Gilbert Ryle attacks Descartes' Dualism as a 'Category Mistake' 

YES!

charlie day all day long. keep thinking about episode where charlie becomes a genius.

And as always, thanks for watching.

He has charisma, but what is charisma? And what does the weight of charisma... smell like? **V-Sauce music**

You're very welcome!

Glad it was helpful!

It’s acc rotting my brain rn, im in year 12 doing my mocks in 2 months

a year later i am in your shoes

You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words!

its is actually described by vedic philoshopy called Acynthia bheda-abeda which means simultaneous oneness and difference. It addreses this question from the perspective of whole, not as separated problem without considering conscious observer of the problem.

Thanks for the kind words!

Hope u will make another video on the 'Ordinary Language Philosophy of Gilbert Ryle.....All those available on RU-vid fall short of being comprehensive......

Or maybe what we need is empirical evidence as to whether the mind can be fully explained by neural stuff (though that gets more complicated when you introduce the idea of embodied cognition)

​@@samueldimmock694we would love to have this, but it's sort of obvious that *this* would prove one correct. This is not in the field of philosophy therefore we do not have any true effect of whether or not this happens, though im sure that there are some scientists trying to figure this out. Hes moreso saying from a philosophical perspective, we need to have an argument that breaks these 2. I guess that the Bat paper by Negel does take a different enough approach that it could be lumped in here

I am glad you liked it and that it was helpful.

Thanks. Glad it was helpful!

I agree! You're welcome.

Glad it is helpful!

Glad it was helpful!

Though I tend to think that self awareness and mind follow from complexity and sensory input alone, the issue of memories is a really interesting one. If there is a spiritual component to life, that takes care of memories and such, then it is clear that all living things, down to insects and spiders (who were observed doing REM-like movements in sleep), have a spiritual side, because of the ability to learn. On the other hand, if mind and soul has a dualistic relation with body, then they might not even have the same origin. Then you open the door both to deities and reincarnation. As I see it, dualism can even mean there is no physical world, that it is all a dream, if we decide that all we are is separate from the "machine" (body). I've toyed with the idea that my life is the dream of a higher dimensional creature, to whom a 3D lifetime has no more complexity than a 2D still picture has to us.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6_d44bla_GA.html

Glad it helped! Good luck!

@@profjeffreykaplan Thanks!

I would say that Dualism is the dominant view among people in the Western world. Among those who study the philosophy of mind professionally, the split is more 50%/50%.

@@profjeffreykaplan Hasn't dualism become much less influential since Gilbert Ryle published A Concept of Mind - particularly amongst people who have taken time to consider the issue? Admittedly for those who have not really thought about it and in common speech dualism appears as a background assumption.

If we believe asking the question of the evil in the world is to misrepresent God, then it follows that God is not as people believe. God can not both be personal, endlessly good, endlessly powerful, and ... not give a damn? Or can he? This is perhaps where those old evangelists thought they'd found the solution, in letting their (now invented "God") grant humans free will, so that all bad is due to free will. In that sense, babies getting cancer, simply ... wanted to? I'm a Godless, an atheist, so the "mysteries" of religion don't appeal to me on a personal level, but the philosophical considerations and solutions to the age old "problem of evil" are interesting, as well as the question you ask, whether God can be rationalized about, given that exists outside humanity. As long as the theoretical God does not want to prove he exists, there is no way for us to prove he does. Nor that he doesn't. Still, we can speculate about the nature of God, even if that is like a self contradiction in terms (God created "nature"). What we might end up with, is belief in an entity with no recognizable logic, seen from a human standpoint. This is where the usual "his ways are incomprehensible" and "we must trust in his plan" comes in, which is perhaps the best summary of what belief is, contrary to knowledge. Personally I think it a bit sad that Christians worship a God, believing in the Bible where it says that family and friends who might be good people, but don't believe, will burn forever, and finding that to as it should be. Since I don't think there is a God, nor Satan, I'm not worried about actual burning, but rather of the emotional coldness of the believers. If I firmly believed in a God saying such things, I would feel a strong urge to rebel, to make him change his mind, although of course there is no way of rebelling, when communications is a one way street 🙂

@@ruprecht9997 Thanks for the discussion. As a matter of my own experience, I have not found the communication with God to be one way at all. I also find that understanding what we are able regarding God's nature comes through the pathway of faith, not human logic, analysis, or rationale. For what it is worth, I am a natural and trained (Aerospace Engineering) analyst. For me, I find my belief logical and rational, but I did not arrive at that destination through merely analysis. This, I think, is because God is related to and understood through relationship with understanding, not by understanding alone. Similarly, you will never reveal the nature of your own Father just through analyzing his behavior from your own viewpoint. What or who you as a child deem as "good" might be very different from what is good to your loving father - and possibly for reasons you don't understand. This, of course, is a weak analogy, as all will be and leads only back to trust and faith rather than your father being able to explain it to you. I believe that is why the desire to find meaning in life by seeking the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" rather than "the tree of life" has always ended up unsatisfying. The "modern"philosophers have never pressed past this fundamental nature of life as it really is and have been as unable to unravel its essence as physicists have been unable to explain how the force of gravity is generated. Again, many thanks and respect to you for the forthright discussion.

@@boooshes I guess the way philosophers engage with religion and God is from a "technical" stand point, creating concepts and structures with words, into which God fits, and from these trying to decode features of the God entity (mind, I don't say "creature"). But the problem of evil isn't easily dispensed with, like babies dying from cancer. As I see it, and let me underline that I'm no authority on religion nor formal logic, but I think this leads to a number of alternative conclusions: (1) there is no God (2) God represents presence of immaterial qualities in the universe, allowing for minds and love and thought, like some kind of field or force, without conscious thought. (3) God is a sentient entity that cares for humanity specifically, but not individual persons. (4) God cares for individual persons, but is (self-)restrained in what he can do. The why becomes the obvious followup. (5) God cares for *some* individuals, not all, which explains how single individuals may survive plane crashes, tidal waves etc (6) God cares for *all* individuals, and disease and early death makes some sense in a grander scheme, which we do not understand. (7) There is no free will, no God, no spiritual anything. Our minds and our thoughts are real enough, but we are not the masters of our minds, as the entire universe is controlled by cause and effect. The third (and second) points are perhaps a bit like the simulation hypothesis, where there is somebody (in the loosest sense possible) running a program, a simulation, where the points of interest (outcome) are unknown to us. I feel that Christians often defend point six, assuming that the soul is either eternal or at least has a life span different from the body. Alternatively there is the concept that the premature and horrible pain and death of children are intended as a lesson for the rest of us. A reminder that life can be snuffed out at any time, perhaps? Then there is of course reincarnation, where we assume souls are on some sort of training path, (re-)living various lives with the intent of learning, of bettering themselves. The issue of free will quickly becomes relevant, which leads to the last point. Point seven is a bit drastic perhaps. It might be combined with the simulation hypothesis, because even when all is predictable from the previous step, knowing some end result is not an easy compute, due to NP completeness. I've personally been pondering on how we would go about searching for clues that we live in a simulation. I think a relevant point, regardless of dimension or plane of existence, is that of optimization. The first logical solution is parallelism. Next is that if we assume the outcome to be human centric, the movements of quarks inside an atom, in the front leg of an ant living out in the woods, is also a good candidate for optimization, using statistical methods perhaps even at the ant hill level, saving tons of calculations. This leads to multiple threads of execution, working at different resolution of detail, with possible consequences which I will not go into now. Enough rambling, I have to report to work! :-)

Glad you liked it!

I'd love to have the confidence to speak falsehoods like you do

Wow you really missed the point if the criticism. It worries me that you got 5 thumbs up.

@@Cuythulu How so?

@@ryoukboy1010 Imagine a friend tells you they went to the mall and bought three things; a left shoe, a right shoe and a pair of shoes. Your friend didn't actually buy three things because the shoes *are* the pair of shoes. Ryle's critique of Descartes is that mind and body are the same entity but he treats it as if they were two. The person who wrote the comment either never read Ryle or completly misunderstood him.

​ @Cuythulu I think something similar can be said for Ryle. I think Ryle is actually talking about mereology rather than dualism. To give an example I can adopt the view of mereological nihilism and say that the friend didn't actually buy any shoes and instead they just bought some atoms or whatever the universe is made out of. Like the commenter said above, category is just an arbitrary construct. I adopt the view of Nagel in that physicalism is like trying to objectify something inherently subjective, thus making it useless in what its supposed to accomplish. To go back to the shoes analogy, I can tell my friend that he is an idiot because he only bought atoms, and I would be right. But it is meaningful to apply subjective labels and information to objective matter and energy, like "shoes". I like to give the analogy of Mathematics. Pretty much all of Mathematics can be developed from ZFC set theory. When we look at a field like number theory do we call numbers ghosts because deep down they are actually just sets? Is all of mathematics just an illusion? Maybe so, but it is an extremely useful illusion. As for my current views and beliefs, I don't think physicalism will ever solve the entire picture of consciousness. It may lay the groundwork for it (like ZFC set theory). But another theory/framework is needed ontop of that to fully describe consciousness. This other framework is the kind of dualism I believe in. I am kind of on both sides here, I'm for physicalism and dualism in the way that I described (At least for now).

You're welcome!

I address this issue in my video about what philosophy is: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wwT4N_v0-WQ.html

He was an obvious materialist. Just like his student D. Dennet. Unfortunately for them, explaining emergence of consciousness from matter is an even bigger problem than explaining causal interactions between mind stuff and body stuff (res extensa - res cogitans).

@@adriancioroianu1704 A couple of months ago, I was probably at least a soft materialist. The Hard Problem Of Consciousness has changed my mind. I am now either a dualist (despite the problems) or an idealist, still not sure which.

As far as this video, just btq...

Yes, because what we call science today isn't actually science but scientific method (Nietzsche) which is in fact the science of perceptions (that's why it seems to work) but doesn't take into account anything qualia-related. Galileo, to start this endeavor we call science today, specifically put aside all qualities and focused on quantities only (which is the scientific method today). Of course we can't understand the mind "scientifically" because science isn't operating in the same realm. You can't derive qualities from quantities, that's why consciousness will never be understood with the current scientific method. Its the category error, but now it backfired.

​@@adriancioroianu1704 You have no evidence

@@DrinkWater713 For what?

@@adriancioroianu1704 That: 1 - "We can't understand the mind scientifically" 2 - Science isn't operating on the same realm as the mind (whatever that means)

@@DrinkWater713 ok