So experience is for knowledge. Experience is of our environment. Therefore we must take a stand on its truth, so we can act. All experience has meaning.
@@3rron3ous3rror Nah, psychology asks questions that have at least in principle empirical answers. Philosophical concerns by definition can't be addressed empirically.
@@dionysianapollomarx "It may appear to some people that Science, particularly Physiology, can answer these questions for us. But it should already be clear that this is a mistake. Thus if it be said that when a man sees something, e.g. a tomato, light rays emanating from the object impinge upon his retina and this stimulates the optic nerve, which in turn causes a change in the optic centres in his brain, which causes a change in his mind: there are two comments to be made. 1. No doubt this is in fact a perfectly true account, but what are the grounds for believing it? Obviously they are derived from observation ... Thus the Physiologist has not explained in the least how visual observation justifies a man in holding a certain belief about a tomato, e.g. that it is spherical. All he has done is to put forward certain other beliefs concerning a retina and a brain. Those other beliefs have themselves to be justified in exactly the same way as the first belief, and we are as far as ever from knowing what way that is. ... 2. In any case, Science only professes to tell us what are the causes of seeing and touching. But we want to know what seeing and touching themselves are. This question lies outside the sphere of Science altogether." H.H. Price, Perception, Chapter 1
@@bozom2868 ever heard of experimental philosophy. It's so good recently that it's making decent waves within cognitive psychology and cognitive philosophy circles. So much so that some "esoteric" sciences, e.g. Jung, Goethe, and Steiner, get better credibility because of new interpretations.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
So experience is for knowledge. Experience is of our environment. Therefore we must take a stand on its truth, so we can act. All experience has meaning.
I command YOU spirit! Go out into the world!
is he reading from one of his papers?
I must say if you're giving a LECTURE, you should SPEAK UP. But beyond that annoyance -- good arguing.
12:29 bookmark
Y'know what I _don't_ understand?
Why is this not psychology?
Psychology is just applied philosophy of mind
@@3rron3ous3rror Nah, psychology asks questions that have at least in principle empirical answers. Philosophical concerns by definition can't be addressed empirically.
@@gerhitchman yet
@@dionysianapollomarx "It may appear to some people that Science, particularly Physiology, can answer these questions for us. But it should already be clear that this is a mistake. Thus if it be said that when a man sees something, e.g. a tomato, light rays emanating from the object impinge upon his retina and this stimulates the optic nerve, which in turn causes a change in the optic centres in his brain, which causes a change in his mind: there are two comments to be made. 1. No doubt this is in fact a perfectly true account, but what are the grounds for believing it? Obviously they are derived from observation ... Thus the Physiologist has not explained in the least how visual observation justifies a man in holding a certain belief about a tomato, e.g. that it is spherical. All he has done is to put forward certain other beliefs concerning a retina and a brain. Those other beliefs have themselves to be justified in exactly the same way as the first belief, and we are as far as ever from knowing what way that is. ... 2. In any case, Science only professes to tell us what are the causes of seeing and touching. But we want to know what seeing and touching themselves are. This question lies outside the sphere of Science altogether."
H.H. Price, Perception, Chapter 1
@@bozom2868 ever heard of experimental philosophy. It's so good recently that it's making decent waves within cognitive psychology and cognitive philosophy circles. So much so that some "esoteric" sciences, e.g. Jung, Goethe, and Steiner, get better credibility because of new interpretations.