I'd say Putnam doesn't properly address the following important point. If, in reasoning, we pass from one proposition to another not because we see their logical relation but by virtue of the movements of some parts of our brains, then the intuitive conviction we have that we are making a valid inference must be an illusion, because only logical laws, not physical laws, ensure logical validity. Thus, if our thinking activity is reducibe to brain activity, we should mistrust our reasoning, which would lead us to mistrust any conclusion we have so far reached, even the conclusion that we are but physical systems. As I see it, what is ultimately at issue is the reliability of our confidence in reason in the context of a materialistic interpretation of mind. The question is NOT whether there can exist physical systems isomorphic to validly reasoning minds; this won't solve the main concern, which is: can we rely on our reasoning if it is not governed by mental causation based on the contents of our thoughts but by physical causation that seems not to be based on such contents? WARNING: arguments are welcome; as son as personal attacks show up, the thread will be deleted.
@Oners82 “Mental causation is the result of physical causation” That’s not a retort. It’s an empty claim. Consciousness cannot be a result of the brain because the brain is a concept created by consciousness.
@Oners82 Do you deny that the brain is a concept created by consciousness? What is the definition of “brain”? Where did the arbitrary delineation of that definition originate?
@Oners82 Yet you didn’t answer the questions. Next, Can you justify your claim to certain knowledge of these things? I’m looking for epistemic warrant. You’re claiming certain knowledge of true facts. By what means did this knowledge become known to you and how did you attain certainty? Regarding your analogy, if you claimed our consciousness emerged from dogs, the same would hold true. My consciousness cannot emerge from dogs because dogs are a concept created by consciousness.
@Oners82 Ok so you have no certainty about anything at all. So all of these claims you are making have an implicit “maybe” in front of them. Whatever “knowledge” you have could be wrong. Your claims have no force, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN EPISTEMOLOGY! It’s crazy to me that someone who literally knows nothing can be so unhinged emotionally about his “facts”. Regarding the definition of brain - you claim there’s nothing arbitrary about it. You’re absolutely incorrect. There are a few different views we can take. Where does the brain begin and end? Why weren’t the eyes included, or the nervous system? There is no disconnection point other than that chosen by conscious minds. Any delineation at all was chosen arbitrarily by conscious agents rather than some other subset of constituent parts. After all we are perhaps simply talking about a collection of molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, fields, and so forth. Conscious minds trying to make sense of the energy they perceive, and using macro concepts they create about form and function. Form and function and meaning are some of the concepts I’m referring to. To even describe the organ, the heart, and it’s function of pumping, is to arbitrarily focus on a macro scale and arbitrarily delineate boundaries and completely overlook the cellular level much less the atomic level, not to mention the subatomic level. This shouldn’t be controversial. Cosmology arbitrarily chooses to focus on the large scale, quantum physics on the small. These are arbitrary choices. And you don’t know any of this is real on top of it all! Yet you actually believe you’re some kind of super genius and everyone around you is a dummy. And ironically you refute yourself by acknowledging you have no true knowledge, no access to truth whatsoever, while making truth claims! Thanks for the irony!
I'm like 99% sure that that's John Searle introducing him.
Sounds close enough to a mechanic, it might be Searle…
I think this might be my favourite philosophy talk ever.
Thanks for uploading
Chomsky: if you want to know what consciousness is, read a novel. B. Russell: the hard problem is not what is consciousness, but what is matter.
Simple Souls and Complex Brains of the Quantum are well explained . Revitalizing topic for Today.
That pause at 2:22 when he's expecting everyone to laugh but no one does.
The best hitters rarely bat over .400
Wuddup, homies.
Don't know why 'transcendence' is in the title.
It might have been the title of his lecture, I know the word appears several times in his refutation of functionalism, Representation and Reality.
Brilliant man going up against deluded defenders of reason.
Where in Putnam's talk is that said?
I'd say Putnam doesn't properly address the following important point. If, in reasoning, we pass from one proposition to another not because we see their logical relation but by virtue of the movements of some parts of our brains, then the intuitive conviction we have that we are making a valid inference must be an illusion, because only logical laws, not physical laws, ensure logical validity. Thus, if our thinking activity is reducibe to brain activity, we should mistrust our reasoning, which would lead us to mistrust any conclusion we have so far reached, even the conclusion that we are but physical systems. As I see it, what is ultimately at issue is the reliability of our confidence in reason in the context of a materialistic interpretation of mind. The question is NOT whether there can exist physical systems isomorphic to validly reasoning minds; this won't solve the main concern, which is: can we rely on our reasoning if it is not governed by mental causation based on the contents of our thoughts but by physical causation that seems not to be based on such contents? WARNING: arguments are welcome; as son as personal attacks show up, the thread will be deleted.
@Oners82
“Mental causation is the result of physical causation”
That’s not a retort. It’s an empty claim.
Consciousness cannot be a result of the brain because the brain is a concept created by consciousness.
@Oners82
Do you deny that the brain is a concept created by consciousness?
What is the definition of “brain”?
Where did the arbitrary delineation of that definition originate?
@Oners82
Yet you didn’t answer the questions.
Next, Can you justify your claim to certain knowledge of these things?
I’m looking for epistemic warrant. You’re claiming certain knowledge of true facts. By what means did this knowledge become known to you and how did you attain certainty?
Regarding your analogy, if you claimed our consciousness emerged from dogs, the same would hold true. My consciousness cannot emerge from dogs because dogs are a concept created by consciousness.
@Oners82
Ok so you have no certainty about anything at all.
So all of these claims you are making have an implicit “maybe” in front of them. Whatever “knowledge” you have could be wrong.
Your claims have no force, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN EPISTEMOLOGY!
It’s crazy to me that someone who literally knows nothing can be so unhinged emotionally about his “facts”.
Regarding the definition of brain - you claim there’s nothing arbitrary about it. You’re absolutely incorrect. There are a few different views we can take.
Where does the brain begin and end? Why weren’t the eyes included, or the nervous system? There is no disconnection point other than that chosen by conscious minds. Any delineation at all was chosen arbitrarily by conscious agents rather than some other subset of constituent parts.
After all we are perhaps simply talking about a collection of molecules, atoms, sub atomic particles, fields, and so forth. Conscious minds trying to make sense of the energy they perceive, and using macro concepts they create about form and function.
Form and function and meaning are some of the concepts I’m referring to. To even describe the organ, the heart, and it’s function of pumping, is to arbitrarily focus on a macro scale and arbitrarily delineate boundaries and completely overlook the cellular level much less the atomic level, not to mention the subatomic level. This shouldn’t be controversial.
Cosmology arbitrarily chooses to focus on the large scale, quantum physics on the small. These are arbitrary choices.
And you don’t know any of this is real on top of it all!
Yet you actually believe you’re some kind of super genius and everyone around you is a dummy. And ironically you refute yourself by acknowledging you have no true knowledge, no access to truth whatsoever, while making truth claims!
Thanks for the irony!
@Oners82 I think the real distinction is not between logic and the physical but between syntax and semantics, which is _not_ a false dichotomy.
Putnam's smile bothers me lol
not one of his best talks imho
What are some of the talks of his that you prefer?