Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Charles Tilly interview: individualism and cognitive science

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
5,277
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 20, 2007

Part of interview with Charles Tilly by Daniel Little. December 15, 2007 at University of Michigan - Dearborn. Topic: individuals and social action; cognitive science

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 5 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (9)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @JamesDestry1 That depends on the nature of the mind. If it is only physical (which most philosophers of the mind think), then it certainly is within the domains of the natural sciences. It is not for any of us to decide what the realm of science is. Nature is what it is, wether you like it or not. Philosophy has long seemed like a dead-end to me.

  • @astroboomboy Fair enough, but I believe that the mind belongs to philosophy. Let matters of nature belong to science, let the mind belong to philosophy.

  • @JamesDestry1 What are you on? If this Magnus turned out to be wrong, well then the scientific approach worked.

  • @astroboomboy fuck you: just because he is a scientist, does not mean he is correct. Many natural scientists, such as magnus, turned out to be wrong. As an indiviudalist, a subjectivist, and a humanist, I say that I disagree with this asshole, and I disagree with you.

  • Why is it that in videos on social sciences and humanities there are comments like the one below? You would never find a comment like that on a video on the natural sciences. It makes me wonder what kinds of people are interested in social sciences, if anybody is the jackass it is the guy below me...

  • the individual is the individual. This guy is a jackass. anybody who sits infront of a bookface deserve a kick in the ass

  • @bonjeano

    When we think about thinking maybe we should start with Social Optics. Information enters our brains sociomentally thorugh others. We are predisposed by our culture to see things a certain way and to perceive things in a disctinctive Western way. Our individuality exists of course but the social cognition should not be ignored. it is no accident that we like jeans, pizza, and hamburgers; we learn to smell , sense , perceive, attend, classify. and recoken time socially.

  • @mdandrea39

    yeah, but this doesn't touch the core subject of the video, that is, the question as to whether those cognitive elements of "thought communities" (or the latter in general) could in principle be explained in virtue of individual brain processes.

  • We form each other in transactions within a social framework within a particluar society, culture at a particluar poiint in time, in a distinct historical era. The notion put forth by Eviatar Zerbuval is we belong to "thought communities." There is individual cognition, human universal cognition, and social cognition. In scocial cognition we belong to many different groups which focus and shape our social optics, memories, and social consciousness. A sociology of mind via language !

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more