What I love about Prof. Hacker is that he has so many wonderful ways of calling nonsense. "Sounds like Alice and Wonderland, but it isn't" (47 minutes in). Ol' Witty would mostly just repeat "nonsense!"
the first comment wasn't a question, which didn't warrant an answer... Second: fuck you Third: You are the typical scurvy pseudo-intellectual lowlife looming in the Internets back allays trying to pick a fight. The fact that you expect me to break down in this comment section years of readings and writings is ludicrous. I don't have time for that. I don't have a damn thing to prove. If you want any matter explained, be specific.
Just what the fuck are you babbling about? For a moment you got me thinlking that though you lack manners, you had a vague idea of what you are talking about. It turns out, you do not even have a clue. Epistemology of knowledge? where did you learn that? Epistemology is only about knowledge. I thought of putting together some simplistic ideas of Wittegestein and some Derrida just to make a point, but I cannot be bothered. You may've heard about the ideas of Kappler (who is himself admirably brilliant), in your dramatic mental limitation you couldnt even articulate it and go around raving and picking fights. I cannot be bothered about you. find someone else to show off your bareness.
@@joeruf6526 Your first comment. Hacker and Bennett do a great job exposing the conceptual confusion at the heart of much neuroscience and philosophers who are committed to mind in brain fallacies. To quote Wittgenstein: as though the mind is a gaseous substance that lies slightly behind the eyes'.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Sure there are. They are the those who carefully and humbly have followed an empirical tradition of inquiry into the natural world. Were there no authorities there would be no science.
@32;30 by his own mereological logic shouldn't Hacker have said that it is the person who walks and not "we walk with our legs not with our brains". Doesn't it seems that everybody else's metaphors are always the source of incoherence; never those of philosophy?.
First off, if it was only a metaphor then Peter Hacker would have no problem with it. The issue is that they clearly don't think that it's a metaphor if it is supposedly this grand world-bending scientific discovery and then ascribe psychological predicates to the brain and then negate them for the human person ("Your brain decided to raise your arm before you did"). Next off, you have literally never read anything Peter Hacker has written before if you think he doesn't accuse philosophers of literally interpreting metaphorical language as though it proves some great discovery.
nickolasgaspar Seeing as you haven't addressed the points I made in my previous comments, I'll have to assume that you concede those points. "13:33.....someone scientific literate can only bare his speculative bullshit till this minute...." It's not clear how it's speculative bullshit, and you have not given us any reasons to think so. You still don't seem to have a basic understanding of what epistemology is, so it's not clear why anyone would take your views about more complex philosophical topics seriously. "If you present JUST ONE idealistic concept that ever got to be part of an official scientific theory....then you might had a case..." You've made no case against what the speaker says, and certainly not one that warrants a defense. Asserting that he's wrong is not evidence that he is wrong. Regardless, I haven't mentioned idealism. Do you think philosophical positions are all idealist or could it be that this is just another situation where you are using a term you don't understand? What you have said thus far amounts to nothing more than cheeky insults and blind assertions. Instead of talking shit, try making an argument or presenting some kind of evidence that supports your view. Otherwise, no one has any reason to take what you've said seriously. I'll get to your slew of other comments shortly.
nickolasgaspar "Who is this guy that can define what can or cannot be explain.....arrogance and stupidity." You realize that philosophy of science is _the_ field devoted to understanding what science is (and what it is not), right? Regardless, your mere incredulity isn’t a criticism (much less a serious one) of what he is saying. “Has he ever heard that Science needs to TEST FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS in order to advance its knowledge?” Yes, hence his view that neuroscientists should stick to addressing topics of neuroscience and avoid speculation about topics in fields it cannot meaningfully address, such as topics of metaphysics. I’m not sure why you would disagree with such a view, assuming a charitable interpretation, that is. “This dude ignores how science works and he tries to push his agenda by taking advantage of your ignorance and you wishful thinking.” No he doesn’t. It is because he knows how science works that he has reason to reject scientism. Scientism (as opposed to science) is an intellectually bankrupt belief that most scientists reject as false. “Again , arrogantly, he tries to define what is an observable natural phenomena...” Again, arrogantly, you assume some overly broad definition of science such that anything that can be known must somehow be knowable only through science. That’s question begging. You don’t seem to have a working definition of what counts as science or what the limits of science might be. “that aims to make some elbow space for his failed philosophy.” Again, what you’ve said doesn’t amount to substantive criticism of anything he brings up. You are just repeating the same bloated rhetorical quips again and again. And what do you mean by ‘his philosophy’? The view that science isn’t the only field that claims to yield knowledge is anything but controversial or a fringe idea. It’s a veritable fact. “He is a pathetic philosopher trying to keep a field of study outside of science's reach.” No, he’s clarifying misconceptions about what the current limits of science already are, not what they should be. That any of this is news to you just goes to show how very little you know about philosophy. This shit was settled back in the 1920s and yet here you are, endorsing a view that was refuted nearly a century ago. Dude, read up on the topic before you try to talk about it.
nickolasgaspar "an academic discipline that has nothing to show on its own the past 2300 years." Hahahaha holy shit. You realize that the scientific method was developed by philosophers and mathematicians (math isn't a science, btw), right? Like, your misconceptions about both the history of philosophy and the history of science are so severe, it's embarrassing. You're not only ignorant of their history, you're so intellectually dishonest that you apparently have no issue with asserting a revisionist account of said history. Is feeling like you know what you're talking about really more important to you than actually knowing what you're talking about? Really? "you will find out that all these stupid new age, woo woo, religious, death denying stupid talks are irrelevant to the workings of science!!!!" Lol if you think any of the things you mentioned are legit philosophy, you don't know what philosophy as a field even is. Do you think philosophy involves energy crystals and meditation or something? Like, read a fucking book, bro.
nickolasgaspar "dude...don't try to promote BS idealistic concepts as philosophy." Dude, I would say the same to you. Scientism is a universally discredited belief based on circular reasoning that is, at best, incoherent. You can assert that reasonable objections to scientism are BS all day long, but if you aren't capable of arguing for your case, then no one has any reason to take your assertions seriously. Put up or shut up. “Stop hiding behind philosophy.” Stop hiding behind ignorance and rhetoric. Put up or shut up. “My claims aren't about actual naturalistic philosophy that respects a methodology of a systematic study.” Philosophy is a systematic study that doesn’t assume naturalism when it isn’t warranted. That you think naturalism ought to be assumed just shows how little you know about philosophy as a contemporary academic field. FFS you still don’t seem to know what epistemology is. “Next time ...try not to address my comments but the error I pointed in this moron's talk.” Next time, try to make substantive points instead of repeating the same empty rhetoric as if anyone is obligated to take it seriously without justification. Next time, don’t ignore your interlocutor’s comments when they directly address and successfully repudiate your claims. If you cared about having accurate beliefs, you wouldn’t refuse to engage with substantive criticism. Again, put up or shut up. "Idealism is a bs philosophical category so stop trying to put it with the rest of Philosophy you moron." Nothing that I've said is based on or has anything to do with idealism, you insufferable oaf. Valuing reason over blind faith does not make one's views idealistic. Stop using words you don't understand. "Scientism is not an ism....there isn't a dogma or an ideology to follow..." Scientism literally has "-ism" in the word, you dolt. It is based on circular reasoning and the rejection of the truth of the assumptions that science itself is based on. You are in no way defending science by accepting scientism. If you think you are, then you don't know what scientism is (which wouldn't surprise me given the fact that you probably still haven't looked up the definition of epistemology yet). Learn what words mean before trying to use them.
nickolasgaspar Hahaha you are adorable. You clearly aren't capable of defending your views in intellectual terms. "Learn what science is and why scientism has nothing to do with science..." I know what both are. What do you think scientism is, kid? "My comments on his fallacies were crystal clear and had nothing to do with your stupid critique." What’s clear is that your critique is based on fundamental misconceptions about the limits of science and complete ignorance of basic shit in philosophy of mind. My critique was of your critique of his views. You think he's 'attacking science' when it should be clear to anyone familiar with philosophy of science that he's merely explaining the need to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
Basically all claims, hardly any arguments or evidence. The few arguments are rested on shaky premises. I am a maths and science teacher who really believes that science is not the only way to gain knowledge and that too much importance is given to science, especially in education. However, this talk does a big disfavour to convince anyone.
I was disappointed. At some point of the video (26.10) Prof. Hacker, after having read a quote of Nobel winner Gerald Edelman, says : "I can't pretend to understand that", then the audience laughed. Does he admit the limits of his own understanding? It would be arrogant of him to hint that the quote is nonsense. After all, thinking conceptually on a couch is useful, but has its limits. People who make scientific discoveries may also have developed analytical skills and may have their own coherent perspectives based on a tacit understanding of phenomena that Prof. Hacker lacks. Unfortunately, what prof. Hacker seems to ignore is that experience in experimentation may lead to different (but remarkable) abstractions.
I can't recall a single event where I've ever heard someone say that much nonsense while at the same time being so critically acclaimed across the board. Now where should I begin? How about the blatant arrogance? Yes claiming to know the absolute answer to free will a question so highly debated throughout time definitely shows this. But that's only the most extreme and obvious occurence. The entire speech is held in a way that feels condescending towards everyone that dares to disagree. Not only does this indicate that our dear friend professor hacker lacks the necessary open mindedness for someone of his position no he's not even completely aware of the people he tries to argue against otherwise such blatant self sufficent standpoints wouldn't be possible without giving some credit to the opposition. Now for his actual argumentation...oh wait there'a nothing of substance to be found. Yes the english language has different words for mind and brain. And yes we say "I think" instead of "My brain thinks". And what exactly is that supposed to prove? That the ability to comprehend intricate biological system wasn't present at the time when language developed in that way? Maybe. That our brain wouldn't work in isolation and needs the entire body to function building one unit with the rest which we are self aware of? Possibly. But definitely not that neuroscience should stick to empirical questions. Besides his definition of machine is way too narrow minded. Once you deal with the brain enough you unavoidably deal with the questions of thought and when you deal with that you deal with consciousness. What makes you the supreme authority to declare how we can arrive to an answer regarding the question about consciousness? Nothing. If neuroscience has something valid to say about such a concept or the concept of free will then let them. Anyone interested in the actual philosophical implications behind such questions would support anyone that could potentially give additional insight. But for that you'd need to be philosophically interested which our dear professors doesn't seem to be. Instead he appears to want to flaunt his supposed intellect. As I said nothing of substance.
@@jiboia17 What a delightful comment. Tell me: do you have anything substantial to add to my comment? Because as it stand your argument only strenghtens mine through yoir apparent incapability to actually bring forth some counterpoints.
@@damonplay8185 since what you wrote cannot be considered an argument due to its lack of substance and conceptual/logical rigor, i prefer to keep on what you started: fooling around. or do you really expect to have great philosophical discussions via youtube commentary sections? if you do, then i'm sorry but i won't follow you. i do a lot of philosophy, but i do it seriously. let's not forget that this is a social network, serious philosophy is either discussed in books or debates
@@jiboia17 Oh I know what a social network is. Philosophical rigor was never my aim. First of all YT is the wrong place and second of all my interesr in philosophy lies in its concepts not rigor terminology and I think I've made my point relatively clear in the original comment. However all that aside I love your blatant hypocrisy. Accusing me of lacking substance while bringing forth far less substance. Yeah great argumentative logic there my friend. Everybody can claim to "do philosophy and that seriously" (whatever doing philosophy seriously even means exactly) but they also have to back that up. Without doing that ypur comment is baseless.
@@damonplay8185 then again, i don't need to prove or base any argument here because i'm not doing any. just chill dude. instead of raging and getting all angry on a philosopher (i'm talking about hacker now) that for sure knows a lot more than you on the subject, try to learn a bit from him. i don't agree with everything he says as well. but there is no need to talk with that level of aggressiveness just because he doesn't say what you want to hear. no one is making you agree with him. i don't know why i'm even taking time saying this. i just find so ridiculous to adopt that attitude of criticizing something from an apparent higher level of clarity when you are clearly not an expert. and i'm not even talking about taking the youtube commentary section as the stage for such criticism, which is itself a very poor choice. you didn't criticize anything philosophical in your comments. you just ravaged against hacker based on your emotional/pseudo-moral perception of him. and you are free to do all this, of course. but i am as well free to mess with whoever i think is just saying plain agressive mambo jambo, reproducing the kind of thinking/arguing that is so common around social networks.
A mind isn´t anything? It´s like a "sake"? Sorry, Hacker. It is then about emergentism.... and spiritual-religious experience....See e.g. Fritjof Capra... There is no way to identify the start of a decision? Hacker´s a little overly fond of his own denialism, and sacrifices his own clarity.
Well, that _is_ the way that 'mind' is used in ordinary speech. What do you think we mean when we say that Jonathan "has a mind of his own"? No one would think that he possess or owns anything called 'a mind', would they? Rather, we mean that he is independent in thought, decision, and action. We shouldn't be misled (as, unfortunately, we often are) by the fact that 'mind' is a noun or substantive.
@@legron121 Apparently I cited Hacker´s saying "A mind isn´t anything. It´s like a sake" Your desire to go with that is what you are then arguing for. And you do so presumptuously, what kind of bubble do you live in that you expose yourself so shamelessly with such an apparent and narrow range of literacy? Literature, I imagine. Ah, Dostoievsky, 19th century, it´s all so symbolic and abstract. Not real." Tsk, tsk, and shame on you. Please, take some time to research Pavlov and his dogs, then move to JB Watson as in Bio Anthropologist Mel Konner´s book The Tangled Wing. A little empirical reality is rather essential to America not continuing to lead the world to Hell in a handbasket. You argue that the "use in ordinary speech" as in phrases like "Jonathan has a mind of his own" doesn´t mean that J owns or possesses anything called a mind. Man, your username sure fits stereotypes. You reason by trying to negate a labeled immaterial object by pointing the the variance in meanings, and seeking to pass off an immaterial object as the referent of a separate and distinct semantic usage which seems to refer to some other partial meaning, not like it´s a part-whole metaphor, anyway. It is. A part of what "whole" metaphor, semantically, then? How exactly is someone "independent in thought"? You "mislead" yourself in believing in a "thought" immaterial noun, but not a "mind"? Thoughtful, but mindless, is that it? You´d make a good Buddhist yes-man. Well, you seem willing to be mislead whereever the justification of nonexistence of a complex, immaterial refernt seems somehow remotely plausible to you, by crossing disciplines without a care. And still you are left with the question, "What then do you think is behind what you are talking about at all?" So, I´ve laid out the situation as you´ve distorted it pretty well already. The original foundation has been coming up not infrequently, so that I am salivating to ram it home. A human mind, the original source of ANY derived informal part-whole phrase you might whimsically flit to, is what Freud nicely tapped into as a neurologist finding patients with intense pain and no organic disease symptoms. So, he had to listen to their words as he ended up being able to help them, and taking notes all the while. Out of that process, he helped people and had piles of notes with words of patients, including "Ich" in German, or "I" in English, and that he posited as an empirical reality, the "ego." Yet, there are earlier references. WL Craig has made references in his debate with the lunkhead philosopher A Rosenberg to the "mind" in illuminating ways to refute AR´s kinds of silly naturalist assertions, and accompanying denials, that the "mind" does not exist. We say, "I changed my mind" not "I changed my brain" nor "I changed myself" nor "i changed my thoughts." Based on understanding the brain´s neurochemical circuit systems, then also conditions in which we have the ability to exert Mind over Matter, we observe a dual system in interaction. Your materialistic naturalist angle of using expressions like "no one owns or posseses" a "mind" is rather disconnected from appropriate literacy in psychology. Your use of terms is thus unduly narrow. We do indeed say, "Are you in your right mind?" "He has lost his mind." How such terms vary is for you to study, and learn to associate with psychology´s rather impressive range of issues. I got a degree in Bio Anthro, and can draw from a variety of disciplines no less. I had nice exposure to a neurophysiology textbook, no less, to get me started on a diverse and enriching journey to a masters in International Relations. In the big picture, these things are matters of life and death in the end. Barack H Obama was a good point of reference of what attracts many Americans to their credit. However, he started as a community organizer, meeting people facing the abusive treatment of the profiteering and sociopathic rich in the US. Michael Moore the filmmaker, no less, has shown the misery that real humans are perpetrating in indoctrination and confusion, helped along by plenty of diversions and distractions. Please do yourself a favor and get some more appropriate literacy. We need good people in their right minds.
@@legron121 Not surprising that that´s your perception, nor that that´s as far as you get. I summed it up nicely, taking your comment about "thoughts" which you take to exist as you deny the existence of "minds." Your ideas about "thoughtful mindless" people refute your own assertions. That means they are self-refuting, which is a philosophical observation about logical coherence and correspondence to reality. For one thing, your escapist reply indicates that you didn´t take stock of your own reply as literary, not adequately literate. You created a comment from literature using a metaphor with no sense of the appropriate range of disciplines that relate to the empirical referent of "mind." "Mind" has plenty of empirical data to inform it, as I indicated with references to Pavlov´s famous basic work, and Bio Anthropologist Mel Konner´s discussion of JB Watson´s own famous example of conditioning a child. For a foundational empirical basis. Then I referred to Freud, WL Craig´s work, the expression "Mind over Matter," and other individuals like Barack Obama. Craig made good points in his responses to philosopher and metaphysical naturalist A Rosenberg about AR´s assertions that "mind´s" don´t exist. But, in your lack of interest and appropriate functional literacy, your reply indicates that you´re simply out of your league. You aren´t in an English literature class, and also identified with a philosopher who apparently is also disconnected from empirical reality.
@@robinhoodstfrancis You simply don't understand what I'm saying. I was using 'thought' to denote the *activity* of thought ("he was sunk in thought"), not 'a thought'. In addition, I never denied that we have minds. I was pointing out that 'having a mind' does not imply possession of any thing, any more than 'having a train to catch' or 'having a good time' does. It just implies being able to think, reason, imagine, ect. It is a mistake to think that whether we possess things called 'minds' is an empirical question at all. It is not and we do not. The reference to W. L. Craig is just irrelevant. He did a good job of refuting Rosenberg's absurd form of materialism, but none of his arguments support the existence of a _thing_ called 'a mind'. In any case, I don't deny the existence of the mind in the way that Rosenberg does. Rosenberg holds that we do not endure, that we never think about anything, that we're not responsible for our actions, indeed that we do not exist. *That* is what Craig refuted, and I'm in agreement with him on that matter. He did *not* refute the fact that 'having a mind' is nothing more than having a set of intellectual capacities such as reason, will, imagination, memory, ect. "You aren´t in an English literature class" Funnily enough, I actually am in an English literature class at the moment. I'm currently studying Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Oscar Wilde. Nor did I identify with anyone.
Jees this guy is talking total nonsense. He's just repeating himself and taking things as obviously true which just aren't. I don't feel he has challenged the naturalist position at all other than to simply say it isn't true.
tydrin He wasn't really presenting an argument so I am not sure what you not convinced of. He clarifying the descriptions. As someone in the field of neuroscience it a breath of fresh air to know someone is out there doing that. You should read some of these papers. The amount some people suppose is astounding and their language is atrocious. I prefer to keep science authoritative.
Prof. Hacker is a remarkable interpretator on Wittgenstein. His book, Insight and Illusion, is really wonderful !
What I love about Prof. Hacker is that he has so many wonderful ways of calling nonsense. "Sounds like Alice and Wonderland, but it isn't" (47 minutes in). Ol' Witty would mostly just repeat "nonsense!"
Brilliant. Loved it. I would listen to this man talking for hours on end.
so you think.
what makes you think I am not versed in these matters?
wouldn't that be the first question instead of acting like inbred boorish snout?
the first comment wasn't a question, which didn't warrant an answer...
Second: fuck you
Third: You are the typical scurvy pseudo-intellectual lowlife looming in the Internets back allays trying to pick a fight. The fact that you expect me to break down in this comment section years of readings and writings is ludicrous. I don't have time for that. I don't have a damn thing to prove.
If you want any matter explained, be specific.
Just what the fuck are you babbling about? For a moment you got me thinlking that though you lack manners, you had a vague idea of what you are talking about. It turns out, you do not even have a clue. Epistemology of knowledge? where did you learn that? Epistemology is only about knowledge. I thought of putting together some simplistic ideas of Wittegestein and some Derrida just to make a point, but I cannot be bothered. You may've heard about the ideas of Kappler (who is himself admirably brilliant), in your dramatic mental limitation you couldnt even articulate it and go around raving and picking fights. I cannot be bothered about you. find someone else to show off your bareness.
What a shame a good mind must spend his time correcting idiots.
@@joeruf6526 Couldn't agree more with @nickolasgaspar.
@@lesliecunliffe4450 cant find what he wrote . what do you agree with?
@@joeruf6526 Your first comment. Hacker and Bennett do a great job exposing the conceptual confusion at the heart of much neuroscience and philosophers who are committed to mind in brain fallacies. To quote Wittgenstein: as though the mind is a gaseous substance that lies slightly behind the eyes'.
@@joeruf6526 There are no authorities in good science.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Sure there are. They are the those who carefully and humbly have followed an empirical tradition of inquiry into the natural world. Were there no authorities there would be no science.
@32;30 by his own mereological logic shouldn't Hacker have said that it is the person who walks and not "we walk with our legs not with our brains". Doesn't it seems that everybody else's metaphors are always the source of incoherence; never those of philosophy?.
He didn't say our legs walk. It is not wrong to say that we walk WITH our legs any more than it is wrong to say that we throw a ball with our arm.
It *is* the person who walks… WITH THEIR LEGS.
First off, if it was only a metaphor then Peter Hacker would have no problem with it. The issue is that they clearly don't think that it's a metaphor if it is supposedly this grand world-bending scientific discovery and then ascribe psychological predicates to the brain and then negate them for the human person ("Your brain decided to raise your arm before you did"). Next off, you have literally never read anything Peter Hacker has written before if you think he doesn't accuse philosophers of literally interpreting metaphorical language as though it proves some great discovery.
Well, hello from 2024 with all these LLMs. Do you still think organisms are not machines, old man?
This comment aged so poorly lmfao
This is great, well done.
nickolasgaspar Seeing as you haven't addressed the points I made in my previous comments, I'll have to assume that you concede those points.
"13:33.....someone scientific literate can only bare his speculative bullshit till this minute...."
It's not clear how it's speculative bullshit, and you have not given us any reasons to think so. You still don't seem to have a basic understanding of what epistemology is, so it's not clear why anyone would take your views about more complex philosophical topics seriously.
"If you present JUST ONE idealistic concept that ever got to be part of an official scientific theory....then you might had a case..."
You've made no case against what the speaker says, and certainly not one that warrants a defense. Asserting that he's wrong is not evidence that he is wrong. Regardless, I haven't mentioned idealism. Do you think philosophical positions are all idealist or could it be that this is just another situation where you are using a term you don't understand?
What you have said thus far amounts to nothing more than cheeky insults and blind assertions. Instead of talking shit, try making an argument or presenting some kind of evidence that supports your view. Otherwise, no one has any reason to take what you've said seriously. I'll get to your slew of other comments shortly.
nickolasgaspar "Who is this guy that can define what can or cannot be explain.....arrogance and stupidity."
You realize that philosophy of science is _the_ field devoted to understanding what science is (and what it is not), right? Regardless, your mere incredulity isn’t a criticism (much less a serious one) of what he is saying.
“Has he ever heard that Science needs to TEST FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS in order to advance its knowledge?”
Yes, hence his view that neuroscientists should stick to addressing topics of neuroscience and avoid speculation about topics in fields it cannot meaningfully address, such as topics of metaphysics. I’m not sure why you would disagree with such a view, assuming a charitable interpretation, that is.
“This dude ignores how science works and he tries to push his agenda by taking advantage of your ignorance and you wishful thinking.”
No he doesn’t. It is because he knows how science works that he has reason to reject scientism. Scientism (as opposed to science) is an intellectually bankrupt belief that most scientists reject as false.
“Again , arrogantly, he tries to define what is an observable natural phenomena...”
Again, arrogantly, you assume some overly broad definition of science such that anything that can be known must somehow be knowable only through science. That’s question begging. You don’t seem to have a working definition of what counts as science or what the limits of science might be.
“that aims to make some elbow space for his failed philosophy.”
Again, what you’ve said doesn’t amount to substantive criticism of anything he brings up. You are just repeating the same bloated rhetorical quips again and again. And what do you mean by ‘his philosophy’? The view that science isn’t the only field that claims to yield knowledge is anything but controversial or a fringe idea. It’s a veritable fact.
“He is a pathetic philosopher trying to keep a field of study outside of science's reach.”
No, he’s clarifying misconceptions about what the current limits of science already are, not what they should be. That any of this is news to you just goes to show how very little you know about philosophy. This shit was settled back in the 1920s and yet here you are, endorsing a view that was refuted nearly a century ago.
Dude, read up on the topic before you try to talk about it.
nickolasgaspar "an academic discipline that has nothing to show on its own the past 2300 years."
Hahahaha holy shit. You realize that the scientific method was developed by philosophers and mathematicians (math isn't a science, btw), right? Like, your misconceptions about both the history of philosophy and the history of science are so severe, it's embarrassing. You're not only ignorant of their history, you're so intellectually dishonest that you apparently have no issue with asserting a revisionist account of said history. Is feeling like you know what you're talking about really more important to you than actually knowing what you're talking about? Really?
"you will find out that all these stupid new age, woo woo, religious, death denying stupid talks are irrelevant to the workings of science!!!!"
Lol if you think any of the things you mentioned are legit philosophy, you don't know what philosophy as a field even is. Do you think philosophy involves energy crystals and meditation or something? Like, read a fucking book, bro.
nickolasgaspar "dude...don't try to promote BS idealistic concepts as philosophy."
Dude, I would say the same to you. Scientism is a universally discredited belief based on circular reasoning that is, at best, incoherent. You can assert that reasonable objections to scientism are BS all day long, but if you aren't capable of arguing for your case, then no one has any reason to take your assertions seriously. Put up or shut up.
“Stop hiding behind philosophy.”
Stop hiding behind ignorance and rhetoric. Put up or shut up.
“My claims aren't about actual naturalistic philosophy that respects a methodology of a systematic study.”
Philosophy is a systematic study that doesn’t assume naturalism when it isn’t warranted. That you think naturalism ought to be assumed just shows how little you know about philosophy as a contemporary academic field. FFS you still don’t seem to know what epistemology is.
“Next time ...try not to address my comments but the error I pointed in this moron's talk.”
Next time, try to make substantive points instead of repeating the same empty rhetoric as if anyone is obligated to take it seriously without justification. Next time, don’t ignore your interlocutor’s comments when they directly address and successfully repudiate your claims. If you cared about having accurate beliefs, you wouldn’t refuse to engage with substantive criticism. Again, put up or shut up.
"Idealism is a bs philosophical category so stop trying to put it with the rest of Philosophy you moron."
Nothing that I've said is based on or has anything to do with idealism, you insufferable oaf. Valuing reason over blind faith does not make one's views idealistic. Stop using words you don't understand.
"Scientism is not an ism....there isn't a dogma or an ideology to follow..."
Scientism literally has "-ism" in the word, you dolt. It is based on circular reasoning and the rejection of the truth of the assumptions that science itself is based on. You are in no way defending science by accepting scientism. If you think you are, then you don't know what scientism is (which wouldn't surprise me given the fact that you probably still haven't looked up the definition of epistemology yet). Learn what words mean before trying to use them.
nickolasgaspar Hahaha you are adorable. You clearly aren't capable of defending your views in intellectual terms.
"Learn what science is and why scientism has nothing to do with science..."
I know what both are. What do you think scientism is, kid?
"My comments on his fallacies were crystal clear and had nothing to do with your stupid critique."
What’s clear is that your critique is based on fundamental misconceptions about the limits of science and complete ignorance of basic shit in philosophy of mind. My critique was of your critique of his views. You think he's 'attacking science' when it should be clear to anyone familiar with philosophy of science that he's merely explaining the need to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
çoğu nöronilimve zhin felsefesi makalesinden yararlı diye geldim bakalım
human god
Basically all claims, hardly any arguments or evidence. The few arguments are rested on shaky premises. I am a maths and science teacher who really believes that science is not the only way to gain knowledge and that too much importance is given to science, especially in education. However, this talk does a big disfavour to convince anyone.
I was disappointed. At some point of the video (26.10) Prof. Hacker, after having read a quote of Nobel winner Gerald Edelman, says : "I can't pretend to understand that", then the audience laughed. Does he admit the limits of his own understanding? It would be arrogant of him to hint that the quote is nonsense. After all, thinking conceptually on a couch is useful, but has its limits.
People who make scientific discoveries may also have developed analytical skills and may have their own coherent perspectives based on a tacit understanding of phenomena that Prof. Hacker lacks. Unfortunately, what prof. Hacker seems to ignore is that experience in experimentation may lead to different (but remarkable) abstractions.
I can't recall a single event where I've ever heard someone say that much nonsense while at the same time being so critically acclaimed across the board. Now where should I begin? How about the blatant arrogance? Yes claiming to know the absolute answer to free will a question so highly debated throughout time definitely shows this. But that's only the most extreme and obvious occurence. The entire speech is held in a way that feels condescending towards everyone that dares to disagree. Not only does this indicate that our dear friend professor hacker lacks the necessary open mindedness for someone of his position no he's not even completely aware of the people he tries to argue against otherwise such blatant self sufficent standpoints wouldn't be possible without giving some credit to the opposition. Now for his actual argumentation...oh wait there'a nothing of substance to be found. Yes the english language has different words for mind and brain. And yes we say "I think" instead of "My brain thinks". And what exactly is that supposed to prove? That the ability to comprehend intricate biological system wasn't present at the time when language developed in that way? Maybe. That our brain wouldn't work in isolation and needs the entire body to function building one unit with the rest which we are self aware of? Possibly. But definitely not that neuroscience should stick to empirical questions. Besides his definition of machine is way too narrow minded. Once you deal with the brain enough you unavoidably deal with the questions of thought and when you deal with that you deal with consciousness. What makes you the supreme authority to declare how we can arrive to an answer regarding the question about consciousness? Nothing. If neuroscience has something valid to say about such a concept or the concept of free will then let them. Anyone interested in the actual philosophical implications behind such questions would support anyone that could potentially give additional insight. But for that you'd need to be philosophically interested which our dear professors doesn't seem to be. Instead he appears to want to flaunt his supposed intellect. As I said nothing of substance.
jeez dude grab a philosophy book
@@jiboia17 What a delightful comment. Tell me: do you have anything substantial to add to my comment? Because as it stand your argument only strenghtens mine through yoir apparent incapability to actually bring forth some counterpoints.
@@damonplay8185 since what you wrote cannot be considered an argument due to its lack of substance and conceptual/logical rigor, i prefer to keep on what you started: fooling around. or do you really expect to have great philosophical discussions via youtube commentary sections? if you do, then i'm sorry but i won't follow you. i do a lot of philosophy, but i do it seriously. let's not forget that this is a social network, serious philosophy is either discussed in books or debates
@@jiboia17 Oh I know what a social network is. Philosophical rigor was never my aim. First of all YT is the wrong place and second of all my interesr in philosophy lies in its concepts not rigor terminology and I think I've made my point relatively clear in the original comment. However all that aside I love your blatant hypocrisy. Accusing me of lacking substance while bringing forth far less substance. Yeah great argumentative logic there my friend. Everybody can claim to "do philosophy and that seriously" (whatever doing philosophy seriously even means exactly) but they also have to back that up. Without doing that ypur comment is baseless.
@@damonplay8185 then again, i don't need to prove or base any argument here because i'm not doing any. just chill dude. instead of raging and getting all angry on a philosopher (i'm talking about hacker now) that for sure knows a lot more than you on the subject, try to learn a bit from him. i don't agree with everything he says as well. but there is no need to talk with that level of aggressiveness just because he doesn't say what you want to hear. no one is making you agree with him. i don't know why i'm even taking time saying this. i just find so ridiculous to adopt that attitude of criticizing something from an apparent higher level of clarity when you are clearly not an expert. and i'm not even talking about taking the youtube commentary section as the stage for such criticism, which is itself a very poor choice. you didn't criticize anything philosophical in your comments. you just ravaged against hacker based on your emotional/pseudo-moral perception of him. and you are free to do all this, of course. but i am as well free to mess with whoever i think is just saying plain agressive mambo jambo, reproducing the kind of thinking/arguing that is so common around social networks.
A mind isn´t anything? It´s like a "sake"? Sorry, Hacker. It is then about emergentism.... and spiritual-religious experience....See e.g. Fritjof Capra... There is no way to identify the start of a decision? Hacker´s a little overly fond of his own denialism, and sacrifices his own clarity.
Well, that _is_ the way that 'mind' is used in ordinary speech. What do you think we mean when we say that Jonathan "has a mind of his own"? No one would think that he possess or owns anything called 'a mind', would they? Rather, we mean that he is independent in thought, decision, and action. We shouldn't be misled (as, unfortunately, we often are) by the fact that 'mind' is a noun or substantive.
@@legron121 Apparently I cited Hacker´s saying "A mind isn´t anything. It´s like a sake" Your desire to go with that is what you are then arguing for. And you do so presumptuously, what kind of bubble do you live in that you expose yourself so shamelessly with such an apparent and narrow range of literacy? Literature, I imagine. Ah, Dostoievsky, 19th century, it´s all so symbolic and abstract. Not real." Tsk, tsk, and shame on you. Please, take some time to research Pavlov and his dogs, then move to JB Watson as in Bio Anthropologist Mel Konner´s book The Tangled Wing. A little empirical reality is rather essential to America not continuing to lead the world to Hell in a handbasket.
You argue that the "use in ordinary speech" as in phrases like "Jonathan has a mind of his own" doesn´t mean that J owns or possesses anything called a mind.
Man, your username sure fits stereotypes. You reason by trying to negate a labeled immaterial object by pointing the the variance in meanings, and seeking to pass off an immaterial object as the referent of a separate and distinct semantic usage which seems to refer to some other partial meaning, not like it´s a part-whole metaphor, anyway. It is. A part of what "whole" metaphor, semantically, then? How exactly is someone "independent in thought"? You "mislead" yourself in believing in a "thought" immaterial noun, but not a "mind"? Thoughtful, but mindless, is that it? You´d make a good Buddhist yes-man.
Well, you seem willing to be mislead whereever the justification of nonexistence of a complex, immaterial refernt seems somehow remotely plausible to you, by crossing disciplines without a care.
And still you are left with the question, "What then do you think is behind what you are talking about at all?"
So, I´ve laid out the situation as you´ve distorted it pretty well already. The original foundation has been coming up not infrequently, so that I am salivating to ram it home.
A human mind, the original source of ANY derived informal part-whole phrase you might whimsically flit to, is what Freud nicely tapped into as a neurologist finding patients with intense pain and no organic disease symptoms. So, he had to listen to their words as he ended up being able to help them, and taking notes all the while.
Out of that process, he helped people and had piles of notes with words of patients, including "Ich" in German, or "I" in English, and that he posited as an empirical reality, the "ego."
Yet, there are earlier references. WL Craig has made references in his debate with the lunkhead philosopher A Rosenberg to the "mind" in illuminating ways to refute AR´s kinds of silly naturalist assertions, and accompanying denials, that the "mind" does not exist. We say, "I changed my mind" not "I changed my brain" nor "I changed myself" nor "i changed my thoughts."
Based on understanding the brain´s neurochemical circuit systems, then also conditions in which we have the ability to exert Mind over Matter, we observe a dual system in interaction.
Your materialistic naturalist angle of using expressions like "no one owns or posseses" a "mind" is rather disconnected from appropriate literacy in psychology. Your use of terms is thus unduly narrow.
We do indeed say, "Are you in your right mind?" "He has lost his mind." How such terms vary is for you to study, and learn to associate with psychology´s rather impressive range of issues. I got a degree in Bio Anthro, and can draw from a variety of disciplines no less. I had nice exposure to a neurophysiology textbook, no less, to get me started on a diverse and enriching journey to a masters in International Relations. In the big picture, these things are matters of life and death in the end. Barack H Obama was a good point of reference of what attracts many Americans to their credit. However, he started as a community organizer, meeting people facing the abusive treatment of the profiteering and sociopathic rich in the US. Michael Moore the filmmaker, no less, has shown the misery that real humans are perpetrating in indoctrination and confusion, helped along by plenty of diversions and distractions.
Please do yourself a favor and get some more appropriate literacy. We need good people in their right minds.
@@robinhoodstfrancis
I can't discern any intellectual substance in your reply.
@@legron121 Not surprising that that´s your perception, nor that that´s as far as you get.
I summed it up nicely, taking your comment about "thoughts" which you take to exist as you deny the existence of "minds." Your ideas about "thoughtful mindless" people refute your own assertions. That means they are self-refuting, which is a philosophical observation about logical coherence and correspondence to reality.
For one thing, your escapist reply indicates that you didn´t take stock of your own reply as literary, not adequately literate. You created a comment from literature using a metaphor with no sense of the appropriate range of disciplines that relate to the empirical referent of "mind."
"Mind" has plenty of empirical data to inform it, as I indicated with references to Pavlov´s famous basic work, and Bio Anthropologist Mel Konner´s discussion of JB Watson´s own famous example of conditioning a child. For a foundational empirical basis.
Then I referred to Freud, WL Craig´s work, the expression "Mind over Matter," and other individuals like Barack Obama. Craig made good points in his responses to philosopher and metaphysical naturalist A Rosenberg about AR´s assertions that "mind´s" don´t exist.
But, in your lack of interest and appropriate functional literacy, your reply indicates that you´re simply out of your league. You aren´t in an English literature class, and also identified with a philosopher who apparently is also disconnected from empirical reality.
@@robinhoodstfrancis
You simply don't understand what I'm saying. I was using 'thought' to denote the *activity* of thought ("he was sunk in thought"), not 'a thought'. In addition, I never denied that we have minds. I was pointing out that 'having a mind' does not imply possession of any thing, any more than 'having a train to catch' or 'having a good time' does. It just implies being able to think, reason, imagine, ect.
It is a mistake to think that whether we possess things called 'minds' is an empirical question at all. It is not and we do not. The reference to W. L. Craig is just irrelevant. He did a good job of refuting Rosenberg's absurd form of materialism, but none of his arguments support the existence of a _thing_ called 'a mind'. In any case, I don't deny the existence of the mind in the way that Rosenberg does. Rosenberg holds that we do not endure, that we never think about anything, that we're not responsible for our actions, indeed that we do not exist. *That* is what Craig refuted, and I'm in agreement with him on that matter. He did *not* refute the fact that 'having a mind' is nothing more than having a set of intellectual capacities such as reason, will, imagination, memory, ect.
"You aren´t in an English literature class"
Funnily enough, I actually am in an English literature class at the moment. I'm currently studying Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Oscar Wilde. Nor did I identify with anyone.
Jees this guy is talking total nonsense. He's just repeating himself and taking things as obviously true which just aren't. I don't feel he has challenged the naturalist position at all other than to simply say it isn't true.
I suppose that could be the case for sure! Not much I can do about it though if that's the case. What is your point?
Right. How does that relate to the naturalist position though?
+tydrin I don't believe you paid attention. that was quite concise.
Concise possibly. Total nonsense nonetheless. By the end I would only agree with him if I had already agreed at the start. No argument was convincing.
tydrin He wasn't really presenting an argument so I am not sure what you not convinced of. He clarifying the descriptions. As someone in the field of neuroscience it a breath of fresh air to know someone is out there doing that. You should read some of these papers. The amount some people suppose is astounding and their language is atrocious. I prefer to keep science authoritative.