I hope every one of the philosophy videos from that youtube user gets sifted.

Wait, so this isn't a Monty Python skit?!

Moving this video to HadouKen24's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'husserl, heidegger' to 'husserl, heidegger, existentialism, nihilism, philosopher, interview' - edited by mauz15

I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.

Thanks, GeeSuss. Dreyfus has done some wonderful work, including his 1979 book, "What Computers Can't Do". I'm curious to read his most recent book (2011), "All Things Shining."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Thanks, GeeSuss. Dreyfus has done some wonderful work, including his 1979 book, "What Computers Can't Do" (and the 1992 follow-up, "What Computers Still Can't Do"). I'm curious to read his most recent book (2011), "All Things Shining."
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.



Indeed, he is a close proxy of one of my more favorite recent philosophers of science, Hillary Putnam. I haven't read that book either, sounds awesome. I used to be an AI is possible guy, but had the "syntax from semantics" impossibility problem that others have had as well. Seems hard to get anything other than rules when you start with rules. The more I think I know about mind, consciousness, human experience, and knowledge in general, the less I know that I know.

Agreed.. Or the more I know about consciousness, the more I know that I don't know! Moreover, the box of the wetware just seems insufficient to contain the entirety of consciousness as a mere epiphenomenon of chemical or biological occurrence. Merleau-Ponty's book, "Study of Beahavior" is simply the best jumping off point for all phenomenological study of psychology.

And.. while there are semantic engines being developed for AI, it seems highly dubious to me that computers will ever fully recognize/appreciate the duplicitous meaning of puns and irony, which, it seems to me, requires a human understanding.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Thanks, GeeSuss. Dreyfus has done some wonderful work, including his 1979 book, "What Computers Can't Do" (and the 1992 follow-up, "What Computers Still Can't Do"). I'm curious to read his most recent book (2011), "All Things Shining."
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I find this to be a good sister link is the phenomenology direction.


Indeed, he is a close proxy of one of my more favorite recent philosophers of science, Hillary Putnam. I haven't read that book either, sounds awesome. I used to be an AI is possible guy, but had the "syntax from semantics" impossibility problem that others have had as well. Seems hard to get anything other than rules when you start with rules. The more I think I know about mind, consciousness, human experience, and knowledge in general, the less I know that I know.

@Trancecoach Ya, even if it can "recognize" a pun, I doubt a computer will ever really "understand" something, beyond just a description. In other words, a computer "mind" might be able to recognize every single event a human could, but it wouldn't ever be experiencing any of them...if that makes any sense.