John Searle - What Things Really Exist?

When you ask what things really exist, and you think deeply about this probe to apprehend what is out there, you see the whole world anew. What are the most general categories to understand the world?

[pontifrancesco]

Listen to Searle before going to sleep is so reassuring...no problems, no difficulties...

[reason]

Finally! Someone who refuses to delude himself! How refreshing!

[Human_Evolution-]

One of my favorite clips ever. I have one gripe but it seems to be a strong stance that Searle takes and I agree for the most part.

[caricue]

P.K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." I think that sums up nicely what Mr Searle is saying, and while it's hard to accept that we live in a dirty and uninspired universe of gas and dust, it seems undeniable.

[tropicsalt.]

I like this guy. Finally someone who doesn't make stuff up to suit his argument.

[mrkakotube]

very simplistic view of John here.. there are a lot of pure mathematics that have nothing to do with earthly matters

[rafakukua]

I don't think he's logic is simple. We, as humans use our intuitive logic to describe things. He has presented just that in a very informative way :)

[fearitselfpinball]

I love Serle. If there were two horses and the number 2–‘twoness’—that would be 3 items altogether… but wait—now it’s the 3 items plus the threeness. Make that 4… uh oh. The green fields are filling up under the summer sun. Horses happily oblivious to the problematic infinitude of a platonic world crowding in…

Every time I hear Serle—I mean, some people have their reputation for a reason. They don’t carry it around like a shield in front of them—it jogs to keep up.

[cubefox]

1:30 So "There are two horses" 👉 "This set of horses has the property of twoness"

This is very interesting. This would mean that numbers are _not_ really objects but properties, similar to the property of being a horse. Maybe this deflationary strategy could be extended to all other mathematical "objects". Then we don't need to postulate the existence of mathematical objects but only need to say the physical objects have mathematical properties. Which seem much less problematic. Of course, this would probably also require that sets are not really objects but also properties, or rather relations between objects.

A question arises how we should then make sense of statements about properties of mathematical "objects". E.g. "The number 2 is even". Does this mean "All sets with the property of twoness have the property of being even"? Plausible. But what about "There are infinitely many numbers"? Maybe this requires second order quantification over predicates, or something like that...

[Aerex]

The thing that bothers me that we understand the world through our own senses and we have determined that our senses are not always reliable. Therefore, how can we postulate that the world that we *see* actually exist if it is just what our brains construct.

[infonomics]

I think Searle overlooks sensory transduction; that is, the transformation from the outside analog world to the electrical brain. Moreover, the outside analog is only a representation, not the thing in itself.

[piotrkupka]

He brings it down to language but the language is a way of communicating thoughts - another non-special 'thing' without mass...
And a letter is a representation, the same as a number. In a purely materialistic world the things stand just by themself. If there is a symbol standing for something else it's no more only mater. The information - another problem of the same kind. Here is a word purely physical: crdhjretyugttr5thui7. Does it make sense? Meaning, another non-special and massless 'object'.
The phisycists think the world popped into existence from nothing because the physical lows allow it. If the physical lows are just a linguistic misunderstanding what allowed the matter to appear in the first place?

[abhishekshah]

When Robert argues that even if there was nothing the concept of numbers would still exist is a fallacy on his part because nothingness implies no property. It also extinguishes the language of numbers and that is why, nothingness in the most absolute form won't even contain numbers. If you say nothing has numbers in it what you're basically saying that there is some consciousness that knows what numbers are and keeps it attached to nothingness. Nothingness should be treated like a black slippery box devoid of everything we can talk about and that includes logic.

[konnektlive]

The problem is that it does not matter how hard one tries to neglect or ignore the actual problem which is the problem of consciousness, it stays there forever and ever ('till perhaps the very approach to the scientific method shifts to a more advanced, open minded and broader scope, one day...).

Seriously, what do we define the matter in the first place that John with such an incredible amount of confidence thinks this is the 'only' world? What do we even define 'world' in the first place? Is not world, matter what do we interpret through our sensory experiences? Is not matter fundamentally and ultimately full of literally 'seemingly' nothingness and energy? Is it enough or does it satisfy him simply believing (because it is really a matter of believing here) that the so-called physical world consist of matter? But then what is matter and physics fundamentally? I sometimes wonder when people claim to be materialist, because as a scientist and teaching philosopher I don't know a single person who can define matter to me in a satisfactory manner... Now my opinion is that, consciousness is fundamental and all the rest including the human sensory experiences and all the anthropomorphic constructs (such as mathematics and the concept of linear time for instance) are all ultimately mental constructs. I think I'm more satisfied and inspired to be in a same boat as D. Chalmers, Donald Hoffman, Robert Lanza and Sir Robert Penrose....

[StarTrekNotStarWars]

Definitely a far more grounded perspective than WLC on the subject.

[juanmilano]

Math and logic are in the brain. They dont have Ontological Existence.

[yifuxero]

Searle is badly confused. Per the ancient philosophies of Aristotle, the Stoics, Plotinus, the Tao of Lao Zi, etc, the universe is indeed "One" but it's not a materialist universe. It's Substance (term used by Spinoza) is Pure Consciousness, the Brahman of Shankara's 788-820, Advaita Vedanta. The entire universe and everything in it is Consciousness, and this can be directly experienced when one tapes into IT in the state of Samadhi/Satori. The Buddhists and Hindus have devised methods of merging with Consciousness. The result is Enlightenment.

[stormhawk]

He's essentially dodging the question. It's not something he can, or wants to, deal with, so he's dodging it.

[darkknightsds]

The funniest thing in the world is people who say just to believe "the things you can see..." when we have such a limited vantage point. Termites can't perceive that humans exist, but that doesn't mean we don't. Just a silly, silly way of looking at things.

[pontifrancesco]

Neverd heard Searle saying something intellectualy satisfying