It is a very heavy-going discussion. The people hardly agree on anything and talk at cross purposes. Maybe next time the subject could be tackled solely by a panel of scientists, another of philosophers, etc.
Granted; neurophysiological talk might not be useful in everyday circumstances. However, of our two languages, mentalistc and neurophysiological, it does not suffice to say that mental events CORRELATE with physiological events. A satisfactory physicalism must maintain that both have the same referents.
Professor Kinsbourne: always highly enjoyable and pleasing to listen to a scholar with a great sense of humour!
Professor Cavell: listen to,watch professor Kinsbourne and learn,laughing is allowed, laughing is not a crime,for god's sake he was hilarious, he was almost flirting with you (in his perverse intellectual way), laugh,laugh,laugh!!!!
We must realize what the ideas behind the "soul" word is, the meaning of it. We must sparate the semantic problem from the ideal of the soul. Personally I believe that what all religions name religion exist, but we call it subcounciousness, that's the word psichology gives to that idea. I don't believe that is anything separated from the body or the mind or that endures the fisical death of my body.
This video would have been much better in direct proportion to how much more we would have heard from Marcia Cavell, and how much less we would have heard from everybody else.
Good discussion..could of done without the editing (personally feel to be a form of censorship), also if they were going to have in the panel a religious point of view why just a christian point? I mean if female priest was born slse where her religious point of view would of been, too the status que of said place, not saying that she should be exculded, but it kinda cheapens the topic having a religious person coming only from one theological sect...apart from that, good debate.
Did it demonstrate how pointless this inter-disciplined attempt at bolstering academic power? As was suggested, they all showed how embedded and at home they were in their own notions.
It is a very heavy-going discussion. The people hardly agree on anything and talk at cross purposes. Maybe next time the subject could be tackled solely by a panel of scientists, another of philosophers, etc.
pawsoned 1 year ago
Granted; neurophysiological talk might not be useful in everyday circumstances. However, of our two languages, mentalistc and neurophysiological, it does not suffice to say that mental events CORRELATE with physiological events. A satisfactory physicalism must maintain that both have the same referents.
zappa3837 2 years ago
Professor Kinsbourne: always highly enjoyable and pleasing to listen to a scholar with a great sense of humour!
Professor Cavell: listen to,watch professor Kinsbourne and learn,laughing is allowed, laughing is not a crime,for god's sake he was hilarious, he was almost flirting with you (in his perverse intellectual way), laugh,laugh,laugh!!!!
thanatos333x2 2 years ago
We must realize what the ideas behind the "soul" word is, the meaning of it. We must sparate the semantic problem from the ideal of the soul. Personally I believe that what all religions name religion exist, but we call it subcounciousness, that's the word psichology gives to that idea. I don't believe that is anything separated from the body or the mind or that endures the fisical death of my body.
chicalleje 2 years ago
This video would have been much better in direct proportion to how much more we would have heard from Marcia Cavell, and how much less we would have heard from everybody else.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
filosofy
warwize 2 years ago
Good discussion..could of done without the editing (personally feel to be a form of censorship), also if they were going to have in the panel a religious point of view why just a christian point? I mean if female priest was born slse where her religious point of view would of been, too the status que of said place, not saying that she should be exculded, but it kinda cheapens the topic having a religious person coming only from one theological sect...apart from that, good debate.
bloodcell9 4 years ago
Did it demonstrate how pointless this inter-disciplined attempt at bolstering academic power? As was suggested, they all showed how embedded and at home they were in their own notions.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago