In Conversation: W. V. Quine - Block Panel - Section 1

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

[Angk0rwat]

Flame430 is a sufficient condition for making youtube worthwhile.

[megoku]

Thank goodness for flame0430.

[ShoobyBugger]

Truly amazing how little is said in 7 minutes and 55 seconds. 

[thesomewhatlostboys]

the hesitation within this ultimate divide of the color seen by both is of personal disability. As to say 'i am a different color" only differs from obvious relation, is in the terms of predetermined communication, they themselves deem necessary.

[GaryGeckDotCom]

To quote the great logician, Dr Hao Wang (Kurt Gödel's confidant) in his book, Beyond Reductionism (pg 8):

[Quine and Carnap's philosophies] "fail to give an adequate

account of logic (or of mathematics ). This , in my opinion , discredits

their views in a basic way in the light of the fact that logic is so central

for both of them ."

...And he spends most of his book developing this.  I highly recommend it!

[503mindst]

thank you for making my term less difficult.

[iamthewalrusQ]

Wow. Excellent. 

[rh001YT]

@theoneclyde May I point out that you initiated contact with me. And I am very happy to see you go. No doubt you are one of them. Enjoy your sad vanity/flattery fests. I only wish I could put an end to your genetic type - then the world would be a more be a more beautiful place. PS: if you have children, and you don't ruin them, they will despise you.

[theoneclyde]

@rh001YT I guess you are keeping tabs on the popularity fluctuations and the developmental irregularities that correlate to those. Interesting.

So you are arguing for the identity between the properties of different individuals qualitative states... by calling other people unpopular canards?

Toodle-o and good luck with your *popular* programme.

[rh001YT]

@theoneclyde It is autistic that anyone would suggest seriously a lack of significanct similarity amongst humans regarding whatever is in the black box of the mind. The identity is proved by the outcome combined with personal observation & dialogue with others. His life's work: a rationalization of a bias, his bias likely formed by an unsavory childhood experience(s). He was but a ratty little mouse. No one finds his type interesting except his type - it's all vanity and flattery.

[theoneclyde]

@rh001YT Again, the issue is IDENTITY between the qualitative aspects of these experiences. I think you keep missing that. The thought experiment is silly, as are most which have little or no basis in reality. I think Quine is onto that, but is expressing it in a manner that is more polite within this milieu.

I think that analytic philosophers are interesting critters... but feel no need to sully them anonymously in youtube comments. I find it *interesting* that you do.

[rh001YT]

@theoneclyde Also, analytic philosophers need not only to be defamed, but it should be pointed out what weird, loser personality types they usually have. Typically I would think they were bullied as children. These people are not real, and of the male variety they are not real men, never good looking, never the desire of women, and generally dull and boring, except of course their own kind will laugh at their unfunny jokes.