George Lakoff - How Does Philosophy Illuminate the Physical World?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- We think we understand the physical world but we do not. For example, some features of the world are derived from others, which makes the latter more fundamental and the former less so. Some scientists believe that only science can tell us how things work. Philosophers do not agree. Do philosophers see things that scientists cannot?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on philosophy: bit.ly/2Komr2O
George P. Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Thank you for for all your hard work in bringing all your incredible material for those who cannot afford a formal education in these realms of intelligence.
It is a travesty that education has a cost.
Great stuff for thinking about!
A fascinating explanation of mind using science and philosophy.
These discussions are fascinating. I want CTT to hit 1M subscribers.
A refresher course in knowing the extent of our ignorance.
that didn't refresh its own ignorance(this alleged course) by visit the latest scientific knowledge of Cognitive Science.....so sad.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 What's funny about scientific knowledge, is that every year with each new discovery, today's "scientific knowledge" becomes tomorrows "scientific ignorance" - And the cycle continues
Thank you so much for making it easy to us to listen to such big minds...
You are welcome... I think.
Great video
Beautiful !!!
A basic paradox lies in the philosophy of Lakoff: if, as he argues, we cannot think in purely rational terms, but rather we all can only think 'as the brain allows us' according to fixed patterns that cannot be deviated from, then how does Lakoff himself think so rationally and free from all the limitations he lectures about? Is he superhuman?
Thanks for making these great videos. Can you have a discussion with Charles Taylor, the Canadian philosopher, please?
Based on true story
The Lady of Heaven : movie coming out soon 2021
The first movie to tell the untold story , a story that no one dares talking about due to fear
Trailer
czcams.com/video/1MaDAW0jRYM/video.html
Thankyou, finally a constructive fundament to work on.
Our world is real, no matter how it exist, everything else is rather unreal, what we create as movies and imaginations, illusions or spirituality, that is what is being taught and distracts from reality and common-sense to a wrong view and understanding of our natural born abilities.
This is my mind of body-mind functionality with all the complexity of the constructed variables needed to reflect and understand functions in a right way.
Our world is only relatively real ;)
I like the relational view: mental models don't represent 'the world', but the modeler's RELATION(s) to the world and his RELATION(s) to others within his culture. For example, if you're 'allowed' to build new scientific models, scientific culture expects you to learn the currently fashionable models and maybe a bit of the history of models over the past generations, which then in turn need to be built into the new models you build. So mental models also represent biographical, social and cultural history (as they are not built from scratch, but using 'older' models as building blocks, stepping stones or negative examples). The modeler's body, his biography, his surrounding culture and its history all function as restrictions on the models he builds (which can still be creative and new, to some degree, nevertheless!).
Great ¬
Based on true story
The Lady of Heaven : movie coming out soon 2021
The first movie to tell the untold story , a story that no one dares talking about due to fear
Trailer
czcams.com/video/1MaDAW0jRYM/video.html
Let's take one step further in this direction: like "greenness" isn't "there", instead it emerges from relation between the mind and the world, mind and world aren't there in itself because they are also emergent from the same relation. But we cannot describe a concept in the means of itself. So what is the world and what is the mind in this theory? It bugs me really that I cannot wrap my mind around it.
In this theory, each individual person is the embodiment of the entire universe. Essentially, we are the universe looking back at itself, as opposed to within itself, if that makes sense?
Very impressive..I had to listen twice and learned many things..Putting George's conclusion aside, everything he said had the ring of truth to it..The color perception example leaves questions.. It's obviously to our advantage to recognize the differences in wavelengths of reflected light, and these wavelength differentials are ACTUALLY there..A perception of "Color" changes seems obvious given that the information arrives on photons..How does this supports the assertion that we may not be accurately perceiving the TRUE nature of our invionment.. Why shouldn't our senses have evolved to ever more accurately do just that..? We are merely decoders of the very PHYSICAL information carried by particles and waves.. Those animals who decode this information more accurately, are favored for survival.. Am I missing something? It wouldn't be the first time.. Thanks.
I think our senses probably would have continued evolving had we not gotten in the way of it. Sure, the wavelengths are there, but if there were no eyes, there would be no light, because light is a relationship between an eye and a wavelength. Seeing stops at the eyes and recognition stops at the brain.
@@matthewdustin7353 A valid consideration friend and with a storied history in philosophical thought. The concept that an observer is required for what WE think of as colors to exist is fraught with potentially dangerous and unfounded related assumptions. Certainly the wavelength variations are there, and animals decode them as changes in color. It would however be easy to support the assertion that ALL information from the environment comes solely from OUTSIDE our perceptions of it MINUS the nomenclatures that decoders might apply..STILL your point is well taken but I would be interested to know if we agree so far..Peace.
@@Bill..N Namaste my friend 🙏
I believe we may still be in disagreement. Light travels in waves and contains every color on the spectrum, that is true according to science and Einsten's theories of Relativity. What one perceive as color refers to the specific wavelength that is reflected by an object, while all other colors are absorbed by the object. And what each individual person perceives each color to be, is relative to their eye sight
@@matthewdustin7353Thank you for your response. I get your point friend, I do.. It is POSSIBLE that "Formal semantics" are all that separate our positions.. You say that the FREQUENCY of light which humans perceive/decode as RED let us say, would not exist as a COLOR without our observation of it.. I agree with that since there would be no observers to "Label" the observation of such a reflected frequency as being the color RED.. I just added a small nuance suggesting that this information originates in its entirety from the environment and all that observers do is to decode and describe that existent information, No ? I am certainly NOT claiming to fully understand the truth in these issues friend..
@@Bill..N I would say I can agree with that. You're right, I am reading a little too literally and prescribing differences semantically
How well do the metaphors make sense, as our understanding of the world around us and our understanding of ourselves evolve?
I believe this is where researches such as Donald Hoffman and Tom Campbell should be. I love the metaphor description from George here a whole lot better than conscious agents, the planets as icons and people as avatars. Donald and Tom sound like gamers that got too connected to their digital ideas. As a desktop icon or flesh suit for a program? Meh. I don't connect with that description very well. This guy sounds right to me. I can manage metaphor.
He says color doesn’t exist outside of our minds but how can that be? If 10 people see a car and they all say it’s red then the pigmentation of the car must be red! our minds are just interpreting what they see in nature. the color doesn’t just exist in the mind, the cones in our eyes have to be able to pick up those nuances of wavelengths to determine the color no??
@@KCBEECH
Our brains convert the electromagnetic waves into a color. Some people also have this neurological condition called "Synesthesia", where they can hear or taste colors.
@@ezbody But don’t those “waves” actually come from whatever “color” is on a car or a house?
@@KCBEECH
No, the the specific colors are REFLECTED by most objects, they do not produce the waves themselves.
@@ezbody wow, thank you
I would love to see a conversation with B Alan Wallace
What I would like to see is philosophers informed by our latest scientific breakthroughs on the topic. Only a handful of Natural Philosophers (Dennett, Searle etc), invest their time on our epistemology...
Wow. He nailed it
What did he nail?......
.....Will a better understanding of our minds pay the bills?.......generate more resources?.........clean up the trash in our oceans?........increase my cars mpg?.........
@@jimliu2560 I think you need to watch some different videos for that information
His analysis still seems pretty surface to me.
i agree with what you are saying lateesjp ... thought maybe it was just me ..
Pun intended…?
What do you expect in twelve minutes? You could read: Lakoff and Johnson, "Philosophy in the Flesh", Lakoff, "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" to get a more thorough picture.
Absolutely not. It’s a very nuanced analysis that totally side-steps the old idealist/materialist mistakes. Watch again and try to understand more deeply what the implications of what he is saying.
We still don't understand how the primary intention for thought itself is generated.
We understand the mechanics of how a stimuli arouses our central lateral system and how the rest of our brain modules responsible for symbolic language, reasoning, memory, previous experiences etc give content to our conscious thoughts.
In order to understand what we currently understand and what we ignore about our brain and its mental ability, you will need to look in to Cognitive Science and all the involved Disciplines.
Philosophy alone based on outdated concept is a waste of time.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Now how is all of this coordinated within the brain of the organism in such a way that you and I choose to have this discussion which serves no purpose other than to further stimulate our curiosity? 🤔
@@lateesjp it's a very complicated process, current under scientific investigation. There are many verified mechanisms on how conscious thoughts arise through basic organic and environmental stimuli.
Emotions are the fundamental drive behind our mental abilities. (We feel therefore we exist).
External or internal Stimuli give rise to emotions. Emotions are processed by the rest of our mental properties that are under development throughout our life. This is why toddlers have limited understanding or quality in their experiences during the early stages of their lives. For more information try academic Moocs and neuroscience's talks and studies. If you are really interested on the topic , I am more than happy to share some academic material.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Definitely, I'd love that. Thank you. I'm not a skeptic of brain science in any way. I just prefer when field experts speak with more honestly about the huge frontier of exploration that remains ahead of them. Sometimes in these interviews I watch here, these field experts speak so ''matter of factly'' and with such absolution and certainty about the topic. Then when I later research the topic, I find that there is major discussion and research still ongoing among the experts on said topic. And sometimes even more questions raised. Sometimes it sounds more like a big ego talking rather than a scientist. But I guess egos do tend to balloon naturally when becoming an expert in any field 😄.
@@lateesjp That's why I like to always keep my beginner's mind, because there are endless possibilities. In the expert's mind, there are few.
No mention of Kant? Really?
It's a part of 'error minimizing' as I think the universe matter and everything is against (again think of a world with matter without conflict, and also why matter exist in terms of universal AI (energy). So all entities are hard wired to minimize error in life (if error is to say death maybe but translates further obviously). All talk about conscious or sub conscious relies on our brain circuitry all the same. Science is just the hard cold way we analyze the world to 'minimize errors' ring a bell?
Finally someone on this series talking about philosophy in a way that actually sees it for what it is and is making sense. What I hate about philosophers is that they seem to think that philosophy is good at answering questions about the world. It's not. It's good at asking questions, not at answering them. In order to answer questions about the world, you need to look at the world and use evidence. And, if you're doing that... you're a scientists, not a philosopher. Every time philosophers come up with ideas about how the world works (like some of his examples), they inevitably end up being wrong.
Well said.
And some times these ideas turn out to be true. A lot of times they naturally turn out to be wrong. The same is true of science however. The way you are presenting the philosophy/science dichotomy is overly simplistic and misleading.
Along with filtered reality by brain using senses, there is likely directly received consciousness from outside reality that human brain / mind processes in subconscious.
Likely? Really? Assessed on what basis?
@@KestyJoe on the basis of subconscious sense of consciousness. Human brain able to develop consciousness from subconscious activity from external consciousness. All in the conscious family.
@@jamesruscheinski8602 That makes no sense. What is an example of an "external consciousness"? How does our subconscious activity show connection to something external?
@@KestyJoe It makes perfect sense when you can see the world as 1 big consciousness awareness. An example of an "External Consciousness" is every single thing that isn't a human being with an ego.
@@matthewdustin7353 I used to do drugs too, but I stopped.
As with many of these Closer to Truth videos, the discussion is enlightening, but the title of the video doesn’t represent the content. So while I find Lakoff’s views compelling and relevant to the “philosophy of philosophy” if you will, I’m still left with the question “How does philosophy illuminate the Physical world?” This is a question I’m interested in, because I think there’s a real possibility that the answer is “it doesn’t.”
Hey... what exactly are they asking when they say "How does philosophy illuminate the physical world?"
How does the observer illuminate Nature (the animate and inanimate nature)?
The observer have a time sequence for his illuminating Nature, a philosophy about his research.
I think that philosophers do indeed see things that scientists, for various reasons, cannot see. But it works both ways. Scientists often see things that seemingly are hidden from philosophers.
A lot of very smart people seem unable to grasp why the Hard Problem of Consciousness is hard. It's as if they just don't have the concepts (or they're in the grip of a dogma).
To say with complete confidence that the mind is entirely generated by the brain, as if this is even a remotely established scientific fact, is just really bad thinking.
BTW, I didn't "see" the problem until I was in my early thirties when pretty much out of the blue, I just "saw" the problem--and this was long before I'd ever heard of the Hard Problem.
@@BugRib Thanks for sharing. I agree with you.
For the record Joscha Bach has called Lakoff an “Einstein level genius.”
...here is some smart talk on embodied cognition and Hyper Realism instead of senseless macumba Idealism for a change. The interview is clear enough to let you grasp the topic at hand but falls short when it comes to predicate the re-examination of Human mind with Human mind itself at centre stage which obviously can't be done. On that regard the interview was a failure and a contradiction in terms! It will be XIX Century Positivist Science who will fall short of delivering ultimate understanding, or a Theory of Everything, not Philosophy. Philosophy never claimed direct access to a ultimate domain of knowledge (although in Western tradition it can be said that in many occasions it hoped for one)...Philosophy was from the very start well aware that mind and world meld together when it comes to analysis of Reality... the new paradigm in Philosophy doesn't deny a Reality is there but embraces embodied cognitive species specific perspectivism, and for that matter the best we got to abstract away is Mathematics even if embodied in our specific cognitive biases and metaphors it has proven so far to be a powerful tool, although one with limits! Nothing that Bertrand Russel didn't knew already...
" the re-examination of Human mind with Human mind itself at centre stage which obviously can't be done" - Actually, this is exactly what one is doing when they sit down to practice meditation or introspection. Perhaps you forgot that Science used to be called Natural Philosophy? Because science, is simply the practice of philosophy through experience of the scientific method.
@@matthewdustin7353 ...the point being you cannot analyse a system from within the system.
@@FAAMS1 which is why, through meditation, one learns to step outside of the system into the realm of pure awareness. Otherwise, what you're saying, is that the pursuit of any knowledge is pointless since intelligence is a subsystem of the Universe which makes everything that we're saying completely meaningless. Then again, knowledge without wisdom is useless anyway, so perhaps you're right afterall
@@matthewdustin7353 ...you would make a better less magical argument appealing to fractals to point to similar patterns in metaphysical inquiry...
@@FAAMS1 I wouldn't be able to according to your system of logic because fractals are still within the universe and I cannot use my brain to understand them because my brain is within the universe as well. GG, you've outplayed yourself!
My man is going to be pissed when he finds out that “brain structures“ are just metaphors.
That is an easy one....By using the findings of science.
"It is an empirical accident that our ears, eyes, taste buds, and tactile and olfactory organs play an intermediate role in the formation of
beliefs about the world. The causal connections between thought and objects and events in the world could have been established in
entirely different ways without this making any philosophically significant difference to the contents or veridicality of perceptual belief"
-Donald Davidson. George Lakoff came from linguistics to say a lot of grandiloquent stuff about philosophy and the mind that never was cashed out concretely. Philosophy made a wise choice completely ignoring him
This quote misses Lakoff’s point; it’s not any particular sense organ that determines how the world is understood, but the sum total of embodied experience that forms the ground from which our maps of meaning are constructed. If philosophy wants to ignore the past 40 years of scientific investigation that validates the primacy of affect, embodiment, and parallel processing, a revolution of which Lakoff is a part, then it can choose irrelevance.
Based on true story
The Lady of Heaven : movie coming out soon 2021
The first movie to tell the untold story
Trailer
czcams.com/video/1MaDAW0jRYM/video.html
Reality was involved in our evolution, shouldn't the systems we evolved to posses reflect reality in part even if not in whole? We may see a limited piece of the electromagnetic spectrum, but we see a piece of it.
Not quite.
We are not observing true objective reality. Just a model. We know it’s not accurate but to what extent we’ll never know.
Ie: Colour is not an intrinsic property of reality but a manifestation of our visual system.
@@NightcoreGang "Color is not an intricate property of reality." I disagree with this statement. Something real about physical reality causes a perceptual gradient in color by our visual system.
@@ronpaulrevered That 'something real' are atoms. They emit EM frequencies that your brain interprets as color. Atoms themselves do not possess color.
In this video, George Lakoff attests to this at 2:05. This is an undisputed fact in the study of physics. If its philosophy you'd like to discuss I'll oblige but you haven't been very convincing.
Meant to say intrinsic in prior post. Sorry.
@@NightcoreGang I don't know how what you and I said is different. I said "Something real about physical reality ". You said "(atoms) emit EM frequencies", which is something real about physical reality. I said "causes a perceptual gradient in color by our visual system" and you said "that your brain interprets as color". My original post says "Reality was involved in our evolution, shouldn't the systems we evolved to posses reflect reality in part even if not in whole". "To see color is to observe em frequencies through a biologically evolved system like ours." This is a True statement and it affirms my original post, because colors observed by systems like our, the people who have knowledge, do correlate to em frequencies. It appears we both agree with that. You say atoms don't have intrinsic color; That may be True, but it is also True that human subjects objectively see a color as a result EM frequencies. I hope it is not the case that George thinks that just because we have systems that produce hallucinatory phenomena as a result of evolution that these aren't connected to reality at all. They are necessarily is my point, because they emerged from reality and are processing some real feature of reality even if it it emergent and illusory.
@@ronpaulrevered We agree that our evolutionary adaptations were in response to the real physical world. Never disputed that.
But there is nuance.
This whole discussion George Lakoff creates, attempts to open the exact door you're closing. A discussion of the aspects of reality not 'reflected in our systems'. Western Philosophy needs to be revamped with the advent of cog. sci.
Here is his concluding statement 10:15 _"The assumption behind western philosophy is that we can know the word in itself. But if you're knowing the world through your body, then you don't just know it in itself, you know it only in term of what the body will allow. And the body allows a lot but it isn't directly fitting"_
If you read my first response again, you will notice how I've attempted to evoke the alternative view.
I'm sorry if you feel that I've wasted your time.
For the lover, a beautiful woman is an object of desire;
for the hermit, a distraction; for the wolf, a good meal
It was our choice that we experience the world before us these thoughts were granted and all after must be fulfilled no turning back to nothing at least not yet
I appreciate some of Mr. Lakoff's ideas, but I would like to point out that his understanding of Western philosophy has been outdated for at least couple of hundreds of years. Kant argued against the assumption that we can know things as they are in themselves.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. It’s more like “we CAN know things as they are in themselves, as filtered through our cognitive processes - thus we must better understand our cognitive processes and apply that understanding to help know better what actual reality is like.
@@KestyJoe What does it mean when someone says "we can know things as they are in themselves"? The meaning eludes me.
@john Brzykcy It’s a tough question. If you put aside the solipsistic question of whether this is any reality “out there”, it’s a matter of recognizing that our perception of reality is necessarily filtered through our senses, brains, thoughts, etc. He uses the example of color - there isn’t any “red” as such in reality - just a different wavelength of light. As a human, it is a bit of a nonsense question to say “what would it be like to perceive reality directly rather than filtered through our senses?”
@@KestyJoe I pretty much agree with your observations. I agree completely with you that "our perception of reality is necessarily filtered through our senses, brains, thoughts etc." I would also say that our perceptions can be determined/influenced by experiences ( which of course come through the senses), and our abilities to understand ( or even just our striving to understand ). So... thanks for sharing. John in Florida
Based on true story
The Lady of Heaven : movie coming out soon 2021
The first movie to tell the untold story , a story that no one dares talking about due to fear
Trailer
czcams.com/video/1MaDAW0jRYM/video.html
This is Kant applied to linguistics
We still have a long way to go, and many revelations yet to come.
Lakoff's work on the embodied mind, while retrieving the Hebraic notion of personhood is simultaneously wrongly articulated by Lakoff's latent notion of brain and body. He tends to score own goals by poorly articulating his thinking.
Physics IS philosophy. To attempt to distinguish them is wrong. When you learn of all the assumptions required for physics to "work," you begin to notice that it's simply a more refined philosophy, kind of like mathematics is a more detailed symbolic philosophy. "I've always loved science but have also had an interest in philosophy" is thus the first point to dissect, correct, and clarify. Much confusion can result from not seeing subjects on a continuum and instead imposing arbitrary divisions.
An effective orator knows when to compromise semantics in favour of being understood.
Colloquially, physics and philosophy have separate meanings.
The interviewer is not going down your rabbit hole. You’ve simply taken his quote out of context.
Anyways, you’re wrong to assert physics and philosophy should not be distinguished. Also, you haven’t clarified in what sense.
I’d make the distinction to my enrolment officer at uni. I’d make the distinction to my prospective employer. I’d made the distinction in a casual chat for ease of understanding. I’d use philosophy when discussing reality but physics when discussing physical matter. Yes one is broad and another specific. Is there overlap? Yes. Should you use the two words interchangeably? No. So, they are different.
Philosophy is a tool used by most great scientist or any multi-dimensional mined thinker.
We are basically Robotic homosapiens!
Immanuel Kant spoke about the mind as an apparatus to understand the world. And the limitations this entails. So don't say Kant's work and all Western philosophy is broken.
This guy is no Immanuel Kant and is not in his league.
What a dreary conversation this was. How can anyone overly complicate and take so long to explain the simple concept of colour?.
You may have missed the "metaphor" part.
@@danielpaulson8838 Whether I did or not is irrelevant. Lakoff is an old windbag who speaks a lot but in reality says very little.
@@barrycrump6189 Well that was a very concise and detailed response.
I believe I see where you're coming from.
Only Deep Philosophy can tell what creates the Sun and Black world. Ajit Bir
is there not thinking in religion or am i missing something .. maybe i mis understand what this fella is saying ..
There are not many people about whom I feel confident saying such a thing, but in my opinion George Lakoff is a true pseudo-scientist
Why do you say that? Would you care to explain in some depth?
Dark matter and dark energy are the field in which we think feel and relate to the world.. the brain is just the hardware to process the sensations our body feels as a result of quantum mechanics.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Philosophers illuminate only themselves . Once the philosopher was someone who blended together all the various sectors of science . But today ? Today the philosopher is someone who :
talks about physics without knowing it
talks about theology without knowing it
talks about astronomy without knowing it
talks about mathematics without knowing it
talk about spirituality without knowing it
talks about sociology without knowing it
talks about psychology without knowing it
Today the philosopher is good only to sell his own books at the sausage festival . they are a concentrate of trivia and nonsense .
The only one that i like is Chalmers . But because is a smart and open guy before being a philosopher .
I disagree with you. Your comment indicates you don't really know what a true philosopher is.
You may study whatever you want, but if you are not born with that special feeling for what you are doing, you are not that what you call yourself. Without philosophy, science would still be searching in many branches, on many subjects, and possibilities. A true philosopher is born with that special microscopic or telescopic sighting tool knowing there is something where he is searching, like a natural born voice you cannot study.
@@owencampbell4947 who decide it ? MAybe how many books they sell ? How much they are good selling themselves ? How many powerful friends they have ?
How big is their ego to call themselves "philosophers" ?? They just speculate as we ALL do . Don't call them philosophers but "random speculators with a big ego and little knowledge" . He is an expert of language !! What it matter with deep meanings ???? I can ask to an expert of cabbages too , its the same !!
@@francesco5581 You're right because of too many calling themselves what they are not. I refer to the ones that have brought us this far, really through their natural born talent and not only about good earning. That's what's going on right now, and that's what's hurting philosophy, science and other branches.
However, this will continue and be the shadow of the good ones.
@@owencampbell4947 Of course i agree. Also the true knowledge of a science field is done "on the field" . Not speculating in their libraries, not in universities, not on the couches of some good lounge ...
These are some pretty bold claims you put forth, without anything substantial to back them up. They are also incredibly vague and general. Who exactly are these particular philosophers that you are referring to? And how can you be so certain that all of them are as ignorant, as you claim that they are?
These accusations do not make you look thoughtful or intelligent in the least. Rather they make you appear to be an angry simpleton with a bone to pick.