Error correction and how J-Lo's ass disproves God

[waves36012]

Ass now shut up

[MsBorntobeme]

7:55 for all guys

[sdrawkcabgnipytmi]

7:28

Total milf...

[sexykatie90]

thumbs up if you like Error correction and how J-Lo's ass disproves God



[junior311]

thumbs up for BRANGBROS!

[Tyjohnable]

This was pretty interesting but unfortunately you lost me with all the ass shots even the one's I found to huge and gross just couldn't be ignored LOL.

[thesunshon]

PRETTY CLOSE BUT PRETTY THE SAME!

SMILES FROM THE SUN!LOVE LIGHT !!!!!!!

SHONE

[lilyflowers35lol]

ewww her butt is huge!!but her face is pretty!byt seriously thats disguisting it must stink

[dewinthemorning]

"Aboutness"? Never knew such a word existed! But if you say that it is a philosophical term, I am ready to believe there is such a word, knowing that in philosophical terminology there are words, accepted and used by philosophers, like "The Absolute", "The Whole"... and their synonym, God.

This video very engagingly explains the embodiedness of mind (there can't be any intentionality outside the evolved human mind), and naturalism in general.

[hymnofashes]

The question you ask in the end about material antecedents to intentionality is an example of a larger question: if the work of the mind is done by... something else, then WHAT IS THE BRAIN DOING?

[DeathofSpeech]

Anyone who cites John Searl is immediately suspect.

Searl is a con-man who travels about soliciting "donations" toward a perpetual motion / anti-gravity device he calls the Searl Effect Generator. He employees a bait and switch using a novel-propulsion toy called an asymmetric capacitor (crude ion drift propulsion) and uses technobabble jargonese and conspiracy theory as an appeal to sympathy... accepting donations for research on his "larger scale machine" which always magically disappears.

[zarkoff45]

@DeathofSpeech

John Searle not John Searl. They are two different people.

The Searle we are talking about is a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley.

[DeathofSpeech]

@zarkoff45

bahahahaha... I'm a fucking idiot. lol. thanks

[spawktalk]

one. You cant reduce subject to object with out throwing a way what is perhaps the most important part of the experience, the subjectivity.

[Wrath0fKhan]

@spawktalk

Yes we can... ;-)

See for example Dr. Gero Mieseböck´s opto-genetic experiments on flies.

[spawktalk]

from 3rd person , public, or objective experience . I dont really see how it could. The idea that one level of experience must reduce to another because of correlation is one that I cant take seriously. There are obvious differences between the brain and mind in that we experience the two in entirely different ways. And seeing as how the concepts are in fact derived from experience not objective la la land that does make NOT the same. The mind refers to a subjective experience, brain to an ob

[spawktalk]

This chinese room argument is the most common of the arguments im referring too.

Another serious problem I see with this is that it seems to be based on a very mistaken notion of how langue works. If referential language is derived from the experience (I am going to assume an extreme primacy of the signified for simplicities sake) then it seems to me extremely obvious that language which is derived from subjective experience will not referrer to that which is derived

[zarkoff45]

@spawktalk "...chinese room argument..."

AI isn't just chatbots! All Searle addresses is cheap chatbots.

The room is more deaf and blind than Helen Keller. With the only qualia going into the room being Chinese characters then the only world it could know is syntax. We are not limited to that - robots are not chatbots. They have camera eyes, microphone ears and often even touch sensors.

[spawktalk]

The most common arguments against the notion of computers being intentional have to do with the seeming presence of syntax but lack of semantics in computers. Computers work via systems of input and outputs via algorithms. There is however no reason that I am aware to suppose that a computers functionality is accompanied by any subjective states, let alone one of aboutness understanding or intention.

[zarkoff45]

@spawktalk "... arguments against the notion of computers being intentional have to do with the seeming presence of syntax but lack of semantics in computers."

Comments like that make me think the only AI and cognitive research you know of is writing chatbots to win the Loebner Prize.

How is that statement relevant to the Blue Brain project:

watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU

Is it relevant to AI research with Asimo:

watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

Is it relevant to the mirror/mark test:

watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

[leawardseif]

Cool. Although there are many philosophers of mind who are on the side of neuroscience, and who take time to study it. They could provide neuroscientists with valuable replies to their anti-naturalist critics. Let us not split our ranks in the face of irrationalist attacks :)

[zarkoff45]

@leawardseif "...They could provide neuroscientists with valuable replies to their anti-naturalist critics."

Yes, indeed. Dennett is great for helping even an amateur like me to take apart seeming incomprehensible arguments and clearing my head of misleading thought experiments.

The problem is that a lot of anti-naturalist critics seem to be in the philosophy departments.

[toddhawley]

I will be damned! The very thoughts were in my mind just this afternoon prior to delving into your video.

Human emotions I believe are very under estimated in the influence of thought that is a prerequisite for action and behavior.

This i would contribute to one of the reasons for 'emotional supression of the masses via water, drugs and media influence.

Thus, perhaps this may be one of the stages in the 'awakening' as broadcasted by many in the realm of human progression.

[TheNakedAtheist]

I understand, and agree. You have to keep in mind that wayofthebastard is training to be a professional philosopher. He has a vested interest in supporting the idea that such questions are best answered, or can only be answered by philosophers.

[zarkoff45]

@TheNakedAtheist "He has a vested interest in supporting the idea that such questions are best answered, or can only be answered by philosophers."

That's too bad because I think the questions of qualia, intention and the like can only be answered by investigation into the brain with better scientific tools. And I don't even think the neuroscientists who do that will need any philosophy courses.

[EuphoricImpact]

You have provided information that will take me months to really think through. Thank you for your effort. This has been a wow moment.

[RDaneelOlivaw2]

This video has triggered the production of chemicals in my brain. I now feel an incredible desire to worship J Lo's ass. Thanks :-)