Conversations with History: John R. Searle

this is magnificent. love searle!

Than kyou Mr A Chalmers for your original thoughts and contributions.

man, that music at the start was rad...

I love Searle. His actual philosophical beliefs are insane (Chinese Room amergument, combination of a first-person ontology with a belief in the causal closure of the material world), but he's a great speaker, both in clarity and content.

Aww, andrea. Still holding off on giving something other than a holding response? Is that because you've reached the limits of your lecture notes now?

21:40, but philosophy is not just conceptual clarification it is also reflection. even if science solves a problem there is still the opportunity for reflection. Thus philosophy does not ever really 'close up shop'.

biological naturalism rocks

Edit, Typo: It should read " To disprove THE statement that something can neither be ..." and not any statement "A statement"

Now , adding distinct rules or laws applicable at different steps does remove the fallacious result , trying to limit inference to a "step" context doesn't help either; The outcome being a cluster of axioms that never culminates in a conclusion that's derived from them. Again , perhaps i've misinterpreted what you meant ,but it seems misguided at first glance.

Of course none of this would matter if science wasn't deemed above philosophical scrutiny , Which is the crux of my arguments ;)
-Peace

A few more for the road: "There are trivial truths & there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."

-Neils Bohr

"Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men."
- Jean Rostand