Podcast appearances and mentions of Hilary Putnam

Show Notes: Gideon Yaffe and his then girlfriend-now wife, Sue Chan, drove across the country after graduation to San Francisco, where they had no jobs or prospects. Gideon had applied to graduate school in philosophy but didn't get in anywhere. They got married and his first job was at a pet store, Gideon worked there for a while, then at a computer magazine. Studying Philosophy at Stanford While hanging out in San Francisco, he started reading Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, which he loved and found to be hugely  rewarding. This inspired him to apply to grad school again and this time his application was accepted in a lot of places. He decided to study philosophy at Stanford, where he met Michael Bratman, a professor who worked on philosophy of action and related questions about the nature of action, agency, and intention. Gideon also became interested in the history of philosophy and wrote a dissertation about John Locke and contemporary problems related to the Free Will problem. Gideon went on the job market in academia.  He got some interviews but didn't get a job. The following year, he got a one-year job at UCSD. His wife, Sue, was working in the film industry, so they moved to LA and he commuted down to San Diego. Tenure at the University of Southern California He finally secured a tenure track job at the University of Southern California (USC) in 1999 and taught Philosophy of Law classes. He wrote a paper about addiction, which he found interesting due to his knowledge of addicts and interest in freedom and addiction and how addiction would undermine freedom. When a friend of Gideon's was a victim of a carjacking incident,  he became interested in the legal problem at the center of many carjacking cases that revolves around intention, so he wrote a paper about conditional intention. Gideon explains how carjacking differs from car theft, and the paper questioned whether a conditional intention was enough for the crime when the statute called for unconditional intention. Gideon felt that philosophy of law was important to work on but he needed to know more about the law, so he coerced USC into giving him a year in the law school. Gideon recounts his experience as a law student and how it led to teaching law in law school.  Collaborating on a Neuroscience and Legal Proceedings Think Tank The MacArthur Foundation launched the law and neuroscience project, which aimed to bring together various people from philosophy, law, and neuroscience to discuss the relevance of neuroscience to legal proceedings, particularly in criminal law. Gideon was invited to be part of this think tank. During this time, he collaborated with neuroscientists on various problems and experiments related to neuroscience that could be useful to the legal system. This led to a desire to learn more about neuroscience and he pursued a grant to support the project. He spent another year as a neuroscience student at Cal Tech which allowed him to learn a lot about neuroscience. Gideon also started writing a book about attempted crimes. Gideon talks about the importance of understanding the double failure of attempts, and inherent impossible attempts. He highlights the number of cases where individuals seem incapable of committing crimes. Gideon received a job offer from Yale University after being a part of the MacArthur think tank and his book. He decided to take the position and he and his family moved to New Haven.  Neuroscience, Law, and GenAI Intentions Gideon talks about the challenges faced by those who attempt to escape the harsh realities of the criminal justice system. His experiences highlight the importance of understanding the factors that contribute to attempted crimes. The conversation turns to Gideon's  involvement in generative AI and the potential of AI intentions. He is currently working on a project with neuroscientist Uri Maoz, which aims to understand, for example, the difference between self-driving cars and drones in terms of intentions. Another project involves a group funded by billionaire Sergey Brin, who has a daughter with severe autism. The group aims to build AI models of the brain of a person and use the model to see how it responds to various forms of surgery.  AI, Consciousness, and Intentions Organizing Behavior Gideon discusses the concept of AI consciousness. Gideon states that a lot depends on how consciousness is defined. One  understanding is that consciousness involves self-representation of certain kinds of thoughts. He suggests that understanding consciousness depends on what one thinks about it. One way of understanding consciousness involves self-representation of certain kinds, such as having a second-order thought about the thought. If that's all that's required for consciousness, then these LLMs can be conscious. Another way of understanding consciousness involves qualia, or ways of feeling, such as experiencing a particular sensation or feeling something. However, he acknowledges that it is difficult to know exactly what it is like to be an LLM or a toaster. He acknowledges that there are some similarities between the two, but acknowledges the challenges in determining their exact roles in AI and neuroscience. Gideon explains that intentions serve to organize behavior in various interesting ways. For example, if an AI has intentions, they can make decisions now so they don't have to think about them later. This is relevant for coordinating behavior with each other, as well as interpersonal organization. The question of whether AIs have intentions is more tractable than the question of whether they are conscious. Intentions play a crucial role in various aspects of law, such as contract interpretation and legal texts. Understanding the intentions of AI and their potential impact on these areas is essential for understanding the future of AI and its applications in various fields. Updating Law to Address AI Intention The conversation explores the need to rewrite laws or update them to address the issue of intention in AI. Gideon states that the intention of a person or AI and the textual language, and the interpretation of the text are all areas that need to be explored.  The project Gideon is working on aims to determine the intentions of AI by examining the role their representation plays in guiding their behavior. Gideon suggests that the question is whether inferences can be made about AI's intentions by looking at the role the representations plays from the AI behavior. Gideon talks about a project on criminal activity and neuroscience that he is proud of.  Leniency and Child Criminality Gideon goes on to talk about leniency and child criminality. He argues that the reason to give a break to kids who engage in criminal behavior is disenfranchisement, not neural immaturity. He talks about the age of maturity, lack of political participation. Gideon's book about kids was written after completing his studies at Yale. He also discusses his personal life, including being in a car accident which resulted in a severe brain injury and how he is immensely grateful for his recovery.  Influential Harvard Courses and Professors Gideon mentions a core class on the Baroque period by Simon Schama, which he found to be the most influential. The course focused on famous European paintings from the Baroque period, which he found to be a source of inspiration. Other influential courses include a seminar with Hilary Putnam, Rational Action with Robert Nozick.  Timestamps:  04:50: Philosophy Studies and Academic Challenges  11:18: Legal Philosophy and Collaborative Research  22:25: Transition to Yale and Continued Research  27:22: Philosophical Reflections on AI and Consciousness  39:36: Personal Reflections and Career Highlights  49:52: Courses and Professors at Harvard  52:27: Current Work and Future Directions  52:41: Personal Life and Family  Links: https://law.yale.edu/gideon-yaffe Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this episode of The 92 Report is recommended by Michael Johnson who reports: “Hi. I'm Michael Johnson, class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 Report is Son of a Saint. Son of a Saint provides guidance, mentorship and opportunities to young boys in the New Orleans area who did not have a father in the home, usually due to death or incarceration. Founded in 2011 by Sonny Lee, who lost his own father, a defensive back of the saints from a heart attack at the age of 36, Son of a Saint is making a significant impact on the lives of young boys in the New Orleans area. My wife and I have been supporters for many years, as has my firm advantage capital, which recently endowed a scholarship that will cover high school tuition for two boys from the program. Although my circumstances were much different, having lost my own father when I was five years old, I know firsthand how important a male influence can be on a young boy. I luckily had family members and friends who stepped up from me and hope in some small way, my support of Son of a Saint and the work their mentors do can give the boys and their programs similar help. You can learn more about their work at Son of a Saint.org and now here's Will Bachman with this week's episode.” To learn more about their work, visit: www.sonofasaint.org.

122. EPIZÓDA / V akom vzťahu sú veda a filozofia? Mala by sa filozofia zvedečtiť, ako to navrhoval pozitivizmus? Alebo by mala odhaliť nevedeckosť vedy, ako tvrdia postmodernisti? Alebo existuje aj tretia cesta – cesta spolupráce? Americký matematik a filozof Hilary Putnam v eseji "Philosophy and Science" (2010) argumentuje práve za túto tretiu možnosť: filozofia aj veda by si mali priznať svoje limity a zároveň ponúknuť svoje silné stránky. Môžu sa tak navzájom obohatiť a posunúť poznanie ďalej. Do diskusie vás pozývajú neurovedec Peter Jedlička a filozof Jakub Betinský. ----more---- + + vypočujte si všetky extra časti a podporte tvorbu Kvanta ideí

Analytic Philosophy is a branch of philosophy that emphasizes clarity and logical analysis. Key figures include Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who contributed to the development of symbolic logic and the philosophy of language. Logical Positivism, emerging from the Vienna Circle, focused on empirical verification and logical necessity. The philosophy of language explores theories of meaning, such as the referential theory, use theory, and speech act theory. Semantic externalism, proposed by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke, argues that meaning is influenced by external factors. Ordinary language philosophy, associated with J.L. Austin and later Wittgenstein, analyzes everyday language to resolve philosophical problems. The philosophy of science, with contributions from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, examines the nature of scientific knowledge and methods. W.V.O. Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction emphasizes the holistic nature of knowledge. Metaphysics in analytic philosophy addresses questions about reality, including the realism vs. anti-realism debate and the nature of properties and universals. Key concepts include propositional logic, predicate logic, and the theory of descriptions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

fWotD Episode 2390: Quine–Putnam indispensability argument.Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Monday, 20 November 2023 is Quine–Putnam indispensability argument.The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument is an argument in the philosophy of mathematics for the existence of abstract mathematical objects such as numbers and sets, a position known as mathematical platonism. It was named after the philosophers Willard Quine and Hilary Putnam, and is one of the most important arguments in the philosophy of mathematics.Although elements of the indispensability argument may have originated with thinkers such as Gottlob Frege and Kurt Gödel, Quine's development of the argument was unique for introducing to it a number of his philosophical positions such as naturalism, confirmational holism, and the criterion of ontological commitment. Putnam gave Quine's argument its first detailed formulation in his 1971 book Philosophy of Logic. He later came to disagree with various aspects of Quine's thinking, however, and formulated his own indispensability argument based on the no miracles argument in the philosophy of science. A standard form of the argument in contemporary philosophy is credited to Mark Colyvan; whilst being influenced by both Quine and Putnam, it differs in important ways from their formulations. It is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities. Nominalists, philosophers who reject the existence of abstract objects, have argued against both premises of this argument. An influential argument by Hartry Field claims that mathematical entities are dispensable to science. This argument has been supported by attempts to demonstrate that scientific and mathematical theories can be reformulated to remove all references to mathematical entities. Other philosophers, including Penelope Maddy, Elliott Sober, and Joseph Melia, have argued that we do not need to believe in all of the entities that are indispensable to science. The arguments of these writers inspired a new explanatory version of the argument, which Alan Baker and Mark Colyvan support, that argues mathematics is indispensable to specific scientific explanations as well as whole theories.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:43 UTC on Monday, 20 November 2023.For the full current version of the article, see Quine–Putnam indispensability argument on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Kendra Neural.

Is language a flawed prism standing in the way of our understanding of the world?Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesFor much of the 20th century language was seen as central to our understanding of the world. 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world', argued Wittgenstein. 'There is nothing outside of the text' claimed Derrida. But now it seems language is being jettisoned by philosophers as either containing puzzles that are insoluble, or irrelevant to the real issues facing us. The American philosopher, Hilary Putman, went as far as to say "the project to describe the relationship between language and the world is a shambles". Should we conclude that the puzzle of language and its relation to the world is not solvable? Or is it essential we crack the problem and not give up? Or should we focus, not on the medium but, on the message and return to an era before the so-called 'linguistic turn' when language was largely seen as a transparent vehicle of our beliefs?There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=a-world-by-any-other-nameSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

iNSCREVA-SE no nosso canal no YouTube. https://youtube.com/@Gapfilosofico PIX 《《《 gapfilosofico@gmail.com Telegram

Noam Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics Emeritus at MIT and Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He not only counts as among the most influential linguists of all time, but he has played a major role in the development of twentieth and twenty-first century philosophy, cognitive science, and political theory. Noam and Robinson talk about some of the major topics in modern linguistics, ranging from generative and universal grammar to innateness hypotheses and the current limitations of large language models for studying human linguistic faculties. There are also philosophical dimensions to the conversation, as Noam touches on his time with Nelson Goodman, Hilary Putnam, and W. V. O. Quine, while other concerns—such as the indeterminacy of reference and the relationship between thought and language—recur throughout the discussion.    OUTLINE: 00:00 In This Episode… 00:27 Introduction 8:32 Noam's Entry into Linguistics  11:03 Ferdinand de Saussure and Twentieth Century Linguistics 23:04 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 26:00 Thoughts on Language and Behaviorism 35:24 Innateness Hypotheses in Linguistics 42:00 Innateness and Universal Grammar 46:02 Limitations of Large Language Models 48:42 Impossible Languages and What Linguists Study 1:00:10 Historical Shifts in Linguistics Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

In this episode of AUHSD Future Talks, Superintendent Matsuda interviews Professor Avram Noam Chomsky. Mr. Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 and he is one of the most cited public intellectuals of the 21st century: a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. He is a Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona starting in 2017 and was an Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from 2001 to 2017. He has authored more than 150 books on topics on linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Considered to be "the father of modern linguistics", for such reasons as working on the concept of "Universal Grammar" he continues to investigate language with the concept and theory of Transformational-Generative Grammar.He not only has written numerous books but he has engaged in philosophical debates with intellectuals and modern philosophers. Some noteworthy intellectuals and philosophers he debated were Michel Foucault, Tyler Burge, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, Saul Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Willard Van Orman Quine, and John Searle. During the talk with Superintendent Matsuda, Professor Chomsky discusses his educational experience, mass public education, "banking" form of education, three existential threats that face humanity, the connection between his linguistic work and education, the way forward for young people, democracy and education, and his message to young people.

136 – Neceser Epistemológico – Hilary Putnam – Parte 3 Parece dificil seguirle el ritmo a Putnam, tal es así que la última parte sale 2 semanas después, pero bueno, las epistemologías no faltaron... Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico

135 – Neceser Epistemológico – Hilary Putnam – Parte 2 Así medio tranquilos pero muy atentos, seguimos con Putnam y esta cosa curiosa a la que se dedica: la epistemología... Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico

134 – Neceser Epistemológico – Hilary Putnam – Parte 1 No bastó con ser informático, no bastó con ser matemático, también tuvo que ser filósofo... viene para hacernos doler la cabeza, Putnam y su epistemología de cubeta. Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico

In questo audio il prezioso incontro con Mario De Caro filosofo e Angela Sirigu scienziata.L'intervista con Mario De Caro e Angela Sirigu è in Contemporaneamente a cura di Mariantonietta Firmani il podcast pensato per Artribune.In Contemporaneamente podcast trovate incontri tematici con autorevoli interpreti del contemporaneo tra arte e scienza, letteratura, storia, filosofia, architettura, cinema e molto altro. Per approfondire questioni auliche ma anche cogenti e futuribili. Dialoghi straniati per accedere a nuove letture e possibili consapevolezze dei meccanismi correnti: tra locale e globale, tra individuo e società, tra pensiero maschile e pensiero femminile, per costruire una visione ampia, profonda ed oggettiva della realtà. Mario De Caro e Angela Sirigu ci parlano di indagini filosofiche e scientifiche. Liberal Naturalism tende alla rilettura congiunta di scienza e filosofia, separate dal tempo di Galilei. Fondamentale è l'incontro con persone chiave che indirizzano la nostra vita. Le lesioni cerebrali incapsulate e non necessariamente la lesione di una funzione inficia atre capacità.Studi di neuroscienze e filosofia dimostrano come il libero arbitrio sia molto più limitato di quando generalmente si crede, con rilevanza nell'evoluzione del diritto. Con la consapevolezza del condizionamento possiamo ampliare lo spazio del libero arbitrio. L'ossitocina è uno dei maggiori neuro-mediatori che regola tutte le attività del nostro corpo. Dai tempi di Cartesio non si cercano più certezze che nessun sapere empirico può darci, dunque neanche la scienza. Naturalmente pensiero cognitivo e neurotrasmissione si influenzano reciprocamente, per esempio la ricompensa soddisfa il nostro sistema dopaminergico. Le multinazionali forse non esistono. Mario De Caro professore ordinario di Filosofia morale presso l'Università Roma Tre. Insegna anche presso l'Università della Svizzera Italiana e dal 2000 è regolarmente visiting professor presso la Tufts University. Si occupa principalmente di filosofia morale, libero arbitrio e teoria dell'azione e, con David Macarthur, ha elaborato la teoria del “Liberal naturalism”.Già Visiting scholar al MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Fulbright Fellow ad Harvard e presidente della Società Italiana di Filosofia Analitica (SIFA). Editore Associato del “Journal of the American Philosophical Association”, vicepresidente della Consulta nazionale di Filosofia ed esecutore letterario di Hilary Putnam.Collabora con “Il Sole 24 ore” e della Rai, scrive per “The Times”, “La Repubblica”, “La Stampa”, “Avvenire” e “Il manifesto”. Tiene lectures in più di cento istituzioni accademiche in diciotto nazioni, ha pubblicato cinque monografie e più di cento articoli scientifici. Editor di una ventina di collezioni di saggi in italiano e in inglese. L'asteroide 5329 DeCaro è a lui dedicato.Tra i suo libri “Il libero arbitrio” (Laterza 2019, nona ed.). “Siamo davvero liberi? Le neuroscienze e il mistero del libero arbitrio” (curato con A. Lavazza e G. Sartori, Codice 2019). “Realtà” (Bollati Boringhieri 2020) e “Liberal Naturalism” (Harvard University Press, 2022). Si occupa di etica, filosofia della mente e dell'azione e di storia della scienza della prima modernità, e molto altro. Angela Sirigu dal 1984 Dottore in Psicologia, Università La Sapienza, Roma. Tirocinio in Neuropsicologia, Dipartimento di Neurologia, Ospedale La Timone, Marsiglia dal 1985-88. Post-dottorato, Sezione di Neuroscienze Cognitive, NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), NIH (National Institutes of Health) (Bethesda, USA) dal 1988-1992. Direttore di ricerca presso, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Parigi nel 1996. Oggi direttore del gruppo di ricerca di neuropsicologia presso Istituto di Scienze Cognitive Marc Jeannerod, UMR 5229, CNRS & Università di Lione I, Francia.Direttore dell'iMIND Center of Excellence Institute presso l'Ospedale Psichiatrico Vinatier, Lione dal 2019. Leader del team Disorders of the Brain. Istituto di Scienze Cognitive Marc Jeannerod al CNRS, Università di Lione I, UMR5229 contratto congiunto con il Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique e l'Università Claude-Bernard dal 1998. Numerosi Premi: 1999 Premio dell'Accademia francese delle scienze, 2009 Premio Eccellenza Scientifica del CNRS. 2010 Premio per la ricerca traslazionale CNRS, 2012 Premio « Scienziato dell'anno » Marcel Dassault, Fondation Fondamental. Nel 2013 Premio Medaglia d'Argento CNRS, e Medaglia Societé Philomatique di Parigi.Membership and Grant funding advisor in autorevoli istituzioni internazionali come: Member of the New York Academy of Science, USA dal 1994. Dal 1999 member of the Scientific Board, program in Neuroscience, University of Lyon. Poi dal 2009 Member of Scientific Board of the Doctoral School in Neuropsychology, University of Torino, e dal 2010 Reviewer for MIUR, Italian Minister of Education and Research. Dal 2012 Reviewer for L'OREAL/UNESCO, dal 2013 Panel member/reviewer for Medical Research Council (UK). Editorialista mensile (prima pagina) in “Science & Medicine” of the newspaper Le Monde 2011-2017, dal 2020 Scientific Director of IMInd Center of Excellence for Autism.Le sue ricerche sono pubblicate sulle più autorevoli riviste scientifiche come: Science la più autorevole rivista scientifica pubblicata dall'American Association for the Advancement of Science. Nature Neuroscience e Nature Communication la più antica rivista inglese edita da Nature Publishing Group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences rivista scientifica statunitense, organo ufficiale della United States National Academy of Sciences.Current Biology altra rivista scientifica inglese. Trends in Cognitive Science piattaforma indipendente di scambio tra ricercatori e scienziati tra i maggiori contributi di USA UK Germania

This is Cognitive Revolution, my show about the personal side of the intellectual journey. Each week, I interview an eminent scientist, writer, or academic about the experiences that shaped their ideas. The show is available wherever you listen to podcasts.My guest today is Annie Murphy Paul. Annie is a science journalist, and she has a new book out. It’s getting a lot of press. She’s made the rounds on all the Big Idea podcasts. I listened to a bunch of them in prep for this episode. Three of my favorites were her talks with Adam Grant, Ezra Klein, and Scott Barry Kaufman (fun fact: AMP was actually SBK's very first guest on his podcast). They’re all great discussions, and so I tried to broach some new territory with Annie in our talk here. The basic argument of her book is about fundamentally rethinking the way we talk about the mind. Her book is called The Extended Mind, and its starting point is a paper of the same title by two philosophers, Andy Clark and David Chalmers. The basic line of argument is that we tend to think of the mind as a fundamentally bounded entity, where the bounds of thought are essentially between one’s ears. These philosophers, Annie, and the relevant academic literature, are saying: No, actually when you start to scrutinize the assumptions of that idea, the position doesn’t hold up very well. Actually our minds are inextricable from the world around us. Annie’s book is all about diving into why this is the case, and how it should change the way we interact with our surroundings.In preparation for this discussion, I revisited that original Clark and Chalmers paper from 1998. The point of the paper, as they see it, is an argument against semantic externalism. This is a philosophical position about whether the “meaning” of a word resides in our heads, or in the world. Philosophers like Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge advanced this externalist position, with the key soundbite being Putnam’s quote: “Cut the pie any way you like, meaning just ain’t in the head.” In particular, Putnam has this famous thought experiment, called Twin Earth, which him and his contemporaries use as an argument that internalism is false and externalism is true (meaning just ain’t in the head). Clark and Chalmers are kind of saying: Look, it’s not just meaning that isn’t in the head. It’s all of cognition. They call this position active externalism. There’s a quote from the paper I really love. This is Clark and Chalmers talking about the details of Twin Earth: “When I believe that water is wet and my twin believes that twin water is wet, the external features responsible for the difference in our beliefs are distal and historical, at the other end of a lengthy causal chain. Features of the present are not relevant: if I happen to be surrounded by XYZ right now (maybe I have teleported to Twin Earth), my beliefs still concern standard water, because of my history.” I have only a modest notion of what the hell they’re talking about. But I just love how the more sophisticated a philosophical argument is, the deeper it gets into the finer points of just how wet water on twin earth is, and if you were doused in it would it feel equivalently wet to substance XYZ, and how do you know whether it’s really you or twin-you who feels this wetness. At any rate, what Clark and Chalmers are saying is that our relationship to the people, objects, and tool in our external environment is not passive. We are actively thinking through the environment, as we much as are thinking through our own neurons. They give the example of Tetris and how you’re actually rotating the shapes on screen, then seeing if they fit—rather than thinking about how they might fit and then rotating accordingly.That’s a brief primer on the philosophical origins of this concept. In my conversation with Annie, we also talk about how our minds extend into our social surroundings, why writing is a form of memory, the important ideas about the extended mind that people tend to gloss over, how this concept should affect American education, and how this concept changes the way we think about other people. We also battle it out over whether a dual monitor computer set up actually works like a second brain. It was a fun conversation, and I hope you enjoy it.Annie’s Three Books:Andy Clark: Natural-Born CyborgsAlva Noë: Out of Our HeadsMark Epistein: The Zen of TherapyLike this episode? Here’s another one to check out:I’d love to know what you thought of this episode! Just reply to this email or send a note directly to my inbox. Feel free to tweet me @CodyKommers. You can also leave a rating for the show on iTunes (or another platform). This is super helpful, as high ratings are one of the biggest factors platforms look at in their recommender system algorithms. The better the ratings, the more they present the show to new potential listeners.Also: If you’d like to unsubscribe from these weekly podcast emails, you can do so while still remaining on the email list that features my weekly writing. Thanks for following my work! This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit codykommers.substack.com/subscribe

Falls euch cogitamus gefällt, lasst bitte ein Abo da und/oder empfehlt uns weiter. Ihr könnt gerne bei YouTube in den Kommentaren oder über cogitamus@posteo.de mit uns diskutieren. Für neue Gedanken sind wir immer offen. Ihr dürft uns gerne bei YouTube abonnieren: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2YdZ5ryFQ32Zd75m2AW5cw. Unterstützen könnt ihr uns ebenfalls: paypal.me/cogitamus oder cogitamus@posteo.de. Vorweg empfehlen wir die Folge #13.2, denn den kausalen Bezug, den Frege postuliert, benötigen wir für den Beweis von Putnam. Begonnen haben wir unsere erste Folge zur neuen Reihe Existenz & Sprache mit einem Film und enden mit der Diskussion über das Szenario aus einem Film. Können wir in einer Matrix leben? Wird unsere Realität nur simuliert? Philosophisch betrachtet werden diese Fragen im bekannten Gedankenexperiment Gehirne im Tank. Wie beantwortet Hilary Putnam diese Fragen, wie löst er den Zwiespalt? Inwieweit benötigt er die Theorien Freges, die wir in Folge #13.2 erläutern? Am Ende diskutieren wir den Erfolg von Putnams Beweis. Timemarker 00:00 Intro 01:52 Gehirne im Tank, Gedankenexperimente 04:48 Cartesischer Skeptizismus 08:32 Putnams Beweis 24:16 Diskussion 34:17 Abschlusszitat Literatur/Links/Quellen Merkmale von Gedankenexperimenten: Folien zum Seminar Argumentationstheorie, Uni Wien, Gerald Posselt. Hilary Putnam – Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte (1982) Eine einfache Erklärung der Lösung von Putnam für das GiT hat Olaf Müller im Humboldt-Spektrum 3, 2005 geschrieben: „Wirklichkeit ohne Illusionen oder der Abschied vom Skeptizismus“ (https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/14136/23MFSHItKKsQ.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) Erklärungen zu Putnam finden sich auch in: Holm Tetens – Philosophisches Argumentieren (S. 122ff.) Bild: https://www.gq-magazin.de/auto-technik/article/mit-einer-vr-gehirnschnittstelle-koennte-facebook-2029-zu-ready-player-one-werden

Quick take on feeling and accounting for meaning with language use and awareness.patreon.com/solomonstemple

The Antichrist (1888) is one of the last books Nietzsche wrote before losing his sanity the next year. It serves as the culmination of a decade or more of Nietzsche's thoughts on morality, Christianity, and the need for a revaluation of values. This project - of finding or defining a new set of values by which man could live - was something about which Nietzsche was deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, some sort of moral direction is required for ascending life. It is essential that the philosophers of the future find some means of pushing their way through the stage of relativism, or "active nihilism". But such a project would be to ignore the contingency of all our moral beliefs; worse yet, by outlining a new values-structure, Nietzsche will have to think and work systematically. But Nietzsche's thinking is by its nature anti-systematic. As a result, numerous contradictions come to the forefront in his philosophical outlook, not all of which are neatly resolved. However, what we find as key to understanding the work is the opposition we discussed in the previous episode: of Dionysus v/s The Crucified One. The opposition is between the Dionysian morality of which gives a rough sketch, based on life, overcoming and will to power, and the Christian morality which is defined negatively and as the decline of all of these things. He uses this opposition to illuminate the true nature of the Christian religion and to argue for the values that he finds to be badly needed by the modern man. In the course of this moral revaluation, Nietzsche gives a theory of decadence: how empires behave during their decline and collapse. His various considerations lead him to the conclusion that all of the most cherished productions of our society, our highest values, our human ideals, art, philosophy, music, education, and our whole morality - are products of decadence, and thus of weakness. He thus calls into question the value of abstract thinking, and indeed the value of our faculty for conscious thought. Hilary Putnam on Quine and Ontology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhHIVEN839s

Find the syllabus for this talk here: https://tinyurl.com/4bjua79p This talk was given on October 16, 2021 at the University of Maryland. For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org About the speaker: Michael Pakaluk received his Ph.D. in philosophy at Harvard University, where he studied philosophical logic with W.V. Quine, Burton Dreben, and Warren Goldfarb, philosophy of science with Hilary Putnam, and political philosophy with John Rawls. Rawls directed his dissertation, “Aristotle's Theory of Friendship,” and Sarah Broadie (then at Yale) also served on the thesis committee. Pakaluk counts as his main philosophical influences: Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Reid, and John Henry Newman. He encountered all four as a Marshall Scholar at the University of Edinburgh, where he wrote a thesis on Hume's Dialogues ("Hume's Naturalism and the Argument from Design"), became an expert in the main figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, and studied Aquinas and Newman under the guidance of the Dominican fathers there. Pakaluk's main work as a researcher has been in ancient philosophy, as he has authored many papers and three books concerned with Aristotelian ethics: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, books VIII and IX (Oxford); Aristotle's Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge); and (with Giles Pearson) Moral Psychology and Human Action in Aristotle (Oxford). His work is typified by the drawing of philosophical consequences from careful attention to philological considerations. His deeper concern is the recovery of a just appreciation of the classical outlook. Pakaluk has held appointments of Associate Professor at Clark University in Massachusetts--where he also served in a long and distinguished tenure as the Director of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy--and as full Professor at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and at Ave Maria University. He has been Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Brown University and at Santa Croce (Rome), Visiting Scholar in Classics at Cambridge University, and Visiting Scholar in Public Philosophy at the University of St. Andrews. His blog, Dissoi Bloggoi, currently inactive, has been influential in classical philosophy. His opinion pieces have appeared in First Things, Crisis, and the Boston Pilot. The account of his conversion and life with his late wife, Ruth, is found in the best-selling book, The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God, published by Ignatius Press. In 2011 he was appointed an Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Pakaluk's avocations include golf, tennis, hiking, the french horn, espresso drinks and single malt scotch. His skill in mixing cocktails has won him among friends the moniker, "Cardinal Martini." Works (songs) cited: Elgar, Edward. "The Dream of Gerontius, Op. 38: Part I Prelude." Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/track/3aH3DrgQzjHKEozU1yErcO?si=3dc65ac1bb9b4597. Elgar, Edward. "The Dream of Gerontius, Op. 38: Part II Praise to the Holiest." Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/track/0mx3If8Bcar7tM0THf74e3?si=6f5c4fdfeb1f4879. Poulenc, Francis. "Poulenc: Dialogues des Carmélites, FP159, Act 3 Tableau 4: "Salve Regina" (La Foule, Les Carmélites)." Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/track/1lTT4V5foT1Nvo6ebxgbzr?si=7f17cfa5c2424f36.

In this episode of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. Sanford Goldberg to discuss his work on Hilary Putnam's reply to the brain-in-a-vat skeptical scenario. We discuss the idea that meaning just ain't in the head, i.e. content or semantic externalism, and much more. This was a really fascinating one and I hope to have many more conversations with Dr. Goldberg as he has thoughts on so many things! If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $1, $3, or $5 a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ Time Is Running by MusicLFiles Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/6203-time-is-running License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parkers-pensees/support

Today's the day folks! Jack and Dan make their best effort to explain why the podcast has the title it does; what is an auxiliary statement? The boys dive deep into some philosophy of science and do there upmost to stay vaguely afloat as they wrestle with the ultimate question, what is scientific investigation and how is it done (and more importantly not done)? Theory is nothing without practice! Pretty rich coming from a theory podcast I hear you exclaim. Reading: The 'Corroboration' of Theories by Hilary Putnam.

The Matrix is actually quite a lot deeper than simulation theory and some cool fight scenes with black trench coats. The Wachowski sisters put a modern, techy spin on Plato's Allegory of the Cave, with ample helpings of Descartes, Hilary Putnam's "Vat in a Brain" and Robert Nozick's "Experience Machine." Andrew Young and Nick Sperdute join Heaton to discuss.

For as long as humans have erected walls around our cities, we’ve considered culture separate from the encircling wilderness. This difference came to be expressed in our “man vs. nature” narratives, beliefs in our dominion over the nonhuman world, and lately even the assertion that the Earth would be better off without us. Ecology research has strangely almost never included humans in the picture. And yet Homo sapiens is a phenomenon of nature, woven into food webs, demonstrating the same principles at work as any other creature on this planet. New research into trophic networks — who’s eating whom — has bridged ecology and archaeology to shed light on the many ways that human beings have participated as key members of ecosystems round the globe. The emerging portrait of our place in nature offers us the opportunity to tell new stories of the hairless ape and what we’re doing here — and just in time, perhaps, to help reshape our attitudes toward conservation and development, and what we dare to hope for in the years to come.This week’s guest is Jennifer Dunne, SFI’s Vice President for Science and Fellow at the Ecological Society of America. Dunne got her PhD in Energy and Resources from UC Berkeley, joined SFI’s faculty in 2007, and sits on the advisory board for Nautilus Magazine.  In the first half of a two-part conversation, we discuss her work on food and use webs and the ArchaeoEcology Project working group at SFI, where she and her collaborators are transforming how we think of human history.Visit our website for more information or to support our science and communication efforts.Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Jennifer Dunne’s Website.Quanta Magazine features Dunne on humans in food webs.The New York Times features Dunne’s collaborator, SFI Postdoc Stefani Crabtree and her work on the Martu people of Australia.Learn more about The ArchaeoEcology Project.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedIn

One in a series of talks from the 2019 Models of Consciousness conference. Aïda Elamrani Institut Jean Nicod, ENS The young field of consciousness science involves highly interdisciplinary research. For this reason, it is producing heterogeneous results which are hard to compare. This emerging discipline could benefit from a unifying, theory- neutral framework for analytical purposes. To this end, we must firstly identify a common ground between concurrent models. A brief scan through history reveals that consciousness has consistently revolved around the mind vs matter dichotomy. This binary split can be argued to span a sufficiently broad and flexible domain to semantically hold any contemporary scientific formulation of the consciousness problem, since most of them strive to provide a physical account of subjective experience. Accordingly, our reverse- engineered general frame is expected to map elements from mind-space to elements from matter-space, accepting a simple functional notation: Consciousness (INPUT) = OUTPUT. Although this equation might evoke Hilary Putnam’s functionalism, essential differences with the meta-model are emphasized by introducing its relation to Shannon’s information. Finally, alternative implementations and applications of this representation are used to illustrate and compare current accounts of consciousness. Filmed at the Models of Consciousness conference, University of Oxford, September 2019.

Andrea Lavazza joins host Katherine Bassil in discussion on the ethical implications of cerebral or brain organoids, a technology that has been developing with high speed ever since its conception. In the first part of this episode, Andrea elaborates on the thought experiment of the philosopher Hilary Putnam on "brains in a vat" and explains why brain organoids carry ethical implications, stressing on what is hope and what is hype. In the second part, we discuss in detail the implications of a recent study where brain function was restored after death. Finally, Andrea sheds light on the importance of focusing on current issues including privacy and commercialization. Are human brain organoids conscious? Will brain organoids aid in the redefinition of life and death? What does the public think of using brain organoids for research? What is the role of scientists, ethicists, journalists and the public in guiding developments in this field? Find out more details on episode 10 of the Neuroethics Police podcast! In this episode: What are mini-brains? -Madeline Lancaster Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment - Andrea Lavazza & Marcello Massimini Restoration of brain circulation and cellular functions hours post-mortem - Vrselja et al. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/neuroethicstoday/message

Eckehart Köhler (Vienna) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium (22 May, 2013) titled "Refutation of Putnam's Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy". Abstract: In 2002, Hilary Putnam shocked philosophers with the story that value terms have “thick” meanings, where facts and values are “entangled”. (“Crime” and “cruel” are especially “thick”.) This phenomenon is easy to explain, since many professionals treat norms factually, e.g. currently “valid” price quotations, whereas a document leaves the deontic modality ambiguous. Those same professionals certainly are able to distinguish the modalities of propositions they use in their professional work for themselves! (E.g., an active legislator can distinguish those bills which he wants passed from bad bills, etc., and similarly in all professions, at least where procedures for norming exist.) Putnam entirely ignores this. Putnam even ignores Decision Theory, where he has done work. This is crucial: standard Bayesian Decision Theory absolutely requires independence of facts and values, since probability and utility must be independent — if they were not, then no one could empirically predict behavior, nor could anyone recommend optimal policy to a client. Putnam got his collapse from Quine’s collapse of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, and (correctly!) concluded that if the latter fails, so does the former. But since probabili-ties are “orthogonal” to utilities (which we know from their measurement), “Hume’s Law” is valid; and so is the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. I discuss Morton White’s attempt to subsume analyticity under ethical value. Finally, I claim that (Dewey’s and Quine’s) Naturalism collapses once this (empirically real) sensorium for observing normative validity is acknowledged which is separate from sensory perception.

On this edition of Parallax Views, we probe the possible intersection between the ideology of Silicon Valley tech culture's obsession with strong AI, or General Artificial Intelligence, and the issues of racism and white supremacy with David Golumbia, author of The Cultural Logic of Computation, The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism, and the recent essay (and subject of this episode) "The Great White Robot God: Artificial General Intelligence and White Supremacy". We begin the conversation by discussing how David became interested in the topic of philosophy and ideology as it relates to tech culture. David explains how he was interested in the analytic philosophy of figures like Hilary Putnam, specifically the philosophy of language as it relates to mind, and its relation to the left intellectual tradition. In particular, David discusses the computational model of understanding the mind and why he has been critical of it. Additionally, David notes how he saw the early tech culture, or computer liberation, as engaging with right-wing ideology as opposed to left-wing intellectual traditions. During this portion of the conversation we delve into the philosophical differences between the left and right's intellectual traditions, and especially how they view freedom in extremely different ways. From there delve into what's been called the Silicon Ideology or the California Ideology, and in particular it's obsession with logic and rationality. During this portion of the conversation we delve into the elevation of rationality to a place of almost quasi-religious veneration by both elements of the tech community and the alt right as well as the denigration of emotion by both these elements. This leads us into the main topic of this episode, namely David's essay "The Great White Robot God: Artificial General Intelligence and White Supremacy". Sam Harris, the New Atheist leader that has become embroiled in the race/IQ discourse David explains how New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and, in particular, Sam Harris served to spur his interest in writing the Great White Robot God essay. David notes that figures like Harris and Dawkins have become entangled in Islamophobic rhetoric and the race/IQ discourse. We delve into how the ideology of New Atheists seem to coincide not only with a number of right-wing talking points but also the Silicon Valley tech culture. David navigates us through the ways in which Artificial General Intelligence, or strong AI (see The Terminator or The Matrix movies for pop culture imaginings of the topic), seems to coalesce with the race/IQ discourse. During this portion of the conversation we discuss how the popular conception of AI is, in David's words, philosophically incoherent, why David views ideas like Ray Kurzweil's Singularity as crankery, and delve into the ideas of Eliezer Yudkowsky and his Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). Although Yudkowsky steadfastly distances himself from the alt right, David argues that Yudkowsky's thinking, along with much of the Silicon Valley tech community as a whole, dovetails with the alt right. David Golumbia SUPPORT PARALLAX VIEWS ON PATREON!

Imagine a beginner's luck without a point of reference, without any obvious design  and you'll have a better picture of intuition and the role it plays in ego and illusion. So there is no luck. There is no accident. Some thinkers are just so in touch with the universe they need not appeal to another authority because they ARE the authority.  In this episode we Dawdlers try to critique how intuition is used in philosophy. Fair warning however. Harland gets pretty chimpy and Ryan enjoys Harland's chimpy-ness perhaps a little too much. Doesn't matter if you lean in or lean back. Either way, your armchair is being sold on Craigslist tomorrow.  -The Dawdlers  00:02:20 - The Armchair Activities, Intuition, Herman Cappelen's Philosophy Without Intuitions & Centrality: What is 'Intuition', How central to philosophy, Is that 'good'/'bad'? 00:22:30 - Cappelen's Questions to the Centralists, Epistemic Hedging, Trophy Problems, Common Ground 00:31:18 - 'Intuitive Plausibility' vs. Conditionals vs. Proofs, Intellectual Egos 00:41:00 - Argumentation Norms and Intellectual Progress, Chimp Warning, Hilary Putnam's Reason, Truth, and History 00:45:30 - Putnam's Intuitionalistic Methodology: Artistic Ants, Twin Earth Dendrology, & Brains in Vats 00:53:50 - Intuition Pumps, Similarity, Representation, & Reference, Sleight of Mind 01:10:10 - Monkeys on Typewriters & Intrinsic Meaning, Causal Theory of Reference, Alternative Intuitive Teleologies 01:22:45 - Putnam Butchers Turing 01:32:12 - Throwing Putnam at Cappelen, An Argument for Centrality 01:43:50 - Ryan puts Harland on the spot to make a bunch of irresponsible snap judgments

O que nós somos, realmente? Reason, Truth and History, de Hilary Putnam: https://amzn.to/2Dl9Fhv Meditações Metafísicas, de Descartes: https://amzn.to/2xFvNx0 Nintendo e filosofia: Mega Man e os limites da racionalidade técnica: https://www.nintendoblast.com.br/2018/09/nintendo-filosofia-mega-man.html

Elena and Ian take a look at why science works, before getting embroiled in a boxing/wrestling match between realists and instrumentalists. Typical.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)is considered to be one of the most influential minds of the 20th Century – making significant contributions to the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science, among others. Putnam received his undergraduate degree from Penn in 1948 and received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the University in 1985. Putnam was the Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as faculty in the Department of Philosophy starting in 1965. In this special OMNIA podcast, we speak with professors Gary Hatfield, Scott Weinstein, and Daniel Singer of Philosophy about Putnam's legacy in their field and his unique connection with Penn as scholar and alumnus. Produced by the School of Arts & Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Recorded, edited, and narrated by Alex Schein 
Music by Blue Dot Sessions Visit OMNIA online at: http://omnia.sas.upenn.edu

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)is considered to be one of the most influential minds of the 20th Century – making significant contributions to the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science, among others. Putnam received his undergraduate degree from Penn in 1948 and received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the University in 1985. Putnam was the Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as faculty in the Department of Philosophy starting in 1965. In this special OMNIA podcast, we speak with professors Gary Hatfield, Scott Weinstein, and Daniel Singer of Philosophy about Putnam’s legacy in their field and his unique connection with Penn as scholar and alumnus. Produced by the School of Arts & Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Recorded, edited, and narrated by Alex Schein 
Music by Blue Dot Sessions Visit OMNIA online at: http://omnia.sas.upenn.edu

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)is considered to be one of the most influential minds of the 20th Century – making significant contributions to the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science, among others. Putnam received his undergraduate degree from Penn in 1948 and received an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the University in 1985. Putnam was the Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as faculty in the Department of Philosophy starting in 1965. In this special OMNIA podcast, we speak with professors Gary Hatfield, Scott Weinstein, and Daniel Singer of Philosophy about Putnam’s legacy in their field and his unique connection with Penn as scholar and alumnus. Produced by the School of Arts & Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Recorded, edited, and narrated by Alex Schein 
Music by Blue Dot Sessions Visit OMNIA online at: http://omnia.sas.upenn.edu

The Problem of the External World.  How can you know that the physical world you perceive around you is real and not an illusion, a dream, or a holodeck simulation? In this episode of Meta Treks, hosts Mike Morrison and Zachary Fruhling debate the philosophical problem of the external world through the lens of Star Trek. Mike and Zachary discuss whether it is possible for characters in Star Trek to know for sure that they are not stuck in a holodeck, in a telepathic projection, or in an illusion created by a member of the Q Continuum.  Mike and Zachary consider several possible responses to the the problem of the external world from the history of philosophy, including Rene Descartes's response to his own radical Cartesian skepticism, Hilary Putnam's linguistic response to the "Brain in a Vat" argument, the pragmatic response of rejecting the problem outright, and George Berkeley's theory of idealism as a middle ground between skepticism and empirical knowledge of the external world. Finally, Mike and Zachary re-imagine these classic philosophical arguments in Star Trek terms, including what Descartes's Meditations might have been like if written by the soft glow of the holodeck grid instead of by candlelight, considering Q as the omnipotent "evil genius" in Descartes's "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore, I am") argument, and re-framing Berkeley's argument for idealism to rely on all-perceiving beings from Star Trek, such as the Q or the Bajoran prophets.  Chapters Welcome to Episode 10 (00:01:20) Introduction to the Problem of the External World (00:02:58) Examples of the Problem in Star Trek (00:12:42) Cartesian Skepticism (00:27:45) Hilary Putnam on "Brain in a Vat" (00:48:22) George Berkeley and Idealism (00:50:56) The Q Continuum and Skepticism (00:53:46) Final Thoughts (01:05:59) Hosts Mike Morrison and Zachary Fruhling   Production Dennis Castello (Editor and Producer) Norman C. Lao (Executive Producer) C Bryan Jones (Executive Producer) Matthew Rushing (Executive Producer) Charlynn Schmiedt (Executive Producer) Will Nguyen (Content Manager) Richard Marquez (Production Manager) Send us your feedback! Twitter: @trekfm  Facebook: http://facebook.com/trekfm  Voicemail: http://www.speakpipe.com/trekfm  Contact Form: http://www.trek.fm/contact  Visit the Trek.fm website at http://www.trek.fm/ Subscribe in iTunes: http://itunes.com/trekfm Support the Network! Become a Trek.fm Patron on Patreon and help us keep Star Trek talk coming every week. We have great perks for you at http://patreon.com/trekfm

On "The Meaning of Meaning" (1975). If meaning is not a matter of having a description in your head, then what is it? Hilary Putnam reformulates Kripke's insight (from #126) in terms of Twin Earths: Earthers with H20 and Twin Earthers with a substance that seems like water but is different have the same mental contents but are referring to different stuff with "water," so that word is speaker-relative in a certain way. With guest Matt Teichman.  End song: "In the Boatyard" by Mark Lint & the Madison Lint Ensemble (2004, finished now).

Tim Button is a University Lecturer, and a Fellow of St John’s College, at the University of Cambridge. He has published articles in metaphysics, logic and philosophy of mathematics. His first book, "The Limits of Realism" (OUP, 2013), deals with the relationship between semantics and scepticism. It critically explores explores and develops several themes from Hilary Putnam’s work on realism and antirealism, notably: the model-theoretic arguments; the connection between truth and justification; the brain-in-vat argument; semantic externalism; and conceptual relativity. This podcast is an audio recording of Dr. Button's talk - 'The Weight of Truth' - at the Aristotelian Society on 12 May 2014. The recording was produced by Backdoor Broadcasting Company in conjunction with the Institute of Philosophy, University of London.

TAMAR GENDLER is professor of philosophy at Yale University and chair of the university’s philosophy department. From 2006 to 2010, she served as chair of Yale’s cognitive science program. During the 2009- 2010 year, Gendler was a full-time student at Yale University, supported by a Mellon New Directions Fellowship, and took courses in neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry. Gendler has been on the faculty at Yale since 2006. From 2003-2006, she was associate professor of philosophy at Cornell University and co-director of Cornell’s program in cognitive studies. From 1997-2003, she taught philosophy at Syracuse University as an assistant and then associate professor. Gendler received her Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1996 for work conducted under the tutelage of Robert Nozick, Derek Parfit, and Hilary Putnam. She received her BA in humanities and mathematics-and-philosophy from Yale University in 1987. Between her undergraduate and graduate studies, she did education policy work for the RAND Corporation. Gendler’s professional philosophical writings focus primarily on issues in philosophical psychology, epistemology, metaphysics and aesthetics. Recently, she has given a number of public lectures on the topic of human flourishing. Most of her current professional work is on a cluster of issues surrounding the relations between explicit and implicit attitudes. She is interested in bringing together insights from traditional philosophical work on parts of the soul with contemporary work in social, cognitive, and clinical psychology. Gendler’s other current interests include general questions about philosophical methodology, and a number of specific issues that arise from thinking about the relation between imagination and belief. Her earlier philosophical work addressed various topics in metaphysics and epistemology, including conceivability and possibility, perceptual experience, personal identity, and the methodology of thought experiments. Her research and teaching are informed both by the tools of traditional analytic philosophy, and by recent empirical work in developmental, cognitive and social psychology. This event was originally presented on June 17, 2012 at the Yale University Art Gallery as part of the International Festival of Arts & Ideas.

new realism: Hilary Putnam