fundamental to life. That the elemental created consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental (it is the hard problem for philosophy). Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events. The physical is just the gross elements macro and micro. We live in three dimensions not just one. Materialists reduced everything to the physical dimension to matter and give extraordinary powers to matter, to the elemental. As we approach a quantum age from an atomic age we will find that this perspective is flawed and will know better.
Self-evidently, we are nothing more than highly coordinated, goal-seeking organisms. From the inside, the physical processing that is naturally and autonomically occurring at the centre of our physiology is objectively inaccessible, even while being subjectively present. From the outside, this very same processing is objectively accessible, even while being subjectively absent. In contrast with all other physical processes that we observe, our own central processing seems to be ontologically unique. Because of this, when we conceptually abstract and label it for purposes of discussion, we unwittingly reify it into seeming as though it is, in fact, a non-physical effect (commonly known as "consciousness", "awareness", "cognition", "sentience", "mind", etc) of a physical cause at our centre. This gives us the false impression that there is a real ontological difference (and therefore, a vast explanatory gap) between our subjectivity and our objectivity. The impossibility of filling this non-existent gap with an explanation has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness". Practically speaking, all that's REALLY there is a highly coordinated, goal-seeking organism, along with its own central processing, and all that it entails. Other than this central processing, there is no reason why it feels like anything to BE these organisms that we are. Being intermittently occurring natural entities, there is no reason why such organisms emerge in the universe. This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".
Thought-provoking insights. Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy is a refreshing change from novels which ramble on for over 400 pages. Each of her novels is under 300 pages of succinct and precise prose, with every word carefully chosen.
The problem is not recognizing consciousness as fundamental and that mind emerges with quantum events. Basing the existence of consciousness, intelligence, and mind on an aggregate of physical elements is deeply flawed, and wrong. We are still in a material age and unfortunately that is all that is perceived. Consciousness, mind, and elements are distinct and separate although aggregate in functioning, due to consciousness and mind It is surprising that anyone who is intelligent can believe that matter is fundamental to consciousness and mind. Like believing a lamp is the cause of the light it emits.
Spare me the metaphysical assumptions. The mind is an aspect of the brain. Period. Any semi-competent neurobiologist knows this. Non- material assumptions do not enable us to develop and test any useful theories. We would then be stuck with the god of the gaps, which leads nowhere.
It seems to me that your comment is an assertion but only that. None of your sentences is a verifiable statement. Based on the available evidence the mind, consciousness, etc are manifestations of the brain at work. Without the brain all the other aspects of the behavior of the brain do not exist, or at least are not observed. Your statements are metaphysical assertions and do not point me to physical phenomena.
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory 1:30:27
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I've would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few days in his memory 59:00
I think what he is saying is that good health allows us the potential to make good or benefitial decisions within the deterministic framework and that that is what we should be starting from in our philosophical considerations. I don't know if I'm right about this. I haven't studied the man or his work.
It seems by sciences own words and testimonies, quite a few important people in regards to science have befallen within some very harsh conditions and ends, without being rude, physically and mentally, while during and what could be considered as under the very sciences umbrella. If science cannot look after science, then science is not worth it. If science intends deliberately to jeopardize itself, then science is not worth it. I say this because without godel there is no general relativity, which nonetheless there still isn't, but that much that is, without godel there is not. Respect.
I like when he says that determinism and in-determinism have nothing to do with this thing called 'Free will' - actually I dont even no why we need a word like 'Free will' when choice would suffice. Having the word 'Free' in there is the problem.....
This is a professor?! What kind of an institution hires such amatures? Some points are correct. More was a very young child when Richard III reigned. It's highly unlikely he ever witnessed anything related to that reign. It is true that More was a part of that slimy putz's, Bishop John Morton, household when young. Morton's influence on More's description of Richard are obvious. All serious historians of this Era in English history dismiss More, Shakespeare, Polydore Virgil, and Mancini as valid sources when researching Richard III.
Causal determinism and the illusory nature of free will are at the heart of the issue. Moral dispositions are every bit functions of causal chains as other events and unavoidable. What matters is our understanding of the world we inhabit: if we comprehend how much we are subject to causal chains that until they impinge on us have been quite unconnected to us and how the same applies to others we can have a more developed understanding of the human condition, how others can be rationally viewed or treated and how we can reflect on our own condition. The discussion of objects is instructive: we may blame a dripping tap for damage to a floor or ceiling, we might be annoyed by the tap's malfunction, but the ultimate response is to have it put right - change the washer for example to avoid the problem persisting. Similarly a causal consequence of bad luck can be measures that reduce the likelihood of recurrence of similar events. In some cases the responses could be drastic: someone who develops psychopathic tendencies as a result of an unfortunate brain tumour might have to be secluded away from others until the tumour can (if possible) be treated.
The classic raison d'être for torture is documented in Colonel Roger Trinquier's classic "Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency." Col. Trinquier fought counterinsurgencies in Indochina and most famously in Algeria with the FLN and it's his efforts in the latter that were portrayed in the magnificent film "The Battle of Algiers." Torture is reserved for terrorists who are themselves torturing, extorting, and murdering a civilian population daily to force it to their political ends. Ergo, the Cartesian rationale behind the torture is that it creates less torture. Col. Trinquier explains: "The atrocities committed by the F.L.N, in Algeria to maintain its hold over the populace are innumerable. I will cite but one example to demonstrate the degree to which they were carried in certain areas. In the month of September, 1958, the forces of order took possession of the files of a military tribunal of one of the regions of the F.L.N. In the canton of Michelet alone, in the arrondissement (district) of Fort-National in Kabyllet more than 2,000 inhabitants were condemned to death and executed between November 1,1954, and April 17,1957." These are individuals who simply refused to pay tribute to the terrorist organization, or turn over their homes and businesses to it, things like that. Or they may have collaborated with the French as they wanted to be French Algerians rather than an impoverished terror state. A good modern-day example is the "lesson of the collaborators" where Hamas will hang murdered Palestinians from lampposts for suspicion of aiding Israel. The structure of these terrorist organizations is such that torture is the ONLY method able to gain knowledge about the cancer in the general population. The adversary will blow up a café, dance hall, and open marketplace loaded with innocent civilians, but dare not meet his enemy on the battlefield. He explains: The terrorist claims the same honors (as the soldier) while rejecting the same obligations (to fight and die openly on the battlefield). His kind of organization permits him to escape from the police, his victims cannot defend themselves, and the army cannot use the power of its weapons against him because he hides himself permanently within the midst of a population going about its peaceful pursuits. But he must be made to realize that, when he is captured, he cannot be treated as an ordinary criminal, nor like a prisoner taken on the battlefield. What the forces of order who have arrested him are seeking is not to punish a crime, for which he is otherwise not personally responsible, but, as in any war, the destruction of the enemy army or its surrender. Therefore he is not asked details about himself or about attacks that he may or may not have committed and that are not of immediate interest, but rather for precise information about his organization. In particular, each man has a superior whom he knows; he will first have to give the name of this person, along with his address, so that it will be possible to proceed with the arrest without delay. No lawyer is present for such an interrogation. If the prisoner gives the information requested, the examination is quickly terminated; if not, specialists must force his secret from him. Then, as a soldier, he must face the suffering, and perhaps the death, he has heretofore managed to avoid. The terrorist must accept this as a condition inherent in his trade and in the methods of warfare that, with full knowledge, his superiors and he himself have chosen. Once the interrogation is finished, however, the terrorist can take his place among soldiers. From then on, he is a prisoner of war like any other, kept from resuming hostilities until the end of the conflict." All this may cut no ice at an English Department, but when your adversary gets down in the sewer to fight, you must also. And ethically it is case closed, as the one against torture in these scenarios is, ironically, creating more of it.
So much over-confidence in the comment section about knowing what gödels theories actually potray, even though among their piers there is most definitely still debate upon what it actually means.
Responsibility is the key word which destroys free will. Not one human is responsible for anything. How can we be? We're we given a manual how to do right or wrong? We are on this earth to experience good and evil. Nothing else.
