George Lakoff - How Does Philosophy Illuminate the Physical World?

We think we understand the physical world but we do not. For example, some features of the world are derived from others, which makes the latter more fundamental and the former less so. Some scientists believe that only science can tell us how things work. Philosophers do not agree. Do philosophers see things that scientists cannot?



George P. Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[empireravenshadow]

Thank you for for all your hard work in bringing all your incredible material for those who cannot afford a formal education in these realms of intelligence.

[papskhan]

Thank you so much for making it easy to us to listen to such big minds...

[cliffp.]

A fascinating explanation of mind using science and philosophy.

[soubhikmukherjee]

These discussions are fascinating. I want CTT to hit 1M subscribers.

[owencampbell]

Thankyou, finally a constructive fundament to work on.
Our world is real, no matter how it exist, everything else is rather unreal, what we create as movies and imaginations, illusions or spirituality, that is what is being taught and distracts from reality and common-sense to a wrong view and understanding of our natural born abilities.
This is my mind of body-mind functionality with all the complexity of the constructed variables needed to reflect and understand functions in a right way.

[mickeybrumfield]

A refresher course in knowing the extent of our ignorance.

[DeusExAstra]

Finally someone on this series talking about philosophy in a way that actually sees it for what it is and is making sense. What I hate about philosophers is that they seem to think that philosophy is good at answering questions about the world. It's not. It's good at asking questions, not at answering them. In order to answer questions about the world, you need to look at the world and use evidence. And, if you're doing that... you're a scientists, not a philosopher. Every time philosophers come up with ideas about how the world works (like some of his examples), they inevitably end up being wrong.

[Bill..N]

Very impressive..I had to listen twice and learned many things..Putting George's conclusion aside, everything he said had the ring of truth to it..The color perception example leaves questions.. It's obviously to our advantage to recognize the differences in wavelengths of reflected light, and these wavelength differentials are ACTUALLY there..A perception of "Color" changes seems obvious given that the information arrives on photons..How does this supports the assertion that we may not be accurately perceiving the TRUE nature of our invionment.. Why shouldn't our senses have evolved to ever more accurately do just that..? We are merely decoders of the very PHYSICAL information carried by particles and waves.. Those animals who decode this information more accurately, are favored for survival.. Am I missing something? It wouldn't be the first time.. Thanks.

[lateesjp]

His analysis still seems pretty surface to me.

[danielpaulson]

I believe this is where researches such as Donald Hoffman and Tom Campbell should be. I love the metaphor description from George here a whole lot better than conscious agents, the planets as icons and people as avatars. Donald and Tom sound like gamers that got too connected to their digital ideas. As a desktop icon or flesh suit for a program? Meh. I don't connect with that description very well. This guy sounds right to me. I can manage metaphor.

[mohamadrezafazel]

Thanks for making these great videos. Can you have a discussion with Charles Taylor, the Canadian philosopher, please?

[yarongolany]

A basic paradox lies in the philosophy of Lakoff: if, as he argues, we cannot think in purely rational terms, but rather we all can only think 'as the brain allows us' according to fixed patterns that cannot be deviated from, then how does Lakoff himself think so rationally and free from all the limitations he lectures about? Is he superhuman?

[peschanyj]

Let's take one step further in this direction: like "greenness" isn't "there", instead it emerges from relation between the mind and the world, mind and world aren't there in itself because they are also emergent from the same relation. But we cannot describe a concept in the means of itself. So what is the world and what is the mind in this theory? It bugs me really that I cannot wrap my mind around it.

[T_WTX]

I like the relational view: mental models don't represent 'the world', but the modeler's RELATION(s) to the world and his RELATION(s) to others within his culture. For example, if you're 'allowed' to build new scientific models, scientific culture expects you to learn the currently fashionable models and maybe a bit of the history of models over the past generations, which then in turn need to be built into the new models you build. So mental models also represent biographical, social and cultural history (as they are not built from scratch, but using 'older' models as building blocks, stepping stones or negative examples). The modeler's body, his biography, his surrounding culture and its history all function as restrictions on the models he builds (which can still be creative and new, to some degree, nevertheless!).

[chasemanhattan]

For the lover, a beautiful woman is an object of desire;
for the hermit, a distraction; for the wolf, a good meal

[lateesjp]

We still don't understand how the primary intention for thought itself is generated.

[lateesjp]

We still have a long way to go, and many revelations yet to come.

[DubaiGuy]

How well do the metaphors make sense, as our understanding of the world around us and our understanding of ourselves evolve?

[KestyJoe]

As with many of these Closer to Truth videos, the discussion is enlightening, but the title of the video doesn’t represent the content. So while I find Lakoff’s views compelling and relevant to the “philosophy of philosophy” if you will, I’m still left with the question “How does philosophy illuminate the Physical world?” This is a question I’m interested in, because I think there’s a real possibility that the answer is “it doesn’t.”

[FAAMS]

...here is some smart talk on embodied cognition and Hyper Realism instead of senseless macumba Idealism for a change. The interview is clear enough to let you grasp the topic at hand but falls short when it comes to predicate the re-examination of Human mind with Human mind itself at centre stage which obviously can't be done. On that regard the interview was a failure and a contradiction in terms! It will be XIX Century Positivist Science who will fall short of delivering ultimate understanding, or a Theory of Everything, not Philosophy. Philosophy never claimed direct access to a ultimate domain of knowledge (although in Western tradition it can be said that in many occasions it hoped for one)...Philosophy was from the very start well aware that mind and world meld together when it comes to analysis of Reality... the new paradigm in Philosophy doesn't deny a Reality is there but embraces embodied cognitive species specific perspectivism, and for that matter the best we got to abstract away is Mathematics even if embodied in our specific cognitive biases and metaphors it has proven so far to be a powerful tool, although one with limits! Nothing that Bertrand Russel didn't knew already...