In Conversation: W. V. Quine - Block Panel - Section 2

Willard Van Orman Quine, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, has been described as the greatest living English-speaking philosopher. In this series, he takes part in an in-depth personal interview, and a penetrating analysis of his life's work in six panel discussions with some of today's leading philosophers. In discussions with some of today's leading philosophers. In discussions on his most important theses, Quine defends his views against the major criticisms—past and recent—to bring his position right up-to-date.

The Block Panel
Professor Ned Block is chairman of the philosophy department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He specializes in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology and his main area of current study concerns, he says, what we can learn about consciousness from neuropsychology. He has published widely in his fields, and has co-edited with Gerald Dworkin The IQ Controversy. He has written Imagery and edited two volumes of the Readings in Philosophy of Psychology.

In this program Professor Quine is questioned about his views on some of the major topics in philosophy of mind. His linguistic behaviorism is carefully examined and compared with programs in linguistics and neuroscience, and his gives his opinions on the field of cognitive science. The program concludes with Quine's views on the topics of mental causation and consciousness.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ned
• Block
• Willard
• Van
• Orman
• Quine
• W.V.O.
• Philosophy
• Logicism
• Mind
• Linguistics
• Cognitive
• Science
• Neuroscience
• Psychology
• Causation
• Consciousness

[Guaguanco11]

That would make him about 86 here.

[flame0430]

Indeed. I hope I'll be such a beast at 86.

[Guaguanco11]

Is this early eighties?

[flame0430]

1994 I think.

[mavaddat]

Thanks for posting these, flame0430! You rock.

[flame0430]

Glad to be of service!

[PaulRenwick]

Yeah, truly, thank you for uploading all of these videos, your channel is fantastic.

[natedaug1]

@mavaddat Yeah good job, flame0430.

[DrDeist]

@PaulRenwick : Best channel on Youtube. Nobel Youtube Prize for flame0430!

[olllHashedFetish]

The inquisitor looks like he's wearing a disguise kit.

[presentlyabsent]

@polymath7 "the field of struggle has been broadened"

to avert your (seemingly) omnipotent "remove" device!

[presentlyabsent]

@polymath7 "who's reading it anyway":

i did, but i skimmed in such a fleeting way of manner

as to let appear it an altogether incoherent babble

of mindlessly bubbling balbutations ;-)

(such has been done to slighten and diminish you!)

((the (mainly French) onomatopoeticon "balbutation"

was put in to best you on your one field of forte))

[a11mind]

@polymath7 "equally odd" equals "equally weird"

and yet is there no known weird odd number...

isn't that also "equally odd"?

As there are oxymorons, there also are little nuts

so hard to let look even our best minds like nuts (or morons).

As there are the knowns and the known unknowns there are also the unknowns we will never know to un-un-know. (And also are there nuts (of the moronic kind) that can drive one nuts!)

[a11mind]

@polymath7 "who's reading it anyway":

.

The man who is devoted and not attached to the fruit of his actions obtains tranquillity; whilst he who through desire has attachment for the fruit of action is bound down thereby.

[polymath7]

V.

...at least equally odd.

This comment is running into five parts and exceeding my desire to express it(who's reading it anyway) but, to be complete... I would strenuously aver that any satisfactory theory of consciousness must offer an epistemology that at least attempts to decide, by some means other than just subjective report (George is in pain because he says so) which systems are conscious, and why.

This sounds absurdly impossible, but I think might I know how it could be done.

[polymath7]

IV.

...only gradually (let's say over the course of ten minutes) become integrated computationally) to put it simply, imagine HAL being shut down in reverse).

If eliminative materialism is correct, there must necessarily be an *exact* point in time at which the computer absolutely abruptly springs into some sort of qualiative state -however faint- from an immediately preceding state of complete oblivion. I find this extraordinarily odd, but then the corollary alternative, pansychism, seems...

[polymath7]

III.

...any proposed solution to this problem -or dismissal of it- that is not utterly hollowly arbitrary and and tautological.

Let's say I have a sentient computer (and I'll remark in passing that there simply *are no* arguments against strong AI that cannot be completely dismissed with a wave of the hand) that is presently shut off and takes several minutes to boot; or let's say even for the sake of (thought) experiment I have it set up so that subsystems come in line sequentially and...