In Conversation: W. V. Quine - Block Panel - Section 4

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

[bshantonu]

the very first 28 seconds seems to be wrong. Mary, the color blind neuroscientist, does seem to know all sorts of propositions about reality that she did not know before, namely propositions about herself: for example that "Mary understands that roses and stop signs are of like color by reference to visual stimulation alone." That's a piece of knowledge about reality that she didn't know before because it wasn't true before.

[LiberalVichy]

"It's not at all fruitful to try to get down to particle physics to explain economic trends." Good one.

[mimimotor]

How true!

[randyhelzerman]

sad but true.

[odayk]

yes, but very few, if any, can do so on the grounds of someone ELSE'S criticism.

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Hallbutbouy)  had to repudiate some of their work (think of Wittgenstein) but what makes them great is that they arn't so wedded to them that they can admit it and get on with doing even better work.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Hallbutbouy, check out the (ingeniously titled) book "There's something about Mary" edited by Peter Ludlow, et al. It contains tons of essays which rake the Mary argument over the coals, and concludes with a REMARKABLE essay by Frank Jackson himself (he's the guy who invented the mary argument) in which he says that he has changed his mind about it and now doesn't think that it is valid. I have to say I have full respect for Dr. Jackson: all of the great philosophers have (cont)

[Hallibutbouy]

Forgive my ignorance. How has the validity of the Mary argument been undermined?

[Hallibutbouy]

Ned Block looks like Mr Potato head!!!!