Unity of Reality - new realism. Prof. John Searle 

It's pleasure to follow his thoughts!

Searle is a sort of Wittgenstein calm and confident

how does he kill it so hard?

I would 'define' meaning as an expression of that 'internal structure' of life experience, and reserve the term 'significance' for conventional, rule-based language, which may inhibit or misunderstand the individual 'meaning'.

One wonders how it could have taken 2,000 years, or 10,000 years, to arrive at John Searle.

Status function is an answer to the Kant's relational question to duty.

Syntax means that something has to do with structure and time.

The mind is not formal? Show me something that isn't formal. No one's found any alternative. The most fundamental "substance", is information. Waves with no medium.

12:55 Intentionality means that something has to do with will.

Body - Soul - and the Spirit.

Excellent!

39:17 That's because power is a noumenon. People have been delegated with power since Saul from the Old Testament.

Only in philosophy do you need to prove that you and everything else actually exists for most of the lecture

How are particles supposed to be intrinsically meaningless, exactly?

My friend the schizophrenic knows when he is not perceiving the real world. For one thing, he knows that in the real world, he does not "see" molecules.

Social reality means that something has to do with a family.

A subjective hallucination is reality until rejected by objective reason. E.g. if the color blind were in the vast majority - and the regular sighted were in the minority - then the regular sighted would be deemed color blind and the color blind would be deemed regular sighted. Red would become green and green would become red.

26:23 35:00

34

God is the all, soul is the self, and its immortality is true insofar as we will eternally have done what we did, and its effects, and the effects of its effects.

I think he is overcompensating and dooming his whole endeavor by letting his opposition to the religious view push him to one side in his premise, instead of starting in the neutral, and following the evidence to the best conclusion. Since religion said that life was special, he has to assume life isn't special (even in a naturalistic way). Religion posits dualism, so he will not even consider anything but a strict monism regardless of whether it could be useful in finding a materialist explanation. The Earth was created special for a purpose says religion, so we must maintain that the Earth is ordinary and average, even against the current evidence. I consider all religions and religious views to be nonsense of the highest order, so I will not let it circumscribe my search for knowledge, and Searle should know better as a Philosopher. Then again, he literally quoted god in the middle of his atheistic talk. I'm not sure what compulsion ties these really smart people to fear the sky daddy so much that it infects everything they do.

These two major mistakes are zombiefied by dysfuntional curriculums of schools, colleges and universities all around the world only because each field of knowledge, each class is presented in historical terms. Both natural science classes, as well as social science classes should start right at what we understand now, and not with Euclid, Newton, Platon and Kant.

wish he would work off a script. He uses a 100 words when 20 words could be used. Yawn.