Londoniyyah - Part 2 - Naturalism, Materialism | Mohammed Hijab (2021-10-06) ​

0:00:02 [Music]
0:00:06 how are you guys doing welcome to the
0:00:07 second episode where we're exploring
0:00:09 ideologies
0:00:11 ideologies which are most important
0:00:12 foundational and influential both on
0:00:15 western discourses and on eastern
0:00:17 discourses today inshallah we're going
0:00:19 to continue with the poem and we're
0:00:21 going to be speaking about materialism
0:00:23 naturalism physicalism we're going to be
0:00:25 demarcating between these kinds of
0:00:26 things we're going to talk about the
0:00:27 hard problem of consciousness we're
0:00:29 going to be talking about
0:00:31 ai and how individuals can be
0:00:33 differentiate human beings can be
0:00:34 differentiated from robots if any if if
0:00:37 at all can they be differentiated
0:00:39 from robots these kind of questions and
0:00:41 more will feature in today's discussion
0:00:43 but before we do so of course we're
0:00:45 going to read
0:00:47 the poem
0:01:31 is
0:01:35 [Music]
0:01:53 so this uh
0:01:55 and we'll go into further detail in the
0:01:57 arabic session inshallah ta'ala but the
0:01:59 chef basically speaks about uh first he
0:02:01 speaks about epistemologically what
0:02:03 materialists say and will demarcate as
0:02:06 uh aforementioned what materialism is
0:02:09 and what you know naturalism is and
0:02:10 physicalism if there are differences
0:02:12 between them if these words can be used
0:02:14 interchangeably and so on and so the
0:02:16 epistemological basis and then he moves
0:02:18 on to kind of prescriptive morality
0:02:20 and can a materialist now have a basis
0:02:22 for morality um objective prescriptive
0:02:25 morality and of course
0:02:27 uh we've spoken about this if you guys
0:02:29 are familiar with our works
0:02:30 at length and this is one of the major
0:02:32 points i think talking points between
0:02:35 kind of theists and non non theaters or
0:02:37 atheists or whatever it may be but we'll
0:02:39 touch upon
0:02:40 this again today we'll start in chat
0:02:42 lata with uh
0:02:44 with some demarcations on definitions um
0:02:47 so materialism
0:02:51 materialism
0:02:52 and physicalism
0:02:54 are usually used interchangeably okay
0:02:58 whereas naturalism
0:03:00 sometimes is not
0:03:02 what is a robust definition
0:03:05 of materialism
0:03:07 and
0:03:08 or physicalism
0:03:10 so
0:03:15 physicalism in plastic reality is
0:03:18 necessitated by or supervenes on the
0:03:20 physical
0:03:21 okay this is kind of uh
0:03:24 the thesis that no non-physical
0:03:26 ingredients
0:03:27 ingredients are needed to account for
0:03:28 anything in the actual
0:03:30 world the physical ingredients alone
0:03:32 suffice thai says this 2009
0:03:35 in his book page 25.
0:03:38 what does this mean basically
0:03:40 materialists don't say that there's no
0:03:42 supernatural in the world everything
0:03:44 that is in the world can be explained
0:03:46 by physical processes alone they did not
0:03:48 require
0:03:50 um reference to
0:03:52 um or kind of um
0:03:55 superfluous they would say in their
0:03:56 understanding
0:03:58 reference to
0:03:59 supernatural forces god you know angels
0:04:01 spirits or anything like that so as we
0:04:03 say materialism says this physicalism is
0:04:06 very similar to this if not
0:04:07 interchangeable in its usage however
0:04:09 david papanua who is a philosopher of
0:04:12 mind
0:04:14 in king's college london he
0:04:16 differentiates in his book which is
0:04:18 referred to as philosophical naturalism
0:04:20 he's got a book called philosophical
0:04:22 naturalism and he differentiates between
0:04:24 what he refers to as ontological
0:04:27 naturalism and
0:04:29 uh
0:04:30 methodological naturalism he
0:04:32 differentiates between these two things
0:04:34 so ontological naturalism or even
0:04:36 metaphysical naturalism is a claim about
0:04:38 the world that actually as we've read
0:04:40 there very similar to the materialistic
0:04:42 this course that nothing which is
0:04:44 non-physical can supervene or interfere
0:04:47 or affect
0:04:48 physical processes in fact these are
0:04:51 superfluous things that themselves uh
0:04:54 not substantiated really um
0:04:57 whereas methodological naturalism is
0:04:59 more to do with the method it's more to
0:05:01 do when you're doing science now when we
0:05:03 start doing science the scientific
0:05:05 method okay or even he calls it this
0:05:07 philosophical method and don't forget
0:05:09 that science as is referred to now was
0:05:12 referred to back in the day maybe in the
0:05:14 15th century 14th century it was
0:05:16 referred to before the scientific
0:05:17 revolution as uh
0:05:19 as natural philosophy it's very
0:05:22 interesting point that science itself
0:05:23 was referred to as natural philosophy
0:05:25 until probably about 16th century when
0:05:27 the scientific revolution took place
0:05:28 that's what they're referring to in the
0:05:29 biggest universities in this country
0:05:30 they're referring to as natural
0:05:31 philosophy but we're putting that to the
0:05:33 side when it comes to natural philosophy
0:05:35 or when it comes to science in general
0:05:37 there should be no starting points which
0:05:39 presuppose for example the existence of
0:05:40 a god or presuppose anything a priori in
0:05:43 fact um the idea should be that we start
0:05:46 with
0:05:47 empirical
0:05:48 kind of methodological approach which
0:05:51 references only
0:05:53 the physical world around us so there is
0:05:56 a demarcation that is made now between
0:05:58 methodological naturalism
0:06:00 and
0:06:01 ontological of metaphysical naturalism
0:06:03 the former of course being that you
0:06:06 don't necessarily have to be committed
0:06:07 to
0:06:08 the latter in order to be in other words
0:06:10 you don't have to be a metaphysical
0:06:12 ontological naturalist in order to do
0:06:14 science using the method methodological
0:06:16 naturalistic approach you don't have to
0:06:18 believe that there's no god in order for
0:06:19 you to do science with without reference
0:06:21 to god i mean
0:06:23 uh so that's why the differentiation and
0:06:25 by the way it's a very important
0:06:26 differentiation okay because especially
0:06:29 in new atheist literature you'll find
0:06:31 that these categories are often time
0:06:33 conflated
0:06:35 oftentimes these categories are
0:06:36 conflated i'll give you one a clear
0:06:38 example of this john lennox when when he
0:06:40 had his debate with um
0:06:43 richard dawkins actually he had john
0:06:45 lennox had a debate with richard dawkins
0:06:47 and he was talking about evolution as
0:06:49 explaining the complexity in the
0:06:51 biological dimension right so
0:06:53 the reason why there's so much
0:06:54 complexity in the biological dimension
0:06:56 is because of
0:06:58 because of what because of uh
0:07:00 evolution because it started off very
0:07:02 simple and then it just got more complex
0:07:03 and that's how we understand it
0:07:05 john lennox made a very good point he
0:07:06 said what you're doing is you're making
0:07:08 a category mistake fallacy there's a
0:07:10 difference between agency
0:07:12 there's a difference between mechanism
0:07:13 and agency okay there's a difference
0:07:15 between mechanism
0:07:17 and agency
0:07:18 and connected to this is this idea of
0:07:20 methodological naturalism which we have
0:07:22 to employ
0:07:23 in order to understand the mechanism
0:07:25 and um a priori claims or ontological
0:07:28 claims about how that mechanism is
0:07:29 operating the way it is operating
0:07:31 so let me put this in another way for
0:07:33 example if i say i drive a car to get to
0:07:35 this place
0:07:36 i go i drove my car to get from point a
0:07:39 to point b yeah
0:07:41 okay how do you describe this
0:07:43 you described this
0:07:45 uh the car went from point a to point b
0:07:48 and we can describe the mechanics of it
0:07:50 what happened in the car what happened
0:07:51 the wheels what happened the catalytic
0:07:53 converter i don't know whatever it is
0:07:54 you guys may be mechanics that come you
0:07:56 don't know than i do in this situation
0:07:58 but you can describe the mechanics of it
0:08:00 right now the agency is me i am the
0:08:03 agent that's causing the car to drive
0:08:05 now
0:08:06 when for example they make this category
0:08:08 mistake what they're saying is
0:08:09 evolutionary biology is itself it's
0:08:13 almost as if they're saying it is itself
0:08:15 the agent because the the claim of the
0:08:17 new atheist
0:08:18 is that any reference to agency is
0:08:20 superfluous it's unneeded it's frivolous
0:08:23 it's unrequired it's unneeded it's
0:08:25 unnecessary
0:08:26 but you see if you know the categories
0:08:28 well and this is what we're doing here
0:08:30 if you know the categories well you'll
0:08:31 realize that they are confusing the
0:08:32 categories
0:08:33 john lennox in that debate he understood
0:08:36 the differences between mechanism and
0:08:37 agency the difference between
0:08:38 methodological naturalism and
0:08:40 ontological metaphysical naturalism and
0:08:42 therefore he could stop the new atheist
0:08:44 in his track because he was conflating
0:08:46 the categories you separate them back to
0:08:48 where they need to be in separation
0:08:50 and this is not something which lay
0:08:52 people are doing as i say you know
0:08:53 people are even i mean papa knew himself
0:08:55 he's a materialist for all uh from
0:08:57 reading his work so kind of listening to
0:08:59 his tools you can see them to this but
0:09:00 he admits the differentiation between
0:09:02 these two things
0:09:04 now itself materialism is uh kind of
0:09:06 broken down into different types so we
0:09:09 talked about these terms and break it
0:09:12 down again
0:09:13 we said
0:09:14 these terms you'll hear a lot of the
0:09:15 time naturalism and all naturalists are
0:09:18 atheists
0:09:19 you cannot have a naturalist that's not
0:09:20 an
0:09:21 atheist but unless he's a methodological
0:09:23 naturalist of course what we're talking
0:09:25 about ontological naturalist or a
0:09:26 metaphysical naturalist or a
0:09:27 philosophical actress that person is an
0:09:29 atheist because he's saying everything
0:09:31 is physical there's nothing that is
0:09:34 that is supernatural he's denying the
0:09:37 supernatural you cannot be an
0:09:38 ontological naturalist and be a theistic
0:09:41 is it how when you've already denied the
0:09:43 supernatural in your starting point
0:09:45 so by telling you he's a naturalist he's
0:09:47 basically telling you if he is telling
0:09:48 you that he is an ontological naturalist
0:09:50 that he is an atheist as well
0:09:52 as i said materialism and physicalism
0:09:53 they use interchangeably and once again
0:09:56 in the philosophy of the mind
0:09:58 discourse pretty much the same thing
0:10:00 which that processes physical processes
0:10:02 are explained physically they're not
0:10:04 explained with reference to anything
0:10:06 else
0:10:07 and so this is divided into different
0:10:09 types so you have eliminative
0:10:10 materialism that's one so you've got
0:10:12 materialism and then you have underneath
0:10:14 it you have eliminative materialism
0:10:16 and
0:10:17 as in the name it eliminates everything
0:10:19 except for that which is material if you
0:10:20 like you know
0:10:22 they said we eliminate
0:10:24 um all possibilities of something which
0:10:26 is supernatural except for that which is
0:10:27 uh material
0:10:29 and
0:10:30 what david chalmers he says uh
0:10:33 you know
0:10:36 let me get exact quotes because you know
0:10:38 this might be it
0:10:40 but he talks about you know first person
0:10:42 subjective experience like for example
0:10:44 and we'll come to this the heart problem
0:10:45 of consciousness how do you like first
0:10:47 person subjective experience how do you
0:10:48 define
0:10:49 and he says this is something that we
0:10:50 will know
0:10:52 because
0:10:53 uh the neurological framework we don't
0:10:55 know now but we're going to come to
0:10:57 understand you know how neurology works
0:11:00 and any reference to first person
0:11:01 subject it's just folk psychology he
0:11:03 calls it really it's just for psychology
0:11:05 it's not something which is to be taken
0:11:06 seriously so he eliminates every other
0:11:07 possibility except for the material uh
0:11:09 possibility
0:11:11 and so and so too of course to
0:11:15 so to of course
0:11:16 do
0:11:18 other eliminative materials
0:11:25 i mean chambers himself i think he
0:11:26 actually coined the term problem of
0:11:28 consciousness
0:11:29 quite interesting to her to know
0:11:32 but
0:11:33 just just to give you another thing here
0:11:40 which is
0:11:41 will come to the heart problem
0:11:42 consciousness in fact i will mention
0:11:43 this now i'll mention it when we're
0:11:44 talking about hypothermia in in more in
0:11:46 more uh detail reduction of reductive
0:11:49 materialism okay so reductive
0:11:51 materialism asserts that there is a
0:11:52 knowledge gap between physical processes
0:11:54 and the subjective of contributions they
0:11:56 say they admit
0:11:57 they will admit that which the
0:11:59 eliminative
0:12:00 uh materialist is not admitting which is
0:12:02 that there is some kind of a gap here
0:12:04 that exists between our consciousness
0:12:06 and
0:12:07 subjective experiences
0:12:09 but they will maintain that this gap is
0:12:11 explained with the
0:12:13 physicalist philosophy they'll say that
0:12:14 still yet
0:12:15 we we it's something to do with
0:12:17 neurology so once again they're very
0:12:19 similar to eliminated material it's
0:12:20 extremely similar
0:12:23 that they are they're just making a
0:12:24 little bit more of a concession
0:12:26 okay
0:12:32 and function lists and by the way this
0:12:34 time is going to come up over and over
0:12:35 and over again and be aware one one term
0:12:37 comes up like the word ontology it comes
0:12:40 up so many times in philosophy but has
0:12:42 different meanings in every sub
0:12:44 compartment of philosophy so if we talk
0:12:46 about philosophy of religion it has one
0:12:47 meaning if we are talking about
0:12:48 ontological and deontological ethics in
0:12:50 the philosophy of ethics it has a
0:12:53 completely different meaning completely
0:12:54 different
0:12:55 so the word ontology
0:12:58 you've got to be careful because a
0:12:58 slippery fish depending on where we are
0:13:00 what context we're talking about i mean
0:13:02 completely different thing
0:13:04 likewise the word function functionalism
0:13:06 structuralism what are we talking about
0:13:07 sociological functionalism no
0:13:09 here we're talking about functionalism
0:13:11 in the um if you're not philosophy of
0:13:12 the mind
0:13:14 uh
0:13:15 what we're talking about functionalism
0:13:17 in materialism it's different it's
0:13:18 basically saying that physical processes
0:13:21 explain the functions
0:13:23 every function is explained through
0:13:24 physical processes so once again
0:13:26 everything material goes back to these
0:13:28 two words physical processes
0:13:30 everything is physically processed in
0:13:31 fact everything else everything can be
0:13:33 described through physical processes
0:13:35 and
0:13:37 another one is emergent materialism
0:13:39 emerging materialism tells you actually
0:13:41 that consciousness emerges through the
0:13:43 word because of materialism it emerges i
0:13:46 mean once again they're just pushing the
0:13:48 question back how does it emerge you
0:13:49 don't know we're gonna find out don't
0:13:50 worry but you know it does emerge
0:13:52 through the material
0:13:54 uh
0:13:56 experiences
0:13:59 now
0:14:00 i think at this point we should talk a
0:14:01 little bit about
0:14:03 something else before i get to the hud
0:14:04 problem and these kinds of big topics
0:14:06 right
0:14:07 but before i do so let's let's summarize
0:14:09 someone can you summarize for me what
0:14:11 are the uh
0:14:12 what are the keywords because there's
0:14:13 going to be a we've we've got a lot of
0:14:15 keywords here
0:14:16 there's gonna be a lot more keywords
0:14:18 that we're gonna go over a lot more
0:14:19 keywords that we're gonna go over so
0:14:21 this i wanna be sure that everyone's
0:14:22 following what uh what does materialism
0:14:24 mean
0:14:28 okay physical processes matter great
0:14:31 is there really a difference between
0:14:33 physicalism and materialism
0:14:35 [Music]
0:14:37 yeah so they use interchangeably
0:14:40 yeah
0:14:41 naturalism is divided into two different
0:14:43 things who remembers what they are
0:14:48 for extra points who is one of the
0:14:50 people that
0:14:52 distinction
0:14:53 was responsible for this distinction
0:14:57 david papua new york right okay great
0:15:00 even better all right no problem
0:15:02 um
0:15:03 give me three somewhere give me three
0:15:05 types of materialism
0:15:13 yeah great and you're going to have to
0:15:14 go and do more reasons because if i was
0:15:16 to go into detail about each and every
0:15:18 one of us this will be a three-hour you
0:15:20 know session we've got a lot to get you
0:15:22 know this is superficial right
0:15:24 everything now is superficial right
0:15:26 now
0:15:28 i want to quickly divert to something
0:15:30 important
0:15:31 and
0:15:32 please if anyone gets lost just put your
0:15:34 hand up tell me and then i'll i'll
0:15:35 repeat myself okay
0:15:37 but there is something called positivism
0:15:39 that which took prominence in the 20s
0:15:42 in vienna
0:15:43 the berlin circle the vienna circle in
0:15:45 uk in britain and parts of europe
0:15:48 logical positivism
0:15:51 which
0:15:52 which depended on something called the
0:15:53 principle of verification
0:15:55 okay let's have anyone heard of this
0:15:57 before or
0:15:58 acquainted with this
0:16:09 yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah any
0:16:12 statement which cannot be verified
0:16:14 empirically
0:16:15 is meaningless this is what they were
0:16:17 saying
0:16:18 now
0:16:19 like in the school of thought there's
0:16:21 less there's weaker claims and stronger
0:16:22 claims here so the positivists were
0:16:25 there were people that were making this
0:16:26 claim in a stronger way like absolutely
0:16:29 and then when the contradiction started
0:16:31 to pop up
0:16:32 they started weakening the claims okay
0:16:35 people that are associated with this
0:16:36 kind of school for bertrand russell of
0:16:37 course yeah um wittgenstein who wrote uh
0:16:41 tractatus
0:16:42 or at least in his earlier years okay
0:16:45 um you have lots of
0:16:47 you know fraga
0:16:49 you know you can you can do a research a
0:16:51 list of people who are associated big
0:16:52 heavyweights that were associated with
0:16:54 this movement okay
0:16:56 and so what is really the difference
0:16:58 between a logical positivist and an
0:17:00 empiricist there's a limited difference
0:17:02 a very limited difference okay and
0:17:04 person doesn't necessarily have to
0:17:06 subscribe to the
0:17:08 to the theory of verificationism okay
0:17:10 verification remember one more time
0:17:12 verification says if
0:17:15 you cannot
0:17:17 empirically justify it it's not even
0:17:20 it's not true or false
0:17:21 it's meaningless that's what they were
0:17:23 saying it's meaningless
0:17:25 now this school of thought which which
0:17:27 as we say took place
0:17:28 you know started off aj
0:17:31 and his book logic truth and uh
0:17:34 it's a very famous book
0:17:35 one of the main books that you have to
0:17:37 read in philosophy kind of modules and
0:17:39 stuff
0:17:39 aj
0:17:41 you can see him by the way speaking on
0:17:42 youtubers stuff you can watch but anyway
0:17:44 that school of thought started to get
0:17:46 battered
0:17:47 like a proper battery from the 20s 30s
0:17:49 40s 50s why
0:17:51 because so many things
0:17:53 that were scientific in nature all that
0:17:55 were needed in order for science to take
0:17:57 place
0:17:58 they were being rejected because they
0:17:59 don't fit that criterion
0:18:02 that's quite logical
0:18:03 so the thing is called logical
0:18:04 positivism okay basically they're saying
0:18:07 anything that is not
0:18:09 measurable
0:18:11 is meaningless so then what about
0:18:14 testimony
0:18:16 see the
0:18:17 testimony they would they would reduce
0:18:19 it they'd have a way to squabble away
0:18:20 from testimony they'd reduce it say oh
0:18:22 testimony
0:18:23 uh you listen to that you we can verify
0:18:26 we can still verify what this person is
0:18:27 talking about so they'll have a way of
0:18:29 whistling out of testimony but there are
0:18:30 stronger there are stronger cases here
0:18:32 what would you think
0:18:36 right okay very very famously the
0:18:38 statement this statement this statement
0:18:40 is uh self-refuting right
0:18:42 so if you say anything
0:18:44 that anything that cannot be
0:18:48 verified empirically is meaningless
0:18:52 that statement itself
0:18:53 cannot be verified infinitely so it's
0:18:55 like a suicide problem not the ones that
0:18:58 these people are used to
0:19:00 you know an intellectual
0:19:01 because the statement but not just that
0:19:03 you have lots of things the scientific
0:19:05 method itself is a priori understood we
0:19:07 talked about the difference between a
0:19:08 priori and a plus or r a prior meaning
0:19:11 you know something which is received
0:19:13 before or understood before even
0:19:15 the empirical uh kind of exposure if you
0:19:17 like something you know before like
0:19:19 mathematics or whatever
0:19:20 and so it took such a battering
0:19:23 that many of them actually rejected it
0:19:25 afterwards this was one of the things is
0:19:28 really in 30 years one of the defeated
0:19:31 schools of thought is seen as defeat
0:19:33 just
0:19:34 in your own time look at aj air who's
0:19:36 seen as one of the big names of this
0:19:38 movement and he's having i think a
0:19:40 discussion with hillary putnam or one of
0:19:41 the other philosophers you can find it
0:19:43 online and he he actually admits
0:19:46 how they all had to change their minds
0:19:47 on it
0:19:48 you know
0:19:49 because because it's just untenable to
0:19:51 to have this you know this theory that
0:19:53 what everything there's so much in
0:19:55 science
0:19:56 theoretical aspects the laws of nature
0:19:59 how can you make reference to the laws
0:20:00 of nature
0:20:01 because the laws of nature are not
0:20:03 something which empirically you can see
0:20:04 there are transcendental universal
0:20:06 categories which we're talking about
0:20:08 how
0:20:09 the universe works in pattern a or
0:20:11 pattern b
0:20:12 that's not necessarily something that
0:20:14 the way in theoretically theoretical
0:20:16 science will go under the bus
0:20:18 and because theoretical science will go
0:20:20 under the bus a lot of the things the
0:20:22 theories that they are taking even
0:20:23 general general through relativity and
0:20:24 there are this assumption because all
0:20:26 these years have assumptions that will
0:20:27 go under the bus as well
0:20:30 you you cannot do theoretical science
0:20:32 with this kind of thing
0:20:33 and so they had to change they and some
0:20:35 of them just left it and you know and so
0:20:36 on and now it's not as popular at all
0:20:38 logical
0:20:40 but it's not the same as materialism but
0:20:42 i think it's important that you know
0:20:43 what it is and that you know the history
0:20:44 of that thing because in the 20s to the
0:20:46 50s there's been such a revolution and
0:20:48 thought in terms of this the history of
0:20:49 that thing that it's important that
0:20:51 we're aware because
0:20:52 once again polemically if someone comes
0:20:54 to you and says well
0:20:55 i don't believe in
0:20:56 you know xyz
0:20:58 i don't believe that anything you can't
0:21:00 measure
0:21:01 is is is
0:21:03 anything that you can't measure or
0:21:05 verify empirically is meaningless if
0:21:07 someone comes with that you say well
0:21:09 actually this has already been said and
0:21:10 dealt with in philosophy it's been dealt
0:21:12 with in the philosophy of language and
0:21:14 mind and uh science philosophical
0:21:17 science and philosophy of maths all of
0:21:18 that has been dealt with
0:21:21 so bear that in mind
0:21:22 so we that's another key word here
0:21:25 logical positivism connected to it is
0:21:27 empiricism which we said is very close
0:21:29 but not the same okay
0:21:32 um
0:21:33 these isms
0:21:34 okay we've covered so much today i'm
0:21:36 for fear of like uh losing you guys are
0:21:39 important to know
0:21:40 yes
0:21:56 so right so the scientific method
0:21:59 it pre is presupposed by science it's
0:22:01 not discovered by it this is very
0:22:03 important okay that's ishmael on the
0:22:04 philosophies of science consensus among
0:22:06 philosophers of science
0:22:08 the scientific method is something which
0:22:09 is an assumption of science it's not
0:22:12 something which is discoverable by
0:22:14 meaning
0:22:16 in history in in in kind of history all
0:22:18 the way back to aristotle there were
0:22:20 ways in which okay how do you find out
0:22:23 or how what is the method what is the
0:22:24 way that you find out what is true
0:22:26 naturalistically and what isn't true
0:22:28 naturalistic
0:22:29 obviously underwent um
0:22:32 development through the middle ages
0:22:34 in haitham the opposition uh optician
0:22:36 but the specialist in optics and so on
0:22:38 to the muslim world and then francis
0:22:40 bacon and then you know the scientific
0:22:42 revolution all the way through to karl
0:22:43 popper and thomas kuhn and these guys
0:22:45 you know
0:22:46 that for example the principle of
0:22:47 verification
0:22:48 this principle itself was meant to
0:22:50 facilitate science
0:22:52 so if something does is is not
0:22:54 empirically justified as meaningless
0:22:56 karl popper came along in 94 he died and
0:22:59 he said actually it's not like this is
0:23:01 something it's called falsification
0:23:02 right this is that which is falsifiable
0:23:05 is that which is
0:23:06 uh
0:23:07 rigorous from a scientific perspective
0:23:09 acceptable from a scientific perspective
0:23:10 it doesn't mean it's incorrigible
0:23:11 but you have to put something in place
0:23:13 which can be falsified
0:23:15 so your theory must be be falsifiable
0:23:18 you'll be you must be able to falsify it
0:23:20 must be able to disprove it it must be
0:23:22 susceptible to falsification if it's not
0:23:24 it's uh it's not uh scientifically
0:23:26 rigorous this is called
0:23:28 the idea like you mentioned right of
0:23:30 verification or falsification those two
0:23:32 ideas themselves are not physical ideas
0:23:35 they're not physical ideas so you can't
0:23:36 put them under a microscope you can't
0:23:38 discover them with your five senses
0:23:40 they're in the mind
0:23:42 they are logical ideas they are not
0:23:44 physical you can you put
0:23:45 the postulation the predicate what you
0:23:47 want to call it that
0:23:49 that which is
0:23:50 not empirically justified is meaningless
0:23:52 you can't put that statement under a
0:23:54 microscope you can't you can't prove
0:23:56 that statement
0:23:59 as well you can't put that under a
0:24:00 microscope either so can you use it yeah
0:24:02 you can use that this is the argument
0:24:04 which we'll come to about love doesn't
0:24:05 exist
0:24:06 um and for example
0:24:09 we can use
0:24:10 i would use all of that with
0:24:11 consciousness not with this debate with
0:24:13 this debate there are more strong
0:24:15 examples because with love and all these
0:24:16 kind of things they'll say look it's
0:24:17 neurological firings okay remember
0:24:19 they're going to say this consciousness
0:24:21 no consciousness will come to a second
0:24:25 yeah yeah but we'll come to this in a
0:24:26 second but with with the logical
0:24:28 positivists
0:24:30 let them see
0:24:31 the count the counter examples because
0:24:33 why did they first of all show them that
0:24:34 historically that when these counter
0:24:36 examples were presented that they
0:24:38 softened their position and they
0:24:39 abandoned it that's what happened
0:24:42 okay the main guys imagine abandoning
0:24:44 their position you know forget about
0:24:46 these lay people the the huge the the
0:24:49 the moisture the the foundation the the
0:24:52 founding fathers of this they abandoned
0:24:54 this
0:24:55 thing
0:24:56 or at least they saw from their position
0:24:57 very majorly
0:24:59 then so present those counter examples
0:25:00 for example
0:25:01 the scientific method logical inquiry um
0:25:05 theory within science all of those
0:25:07 things which are a priori which are in
0:25:09 the mind they're not physically cannot
0:25:11 verify them with a microscope with a
0:25:14 telescope with any scientific
0:25:16 investigation
0:25:17 they're they are themselves not tappable
0:25:19 by the method that they are construing
0:25:21 for the science
0:25:23 they cannot
0:25:24 be tapped by that method
0:25:26 so when you present those counter
0:25:28 examples it's effective
0:25:30 but let's go back to the so this so
0:25:32 we've spoken about this now so you've
0:25:33 got logical positivists we have material
0:25:34 they're not all the same thing
0:25:36 usually they are i mean you'll find
0:25:38 someone who who is a logical positive is
0:25:40 usually the materialist and he probably
0:25:42 is an ontological naturalist but it's
0:25:45 conceivable that someone isn't
0:25:48 those things so don't bunch them
0:25:49 together you must be able to separate
0:25:51 those things just in case because you
0:25:53 have to be very precise when you're
0:25:55 discussing with people what is your
0:25:56 position if someone says i'm a
0:25:57 materialist well then you start speaking
0:25:59 to them as if they're a physicalist or
0:26:01 if they're a methodological naturalist
0:26:02 and you start speaking to them as if
0:26:03 they're they're an ontological
0:26:05 naturalist then you're going to have
0:26:06 mistakes in your in your in your own
0:26:08 poem
0:26:15 because the materialist doesn't make the
0:26:17 claim that the principle of verification
0:26:19 is required in order for science to be
0:26:22 science or something to be meaningful
0:26:24 that claim is not it's not made
0:26:29 yeah that's that's a similarity but
0:26:30 remember the principle of verification
0:26:32 itself is not material
0:26:34 so the materialist is not committed to
0:26:35 that
0:26:37 he's not committed to the principle of
0:26:38 verification he could be he could say
0:26:40 look i'm permit i'm committed to the
0:26:41 prince of karl popper's principle of
0:26:43 falsification
0:26:44 which is completely different so why
0:26:46 would i why would you lump me with the
0:26:48 logical positiveness you see so you've
0:26:50 got to be very careful with these
0:26:51 demarcations
0:26:53 all right so move on to um
0:26:55 the heart problem of consciousness and
0:26:57 david chalmers we talked about him he's
0:26:58 the one who
0:27:00 uh coined the term i think the hard
0:27:02 problem of this why is it a hard problem
0:27:05 how do we get
0:27:06 this is the question right how do we get
0:27:08 from brain activity to consciousness
0:27:12 okay brain activity neurons and whatever
0:27:14 to consciousness do we get even
0:27:17 from brain activity
0:27:19 to consciousness do we even get from a
0:27:21 to b like that
0:27:22 so
0:27:23 the materialists will argue that they
0:27:25 are one and the same thing you're
0:27:26 talking about the same thing
0:27:28 brain activity is consciousness and
0:27:29 consciousness is brain activity
0:27:31 but of course if the materialist says
0:27:33 that and by the way papua new says that
0:27:36 he in his defense because he's a
0:27:37 materialist
0:27:39 he says this he says
0:27:40 um
0:27:41 you asking how do we get from brain
0:27:43 activity to consciousness it's like
0:27:44 saying how do we get from h2o to water
0:27:46 it's the same thing you're talking about
0:27:48 the same thing and it's totally logical
0:27:49 on this right
0:27:51 uh
0:27:52 but this is begging the question
0:27:53 actually if he says that he's begging
0:27:55 the question it's a circular argument
0:27:56 you're assuming
0:27:58 you're you're assuming
0:28:00 materialism to prove it to prove
0:28:02 materialism
0:28:03 of course papua new and he does say this
0:28:06 if you don't if you don't say this and
0:28:07 you say there is a difference between
0:28:08 brain activity and consciousness then
0:28:10 you're assuming an uh what you call a
0:28:13 dualism
0:28:14 so we'll take one step back here now and
0:28:16 there are three schools of thought and
0:28:18 we call substance theory okay
0:28:20 substance theory
0:28:24 you have substance theory and then you
0:28:25 have three schools of law
0:28:28 you have materialism which we've kind of
0:28:30 discussed
0:28:32 everything is physical so yeah
0:28:34 then you have another theory which is in
0:28:36 the western tradition from uh
0:28:37 promulgated by rene descartes which is
0:28:39 called dualism
0:28:41 dualism
0:28:42 dualism is basically the idea that the
0:28:44 mind and body are separate
0:28:46 this is the idea
0:28:48 why did um descartes we spoke about the
0:28:51 car a little bit last lesson but why did
0:28:53 they come to the idea that the mind and
0:28:55 the body are two separate things so what
0:28:57 what it was with descartes is that look
0:28:59 he he went through he wrote a book
0:29:01 called the meditations it's very similar
0:29:02 to the mother it's almost a copy and
0:29:04 place i think he copied and pasted him
0:29:05 yeah
0:29:06 but he basically said look how do i know
0:29:08 i'm here and how do i but i'm seeing my
0:29:11 hand but is this really my hand how
0:29:13 about my vision is impaired
0:29:15 how about if there's some demon out
0:29:16 there he literally talks about demon by
0:29:18 the way he says what about there's some
0:29:20 demon that's making me hallucinate how
0:29:22 do i know this and he keeps asking this
0:29:24 question systematic he's doubting
0:29:26 everything
0:29:27 and then at the end of it he comes to
0:29:29 kojito ergosam
0:29:31 i think therefore i am
0:29:33 and this is called the kojito
0:29:35 i think he says therefore i am
0:29:38 he says i can doubt everything in the
0:29:39 world
0:29:40 but there's one thing i can't doubt he
0:29:42 says i can't doubt that i'm thinking
0:29:44 right now
0:29:47 has anyone let me ask a question a
0:29:48 personal question has anyone ever
0:29:50 hallucinated before
0:29:53 yeah
0:29:55 you have haven't you
0:29:57 have you ever it's really uncomfortable
0:29:59 experience i've had it unfortunately you
0:30:01 know hallucination and stuff like that
0:30:04 and you can have a disembodied
0:30:06 experience like your body is out your
0:30:07 your you don't know who you are like you
0:30:09 know it's very odd you know who am i
0:30:12 but in that situation
0:30:15 and i'm sure there's people that take
0:30:16 psychedelics and lsd and all these kind
0:30:18 of things they know that they're they're
0:30:19 shaking they're nothing
0:30:23 [Laughter]
0:30:26 mushrooms and hallucinogens and stuff
0:30:28 like that they they take and they might
0:30:30 not even know
0:30:34 but one thing that they do know is that
0:30:35 they exist
0:30:36 that yani
0:30:38 for someone to have a conversation with
0:30:39 you they must know they exist any
0:30:41 conversation
0:30:42 presupposes existence
0:30:44 and we said that that's the most
0:30:45 foundational thing in the world
0:30:48 and in fact what
0:30:49 what what rene descartes say well he
0:30:51 thought he was doing tripping away all
0:30:53 the doubts
0:30:54 and he said i think therefore i am it
0:30:56 was criticized by nietzsche
0:30:58 remember he said that actually
0:31:00 nietzsche said what do you remember he
0:31:02 said how just yeah you say presupposing
0:31:04 the i
0:31:05 so how did you know that you existed how
0:31:06 did you know is it so avicenna who came
0:31:09 before him
0:31:10 in timeline he said look there's no
0:31:11 doubt that there is existence
0:31:13 he went one step further than him he
0:31:15 said look i'm not gonna say i think
0:31:17 therefore i am this is before before
0:31:19 renegade says there is no doubt that
0:31:21 there is existence
0:31:22 there's no doubt there's no there is
0:31:24 exist that's one thing that you cannot
0:31:25 doubt
0:31:26 and if anyone says there is doubt
0:31:29 then them doubting existence is itself
0:31:30 an affirmation of it
0:31:33 this is one thing that's so foundational
0:31:34 by the way
0:31:35 but because renee carr came to that
0:31:37 conclusion that look i think therefore i
0:31:39 am
0:31:41 he said but i came to the conclusion
0:31:44 that i think therefore i am without
0:31:45 reference to what so my five senses
0:31:49 without reference to what it's my body
0:31:51 without rep so there must be a
0:31:52 separation between the mind and the body
0:31:56 there must be a separation between
0:31:57 consciousness
0:31:59 and the body
0:32:01 consciousness and the body and this is
0:32:03 referred to as dualism
0:32:05 so the idea that it's conceivable to
0:32:07 separate consciousness from the body
0:32:11 muslims certainly don't believe in
0:32:12 materialism
0:32:14 dualism some muslims believe that i mean
0:32:17 he's probably a jewish you know but this
0:32:19 is an issue of controversy i want to
0:32:20 comment on it because i've met some
0:32:22 scholars that say we don't you know we
0:32:23 don't believe in judaism but it's a
0:32:25 controversial topic but in substance
0:32:27 theory there's three
0:32:28 uh there are three schools or four
0:32:30 there's materialism
0:32:32 there's dualism the idea that
0:32:33 consciousness is separate from the body
0:32:36 and the third idea is
0:32:38 idealism
0:32:40 idealism is uh george berkeley where he
0:32:43 says everything is basically in the mind
0:32:45 there's nothing it's the opposite of
0:32:46 materialism see materialism says
0:32:48 everything is in the physical idealists
0:32:50 say everything is in the mind they're
0:32:52 completely opposite to materialists
0:32:55 for example we're in a matrix world
0:32:56 right now we're in the matrix world
0:32:59 yeah
0:33:00 we we could very well be in the matrix
0:33:02 world is and this is referred to as
0:33:03 solipsism solipsism and uh idealism are
0:33:07 yani two sides of the same coin you
0:33:09 could say
0:33:10 but not necessarily the same thing by
0:33:12 the way just just once again to be
0:33:14 precise you could a solipsist is an
0:33:16 idealist but an idealist is not
0:33:17 necessarily a philosopher
0:33:19 to put it more precisely right
0:33:21 um
0:33:22 so these are the three theories
0:33:25 so going back to david papanua he says
0:33:27 that well h2o equals water and so you
0:33:30 asking what how does brain activity
0:33:32 affect consciousness is you asking how
0:33:34 does h2o affect water or how is h2o
0:33:37 water and it's the same thing you're
0:33:38 talking about the same thing twice
0:33:39 he is presupposing what materialism
0:33:43 but he says that we are when we when we
0:33:44 are dividing between the two things we
0:33:46 are presupposing one dualism you see the
0:33:48 point let's see if we should hear again
0:33:51 you see the issue here you have an issue
0:33:53 here again
0:33:54 you have to presuppose something don't
0:33:55 you
0:33:56 you know what you know how you how do
0:33:58 you produce
0:33:59 a natural or neutral i should say how do
0:34:02 you produce a neutral
0:34:05 assumption before approaching this
0:34:07 question
0:34:08 is very very difficult
0:34:10 but it doesn't make sense to say well
0:34:11 actually h2o more are the same thing
0:34:14 why doesn't that make sense to say
0:34:16 there are a range of reasons
0:34:18 one of the first reasons is that
0:34:20 consciousness is a first person
0:34:22 subjective experience
0:34:24 now first person when i say i
0:34:27 that's what first person second person i
0:34:29 say you third person i say he she they
0:34:32 that's what first person i
0:34:34 so when i'm talking about my own
0:34:35 experience i say i feel
0:34:37 x i feel it i feel anger you talk about
0:34:40 emotions i feel sadness i feel i i
0:34:44 but science as an enterprise doesn't
0:34:46 deal with the first person at all
0:34:50 science only deals with the third person
0:34:53 it
0:34:55 when we tried this on that it became
0:34:56 this so how can a third person
0:34:59 enterprise tap into a first-person
0:35:00 experience
0:35:03 that is a problem
0:35:04 and that's the method they use
0:35:07 yeah
0:35:08 they're presupposing a third person
0:35:10 inquiry on a first person experience
0:35:13 this is a problem this is a problematic
0:35:14 thing to do when renee can't say i think
0:35:17 therefore i am he didn't think he didn't
0:35:19 say he didn't say they think therefore
0:35:21 they are they are
0:35:24 they think they are yeah yeah you can't
0:35:26 really do that right
0:35:27 you can't even assume the minds the
0:35:29 existence of other minds
0:35:31 like the fact that i'm speaking to you
0:35:32 right now how do you know i'm not a
0:35:33 robot or some kind of thing how do you
0:35:35 know i have a mind how do you know that
0:35:37 the tree outside has a mind
0:35:39 why are you assuming just because you
0:35:40 have it that it has it
0:35:42 right it's a first person
0:35:44 superimposition
0:35:45 so first person experiences can't be
0:35:48 tapped by a third person
0:35:49 uh
0:35:51 thing
0:35:52 that's the first problem second problem
0:35:53 is this
0:35:55 the second problem
0:35:58 yeah science is a third person
0:36:00 enterprise
0:36:01 it's a third person enterprise it has to
0:36:03 be in fact it has to be a third but it
0:36:04 is by necessity a third person
0:36:06 enterprise so they haven't solved
0:36:08 anything
0:36:10 my anger
0:36:11 my sadness my love all of these things
0:36:13 they cannot be explained through
0:36:15 tubes and microscopes well someone will
0:36:17 say
0:36:18 papua new york himself i've mentioned
0:36:20 him so many times today
0:36:21 well we can put them under our own mri
0:36:23 scale
0:36:24 this is something
0:36:27 but the problem is if you put them under
0:36:28 an mri scan
0:36:30 and then you give them pictures of their
0:36:31 loved ones or something you know or
0:36:32 whatever like give them trigger them
0:36:34 trigger them
0:36:36 and we'll see what part of the brain
0:36:37 starts lighting up
0:36:40 he himself admits in fact in one of his
0:36:42 books he says that what some parts of
0:36:44 the brain light up
0:36:45 when you give them the trigger
0:36:48 but sometimes the trigger is there and
0:36:50 the
0:36:51 the trigger is there
0:36:52 and it lights up and sometimes it lights
0:36:54 up when the trigger is not there
0:36:56 so in other words how do we know
0:36:59 how do we know
0:37:01 that it's
0:37:03 correlation equals causation
0:37:06 because if if a is required for b
0:37:09 in fact he mentions this himself
0:37:11 not in this language i'm using my own
0:37:13 language if a is the unexplicable cause
0:37:15 of b
0:37:16 then if a is not present b should not be
0:37:18 prison
0:37:20 but b can be present when a is not
0:37:21 present therefore a is not the
0:37:23 unexplicable cause of b
0:37:25 put it another way
0:37:26 and this is another argument a line of
0:37:28 argumentation in fact uh
0:37:29 for us to have you mentioned this to me
0:37:31 and i give credit to people when it's
0:37:32 due he's very very good with the
0:37:33 philosophy of mind and very people don't
0:37:35 know this guy's quite like kind of next
0:37:37 level genius when it comes to these
0:37:38 things but he gave me a very good
0:37:40 example and i'm going to use it now in
0:37:42 front of me it's about the ship of
0:37:43 thesis
0:37:46 maybe he said it publicly as i don't
0:37:48 know
0:37:48 but a
0:37:50 really good example
0:37:51 if you have a ship
0:37:52 it's made out of planks
0:37:54 okay
0:37:55 ship is made out of plants
0:37:57 and i take out each plank and i replace
0:37:59 it with a new plank do i have a new ship
0:38:01 i have a new ship materially don't i
0:38:04 but did you know that each cell of our
0:38:06 body gets renewed so do we have new us
0:38:08 each time
0:38:12 yeah yeah right right right does that
0:38:14 mean yeah it's a new person
0:38:31 and they're still
0:38:32 there that makes sense
0:38:34 um
0:38:36 can we use that we can't
0:38:38 we can kind of use it like
0:38:40 if
0:38:41 we can use it but let's just stick to
0:38:43 this example
0:38:44 let's stick to this because it's very
0:38:45 clear
0:38:46 if
0:38:47 every cell of the body gets rejuvenated
0:38:49 including that which is in the brain
0:38:50 every neuron can be replaced
0:38:52 and if it is yes it does and if it is
0:38:54 the case that we are what we are
0:38:56 materially so that what we are now and
0:38:58 what we are 20 years from now are
0:39:00 completely different individuals
0:39:02 oh yeah
0:39:03 if there's no con if there's no explicit
0:39:05 external con conscious element that is
0:39:07 outside in the jeweler's assumption and
0:39:09 so so that's the second is the first
0:39:11 thing we said the first person problem
0:39:12 first person's objective experience the
0:39:14 second thing we said the replacement of
0:39:15 cells and so on material or you can call
0:39:17 it
0:39:18 material replacement
0:39:20 the third thing i'll say which relates
0:39:22 more to the idea of ai
0:39:24 very interesting argumentation here
0:39:26 they'll say well look what can a robot
0:39:29 have consciousness
0:39:31 right why can't you not put
0:39:32 consciousness into some kind of a robot
0:39:35 why what would be your reactions to that
0:39:38 yourself i can say why can you a robot
0:39:41 well we can give it ai technologies uh
0:39:44 robots are programmed you know just like
0:39:46 we are programmed and you know they have
0:39:48 binary technology everything is loops
0:39:51 and conditions actually in their
0:39:53 computer science everything is loops and
0:39:54 conditions you put it in the mind of the
0:39:56 robot if you like the mind is systematic
0:40:00 decisions
0:40:01 remember determinist will argue the same
0:40:02 thing about human beings we'll come to
0:40:04 the feminism everyone says everything is
0:40:05 caused by interceding cause of events we
0:40:07 are published as well
0:40:11 but how do we know that there's
0:40:13 consciousness in us and not involved
0:40:15 does that prove that
0:40:17 that consciousness is not
0:40:19 because we change
0:40:20 like our whole body becomes anybody yeah
0:40:23 that's that's an argument against uh
0:40:25 consciousness being material
0:40:27 yeah
0:40:27 but yeah yeah
0:40:29 oh you got your offer you had your hand
0:40:30 up there
0:40:32 one user for anything because
0:40:34 that's a proof that
0:40:36 the consciousness is not material
0:40:38 so ai is only trivial what let's speak
0:40:41 very very specifically about ai okay if
0:40:44 i speak if i say to
0:40:47 my wife or my mom or my daughter
0:40:49 whatever maybe if i say
0:40:51 i love you
0:40:52 or whatever it may be yeah if i say any
0:40:54 of that
0:40:56 what am i saying i'm saying three words
0:40:59 okay i'm saying three words
0:41:01 but those three words
0:41:03 do they have meaning
0:41:05 yes
0:41:06 now
0:41:07 there is a difference and i want you
0:41:09 guys to write this out yeah
0:41:10 there is a difference between syntax and
0:41:13 semantics
0:41:15 all right syntax and semantics
0:41:18 okay syntax
0:41:20 s y n t a x and semantics s e m a n t i
0:41:25 c s
0:41:27 s
0:41:28 s y
0:41:30 s
0:41:31 y s y
0:41:33 t ntax syntax
0:41:36 okay yeah and semantics
0:41:38 yeah so syntax is
0:41:41 the words you're using
0:41:44 i love you i hate you you know get out
0:41:46 of here
0:41:47 wherever you like
0:41:49 semantics
0:41:50 is what you are meaning
0:41:53 with those words
0:41:55 very important distinction here syntax
0:41:57 is the words that you're using whereas
0:41:59 semantics is what you mean when you say
0:42:01 those things
0:42:03 now yeah so let me put the argument in
0:42:05 one sentence and explain the argument
0:42:07 this is not my arguments against
0:42:09 by william haskell
0:42:10 one of the
0:42:12 philosophers of mind
0:42:13 the difference between syntax and
0:42:15 semantics
0:42:17 is that syntax is the words that you're
0:42:19 using
0:42:20 and semantics is what you're intending
0:42:22 so the key differential here is what you
0:42:24 call intentionality
0:42:26 in what you intend when you say i love
0:42:29 you
0:42:30 when a robot says i love you is it the
0:42:31 same as when i say i love you to my
0:42:33 daughter and if i wrote if i have a
0:42:35 robot and it says i love you to my
0:42:36 daughter is it the same as if i say
0:42:38 no because there's a different
0:42:39 intentionality there right how do you
0:42:41 put this formally you put this formally
0:42:43 by saying the following
0:42:44 a robot has an input and that input is
0:42:47 the binary input with conditionals and
0:42:49 loops
0:42:50 in the
0:42:51 computer programming system that it will
0:42:52 learn through the input which in this
0:42:54 case will be the human being that puts
0:42:56 that input inside of it
0:42:58 william haskell says from this
0:43:00 perspective you know a robot is just
0:43:02 like a television
0:43:03 and as much as the robot has an output
0:43:06 it's the same as the television having
0:43:07 an output of the news or entertainment
0:43:11 yeah or maybe like a calculator right
0:43:13 or pap me or a robotic parrot of some
0:43:16 sort right it doesn't really know what
0:43:18 it's saying
0:43:19 or it doesn't intend anything from it
0:43:22 and
0:43:23 john ceo has a very famous experiment
0:43:25 called the chinese room experiment
0:43:27 and he basically says if someone was if
0:43:29 you're in a room and you some people
0:43:31 gave you some
0:43:32 some things under the you know and says
0:43:34 i love you inside and you give it back
0:43:36 out
0:43:38 and you don't know what it's saying you
0:43:40 don't intend to say any of those things
0:43:42 but you can communicate so communication
0:43:44 is possible that intentionality
0:43:46 and that is what makes a difference
0:43:48 between
0:43:49 us and a robot even on a
0:43:52 communicative level right so we have
0:43:54 intentionality a robot can never have
0:43:56 intentionally because it can never
0:43:58 formulate that autonomously it always
0:44:00 requires an input which which will have
0:44:03 a loop and a conditional which will then
0:44:04 turn out into an output
0:44:06 so you know this is extremely important
0:44:08 because in the next 20 or 30 years we're
0:44:10 going to have discussions about ai
0:44:12 rights
0:44:13 yeah
0:44:14 they're they're richard dawkins already
0:44:15 speaking about ai rights you know
0:44:17 speaking about a given right set of
0:44:18 robots so the robot is just an input
0:44:21 output machine it does not have
0:44:22 intentionality and this is mentioned in
0:44:24 the philosophy of minds mentioned and so
0:44:26 on and so these discussions will have
0:44:28 practical implications
0:44:29 but this intentionality is one aspect of
0:44:31 what consciousness
0:44:33 because consciousness is first-person
0:44:34 subjective experience
0:44:36 right so if
0:44:38 even something which can be
0:44:41 assessed here which is a communicative
0:44:43 intentionality
0:44:44 can be seen
0:44:46 as differentiated between robots and
0:44:48 human beings because of the systems the
0:44:50 intrinsic and autonomous systems that
0:44:52 exist in one that don't in the other
0:44:55 then clearly we can make
0:44:57 further analogies to that effect when it
0:44:59 comes to human beings and their
0:45:00 differences with
0:45:02 robots and so on
0:45:03 so today we have this with there's lots
0:45:05 of this i don't want to be if your
0:45:06 information overloads i can see the
0:45:08 places you know i'm gloomy and stuff you
0:45:10 know
0:45:11 but let's just kind of summarize uh how
0:45:14 long that's 47 minutes okay
0:45:16 okay
0:45:17 let's summarize to summarize therefore
0:45:19 today we've spoken about materialism and
0:45:21 naturalism naturalism we've
0:45:23 sub-compartmentalized into
0:45:24 methodological
0:45:25 naturalism which we said is what you do
0:45:28 when you do science for example or
0:45:30 you can even say philosophy as david
0:45:31 happen your mentions
0:45:32 but it's basically the assumption you
0:45:34 don't assume god exists when you do
0:45:36 scientific experiments you don't assume
0:45:38 that you don't put that into the
0:45:40 assumption
0:45:41 of your method so this is a
0:45:42 methodological approach which is
0:45:44 differentiated between
0:45:46 uh or from ontological or
0:45:48 metaphysical naturalism which is a claim
0:45:50 about the world and how it doesn't have
0:45:52 any super supernatural forces operating
0:45:54 within it
0:45:55 this claim is similar to the claim that
0:45:57 materialist makes it's not the same
0:45:58 which is interchangeable with the word
0:46:00 physicalist so these two terms in the
0:46:02 philosophy of mind are used
0:46:03 interchangeably for all intents and
0:46:05 purposes we talked about materialism we
0:46:07 talked about the different strands of
0:46:08 materialism emergent materialism
0:46:10 reductive materialism functionalism and
0:46:12 so on and we define some of those things
0:46:14 but they'll require a little bit further
0:46:15 reading from you guys
0:46:17 so so as not to discover the uh this
0:46:19 session and so on and then we talked
0:46:21 about
0:46:22 logical positivism and empiricism
0:46:24 and
0:46:25 how they are different from one another
0:46:27 but once again they're similar we talked
0:46:29 about the thing that makes them
0:46:30 different from materialists namely the
0:46:32 verification principle which
0:46:34 was the cause of their demise really in
0:46:36 the 20s and 30s and 40s and 50s
0:46:39 and then we spoke about
0:46:41 substance theory and how that's divided
0:46:43 into from materialism and dualism and
0:46:45 idealism and idealism and materialism to
0:46:49 opposite things
0:46:50 idealism says everything is in the mind
0:46:52 george berkeley and so on these
0:46:53 individuals say that whereas materialism
0:46:55 says everything is physical so it's
0:46:57 completely opposite and dualism is in
0:46:58 the middle somewhere and one of the
0:47:00 major proponents in the in the west at
0:47:02 least for that is really the
0:47:03 carbohydrate i think therefore i am
0:47:04 therefore thereby differentiating mind
0:47:06 and body
0:47:08 and then we spoke about some of the
0:47:10 arguments against materialism uh some of
0:47:12 the arguments against materialism being
0:47:14 number one we mentioned
0:47:16 uh that materialism is a third well
0:47:19 at least any scientific inquiry is third
0:47:21 person and so to try and use science to
0:47:24 disprove or to undercut dualism is
0:47:27 impossible by virtue of the fact that
0:47:30 uh consciousness is defined as a first
0:47:31 person subjective experience and it's
0:47:33 untappable by third person science so
0:47:35 it's untappable for someone to say like
0:47:37 with emerging materialists with
0:47:38 functionless and all these people
0:47:39 they're saying that we're going to find
0:47:41 out later you can never find out because
0:47:43 you have a system that deals with third
0:47:45 person stuff and this is a first person
0:47:47 thing so these things are not
0:47:49 you know this is the first argument then
0:47:50 we talked about the replacement and
0:47:53 rejuvenation of cells and how that's if
0:47:55 we we we change the planks of of a ship
0:47:58 one by one will it be the same ship it
0:48:00 won't be the same ship therefore the
0:48:01 thing if it's all material the same
0:48:03 thing applies to the human being for all
0:48:04 material where there's no place for the
0:48:06 soul there's no place for any of this
0:48:07 thing that we should be the same person
0:48:08 but 10 years all ourselves will be
0:48:10 replenished and therefore we should be
0:48:11 different people give us a new passport
0:48:16 and so
0:48:18 on give us a new name maybe someone
0:48:21 should name us something else
0:48:23 that if i go to court maybe the the
0:48:25 judge should say it was you 10 years ago
0:48:26 it's a different person material you
0:48:28 know if he's a materialist and so on so
0:48:30 the absurdities will start to arise the
0:48:33 third thing we talked about
0:48:34 uh after that we said uh robots robots
0:48:38 and ai all right are good so we talked
0:48:40 about intentionality and how william
0:48:42 haskell's experiment and stuff like that
0:48:43 the difference between uh syntax and
0:48:45 semantics and how syntax is what you say
0:48:47 where semantics is what you say
0:48:51 i'll send you all the references
0:48:53 william
0:48:55 yeah and the the chinese rule experiment
0:48:58 is by john cerl okay where he talks
0:49:00 about you know
0:49:02 the final and last thing we're going to
0:49:04 mention today okay because it's
0:49:06 obviously in the poem and very important
0:49:07 the final last thing so we have kind of
0:49:09 like an overview of materialism
0:49:10 naturalism positivism so you know all
0:49:12 these isms today right
0:49:14 well maybe 20 isms i don't know how many
0:49:16 fitnesses we went through today right
0:49:18 but today i want you to just think about
0:49:20 one thing
0:49:22 if you are a materialist
0:49:24 what access do you have
0:49:26 okay
0:49:28 to morality
0:49:30 you can't put morality under a
0:49:32 microscope in any way shape or form and
0:49:34 fact for a logical positive is morality
0:49:36 is a meaningless thing
0:49:38 remember they say that anything that
0:49:39 cannot be seen is empirically
0:49:41 justifiable through the verification
0:49:42 principle is something which is
0:49:43 meaningless
0:49:45 so how can someone who's a like bertrand
0:49:47 russell for example an atheist and so
0:49:49 he was a little bit more consistent than
0:49:50 the richard dawkins this individual his
0:49:52 naturalist by admission and he admits
0:49:55 there's no such thing as good and bad
0:49:56 it's all uh put this in differences but
0:49:58 then he starts attacking islam and
0:49:59 christianity all these religions on
0:50:00 moral ground
0:50:02 my question is how day it's not even how
0:50:04 could you it's how day because you have
0:50:06 no basis for this in fact on your
0:50:08 worldview this is meaningless this is
0:50:11 it's not even it's morality it's not
0:50:13 even something which
0:50:14 it's a meaningless thing because it's a
0:50:16 prior all right
0:50:18 it's what we're talking about expression
0:50:19 expressionist morality what we're
0:50:21 talking about
0:50:22 any morality you want to bring forward
0:50:23 is meaningless look for positivist if
0:50:25 not a materialist it's unsubstantiated
0:50:27 for materialists now they can have a
0:50:28 subjective mind of course they can't
0:50:30 have a materialist can have a subject
0:50:32 about no way no problems but how can you
0:50:35 verify it in a physical format in a
0:50:37 materials format how can it be as real
0:50:39 to you as the physical processes that
0:50:41 are happening in the world
0:50:43 and if it can't be as real to you as the
0:50:45 physical processes that are happening in
0:50:47 the world if it can't be as real to you
0:50:49 as these things then
0:50:51 in that case we may say they are not and
0:50:54 so in the poem he mentions that
0:50:56 we may we mentioned this phrase because
0:50:58 i think it's very powerful i think the
0:50:59 first person that i heard is actually
0:51:01 hussein you know from ayura we went to i
0:51:04 loved it when he said this well we went
0:51:05 to queen mary this is long time four
0:51:06 years ago and i just stuck in my head
0:51:08 and he said it's just beautiful
0:51:10 and he said that you know
0:51:12 i was walking he was talking about his
0:51:13 own existential experiences and he said
0:51:15 i was walking ministry or something like
0:51:16 that and he was like you're suffering
0:51:18 from like atheist doubts whatever you're
0:51:20 saying you know nihilism and all those
0:51:21 kinds of things he said i looked at the
0:51:23 um
0:51:24 butcher shop and i saw a slab of me
0:51:26 and he said on on this world view me and
0:51:28 the slab of me are the same
0:51:30 actually because we're composed of the
0:51:31 same physical things right
0:51:33 so if you if you slide and you can put
0:51:35 you can i mean i used more crude
0:51:37 examples of some very rude person in the
0:51:39 park
0:51:40 he came to me i said actually when i
0:51:41 went to the toilet and i flushed my
0:51:43 feces down to the toilet that feces is
0:51:45 is is is
0:51:47 equivalent to you
0:51:48 actually
0:51:54 this is this is the situation you are
0:51:56 just a rearrangement we say of atoms
0:51:58 it's a beautiful way of putting it
0:52:00 imagine imagine
0:52:02 a a plane filled with
0:52:04 hundreds of people and
0:52:06 and just crashed into another planet all
0:52:08 the kids dying just a rearrangement of
0:52:10 atoms and carbons
0:52:15 there's no meaning that can be
0:52:16 extrapolated on physicalist grounds
0:52:17 we'll put it in that language right
0:52:19 on their world view like if we're
0:52:20 talking about materialism right how can
0:52:22 you jump from everything that is
0:52:25 meaningful or not meaningful anything
0:52:27 can be explained through physicalism but
0:52:28 you can't explain morality like that and
0:52:30 you can't bring about an object of
0:52:32 morality with that so i'm saying that if
0:52:34 you are a materialist or a physicalist
0:52:37 or you know a metaphysical naturalist
0:52:39 any of those categories you cannot bring
0:52:41 about a higher order morality now
0:52:44 you know without it being completely
0:52:46 illusionary illusory it's completely
0:52:48 illusory remember they say that
0:52:50 consciousness a lot of them will
0:52:51 actually say that consciousness is
0:52:53 illusory they will say this they will
0:52:55 write this this is what they've written
0:52:58 i haven't said that myself
0:52:59 fox psychology they call it chambers or
0:53:01 whatever david james
0:53:03 if it's illusory then so is morality
0:53:05 illusion because everything that comes
0:53:06 from a conscious or a priori kind of
0:53:08 um
0:53:10 base must be also the same thing it must
0:53:12 be illusory so morality is illusion how
0:53:14 dare you talk to us about practice okay
0:53:18 and this is really
0:53:20 academic this is well known but on a
0:53:21 popular level
0:53:23 on a popular they are allowed to do
0:53:25 whatever they want because no one can
0:53:26 say that it's such a simple argument
0:53:28 everyone can
0:53:29 know it
0:53:31 if they commit themselves to
0:53:33 metaphysical materialism or naturalism
0:53:36 you know especially those things okay
0:53:38 metaphysical materialism naturally
0:53:40 physically any any other if they commit
0:53:41 themselves to that you should you should
0:53:43 be getting excited
0:53:45 because they cannot say anything moral
0:53:46 in fact you could you should attack the
0:53:48 morally so you what do you think of this
0:53:50 rape and this think of the most gruesome
0:53:51 thing you can think of they can't say
0:53:53 anything about that
0:53:54 they really they'd have to make a
0:53:56 subjective case based on a priori
0:53:58 grounds which once again a priori
0:54:00 physicalism
0:54:02 they don't even come together
0:54:03 unfortunately
0:54:05 if everything can be explained through
0:54:06 physical processes
0:54:08 which is the claim
0:54:11 they can't say all of that
0:54:13 that's what they do in fact that's what
0:54:14 sam harris consequentialism and we will
0:54:16 be going through each of those moral
0:54:19 things we've got to be going through
0:54:20 consequentialism deontological ethics
0:54:23 liberalism social liberalism all of
0:54:25 those things we are going to go through
0:54:26 one bible feminism all of those things
0:54:27 isn't all of those moral philosophies
0:54:29 and political philosophy we're going to
0:54:30 go through one by one
0:54:32 okay and we'll we'll have to you know
0:54:34 they'll have their own separate
0:54:36 treatment every single one but the point
0:54:38 i'm making to you is this
0:54:39 is that if you're a materialist all of
0:54:41 this doesn't matter because if you say
0:54:43 i'm a materialist
0:54:44 feminist materialist liberal but you try
0:54:48 and put it together you're going to
0:54:49 require a priori
0:54:50 ontological
0:54:52 distinctions in order to make your
0:54:53 argument
0:54:54 and we're going to come to that which
0:54:56 means they're not physical stuff you
0:54:58 can't put under a microscope this this
0:55:00 phrase you cannot put this morality that
0:55:03 you're talking about under a microscope
0:55:05 just remember that phrase
0:55:06 you cannot put it it's not reduced to
0:55:08 physical stuff where's the foot where is
0:55:09 it can i smell it can i see it where's
0:55:11 the right let me smell it let me see it
0:55:13 let me taste it you know
0:55:15 let me hear it
0:55:17 let it tap one of my five senses
0:55:20 otherwise it doesn't meet your criterion
0:55:23 otherwise it can't be physical if it's
0:55:24 not physical then
0:55:25 what is it an illusion right so if it's
0:55:27 illusion why are we talking about
0:55:28 illusory stuff
0:55:30 morality is an illusion so why i'm not
0:55:32 here to talk about hallucinations and
0:55:34 illusions
0:55:35 delusions the morality of illusion
0:55:37 delusion that's what he should have
0:55:39 wrote instead of the god delusion right
0:55:40 the morality delusion
0:55:42 and he don't refute himself in
0:55:44 more than 400 pages because he's all of
0:55:46 his arguments moral arguments
0:55:49 why the god delusion why not the
0:55:50 morality is illusion
0:55:52 if both in the same a prior category god
0:55:54 and morality are the same category
0:55:56 they're untappable by the five senses
0:55:59 so why not the morality is illusion tell
0:56:00 me why not any questions
0:56:04 okay no i'm uh this is uh i think uh all
0:56:07 that we need to say about it
0:56:10 so we to summarize therefore we talked
0:56:12 about the distinctions
0:56:14 of naturalism and uh and
0:56:17 materialism and physicalism and
0:56:18 different types of physicalism different
0:56:20 kinds of matter uh materialism we talked
0:56:23 about the heart problem of consciousness
0:56:24 we talked about ai we're talking about
0:56:26 intentionality syntax semantics we
0:56:27 talked about morality at the end
0:56:29 and with this hopefully this lesson will
0:56:30 be instrumental because it will allow
0:56:33 you to deal with not just atheists but
0:56:34 atheists that are committed to these
0:56:36 camps if you like or schools or thor
0:56:39 and hopefully inshallah when we're when
0:56:41 we're progressing to other things
0:56:43 this is always going to be a
0:56:44 supplementary argument they're going to
0:56:45 use
0:56:46 if you're dealing with a feminist you're
0:56:47 going to use the materialist argument if
0:56:49 you're dealing with if you're dealing
0:56:50 with an atheist feminist kind of
0:56:52 materialist you have to address this
0:56:54 point
0:56:55 it's the
0:56:56 undercutter because yeah every single
0:56:59 morality that we're going to go through
0:57:00 today
0:57:01 is going to rely upon some a priori uh
0:57:04 understanding about it
0:57:06 and hopefully you benefited
0:57:14 [Music]