YouTube Transcript:
Graham PRIEST: Fictional objects, fictional subjects

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

so let me tell you what I want to talk

about let's suppose you read a a work of

fiction then in some undeniable sense

that there's a relationship between the

self that reads the fiction and the

objects of the fiction okay this is not

a high-powered theoretical cave this is

just a sort of common sense claim so

there's a relationship between the

subject and the objects of the fiction

okay now the most obvious thing about

the objects of the fiction is that at

least it would seem some of them don't

exist so Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist

in Puccini's opera butterfly does not

exist so at least prima facie many

objects of fiction do not exist yet many

people especially in the 20th century

many Anglo philosophers mid 20th century

I thought this year is crazy to say that

something doesn't exist we'll come to

why in a minute so the object pole is

problematic what about the subject pole

well whatever you say about the object

pole and you the subject seem to exist

but that's not been everybody's view so

for example a number of well most

Buddhist philosophers think that the

self does not exist so okay if some of

the objects of fiction don't exist

maybe the self that appreciates the

fiction doesn't exist either and we'll

look at that question too so what this

talk is about is a relationship between

the objects of fiction and the self that

appreciates the fiction so the talk has

two parts first of all I'll talk about

fictional objects and secondly I'll talk

about fictional subjects and then those

who read me long sections but the last

section is fairly short we'll put those

two things together and I'll spell out

the bottom line of the talk okay so

that's where we're going so first of all

fictional objects now let me start by

getting one thing straight straight away

some names which occur in works of

fiction if they refer to anything refer

to non-existent objects at least it

would appear so

so Holmes in the Conan Doyle novels

butterfly or cha-cha sang in the Puccini

Opera but many names that occur in

fiction in works of fiction do refer to

things that actually exist so for

example Holmes lives in Baker Street

butterfly live in Nagasaki and Baker

Street and Nagasaki are real places you

may have been to them okay so some names

that occur in a work of fiction actually

refer to real things things that do

exist now some people have doubted this

they think that when a name like Baker

Street occurs in conan doyle's fictions

the name refers not to the real Baker

Street but to some zetz some

doppelganger of Baker Street now this

this is not right look here's an

argument that's often given for why

Conan Doyle's Baker Street

can't be the real Baker Street because

um Sherlock Holmes lived in Baker Street

and no Sherlock Holmes lived in Baker Street

Street

now that's certainly true there was

never a short Holmes in Baker Street but

if shark Holmes really lived in Baker

Street then it seems that we have a

contradiction here

so if that's right then these can't be

about the same Baker Street they must be

about different Baker streets okay now

this is an argument that's often used

and it's wrong okay

the it's wrong because um Sherlock

Holmes lived in Baker Street is not true

okay what is true is in Doyle stories

Sherlock Holmes lived in Baker Street it

must be like that because otherwise you

could not say there is a place in London

such that in Doyle stories Holmes lived

there but no such detective actually

lives in it okay same there same it in

both places the fact that you can say

this and say this truly shows you that

the Baker Street in both of these things

is one in the same and it's also

important that these claims we make

about Sherlock Holmes are not literally

true what is literally true is what you

get when you prefix the sentence with

this operator embroil stories or in

Madame Butterfly or generally in a work

because remember when the Doyle wrote

the Holmes novels or Petrini

wrote Madame Butterfly he wasn't using

the world with a different meaning he

was using a word with exactly the same

meaning that you or I use he didn't

change the meaning so he didn't change

the reference either so Puccini is

talking about the same Nagasaki that was

incinerated by the Americans in 1945

he's just saying things about it with it

which are not literally true but they're

true in his opera okay why

well look there's a story called sylvans

blocks it's about an old friend of mine

Richard silver who died some 20 years

ago now one of the great Australian

philosophers it's a story many of the

things in the story out actually true

for example that Sylvan lived at a

farmhouse outside Canberra but it's a

story things happen in the story which

are not true in fact some of them are

not possible but the story is about

Richard Sylvan how do I know well

because I wrote the story and I was

referring to Richard okay so when names

like Richard Sylvan occur in a work of

fiction they can refer to the actual

person Richard silver if

you have any further doubts just think

of this if names like Baker Street and

Nagasaki changed their referent then you

better hold it that thing's worse than

other words change the reference to in

is happy okay this is crazy if those

words change their meaning

then you wouldn't understand the story okay

okay

so words do not change their meaning

April - you're right they do not change

their denotation in words in works of fiction

fiction

so in works of fiction some names refer

to actual objects and some names don't okay

okay

so here's a piece of terminology if a

name occurs in a work of fiction I'll

call it a fictional name and if a

fictional Lane doesn't refer to an

existing object I'll call it purely fictional

so what we're concerned with is the

we want to investigate how they behave

well look a purely fictional name either

refers or it doesn't and if it refers it

refers to something that either exists

or doesn't so we have three

possibilities the first is that it

doesn't refer the second is that it

refers to something existent the third

is that it refers to something

non-existent now I'm going to consider

those three possibilities and spoiler

alert I'm going to argue for the last of

these that the name refers to things

which don't exist okay so let's consider

the first possibility namely that names

and fiction purely fictional names do

think that's right you have a real

problem because we make lots of true

claims which use names which are purely

fictional so um this might be the first

example that occurs two homes lived in

Baker Street that's not true I've

explained that so I'm not talking about

this homes doesn't exist I'm not talking

about that either because there's a way

you can do your logic it's called free

logic in such a way that if this name

does not denote then our homes exist is

false so it's negation is true so these

are some bodies called negative

existential you can hunt on negative x

essentials without assuming that the

name refers okay so I'm not talking

about these what am I talking about well

things like in Doyle stories Holmes

lived in Baker Street that's true in

Greek myths Zeus

how do you account for the truth of

these things if these names do not refer

to anything okay so there's a well-known

problem here about how you understand

truth in fiction so you can understand

by that things like this perhaps the

most popular account is David Lewis's

who said that what makes it the case

that in Doyle stories Holmes lived in

Baker Street well that's true because in

those worlds which realize the Doyle

stories it's true that Holmes lived in

Baker Street and Holmes actually refers

to an object that exists in those worlds

doesn't exist in this world

but exists in those worlds but think

about it if that's your line then the

name Holmes refers to a non-existent

object it exists in other worlds it

doesn't exist in this world so this is

not a case of the name not referring

okay well okay there's a lot to be said

that's not the only example because we

make lots of true statements about using

purely fictional names which don't use

this operator in Doyle stories agree

with objects and so here's a bunch

Holmes is a purely fictional detective

Holmes were smarter than the Inspector Clouseau

Clouseau

Inspector Clouseau is is per the idiot

of a policeman that occurs in the Pink

Panther films these are very old now but

okay they're quite funny um okay so

Holmes is really smart Inspector

Clouseau an idiot okay all right so

Holmes is smarter than expected closer

and the Homeric Greeks worships use okay

so all of these things are true now I

mean how do you normally account for the

truth of a subject predicate sentence or

an atomic census well a subject

predicate sentence is true just if the

subject the grammatical subject refers

to an object the predicate refers to a

property and the object actually has

that property okay if you think that

these are true and if you think that the

names Holmes and Zeus don't refer to

anything you cannot do this

okay so these cannot mean what they say

literally okay now everything I'm

talking about has a big literature and

what many philosophers will try to do at

this point is say well you know you've

got a paraphrase these away they don't

really mean what they say they mean

something else so there might be a bunch

of ways in which you can try to

paraphrase these claims I'm not going to

consider any examples because there

isn't any time let me just put it like

this resorting to paraphrase is always a

strategy that you have to Lou to use

so sometimes you have to but it's better

not to if you don't have to okay so

that's all I'm going to say about the

first case namely that purely fictional

names do not refer so let's move to the

second possibility this is the

possibility that purely fictional names

do refer but they refer to something

existent okay which sounds a bit strange

but some people have suggested this like

Saul Kripke Amy Thomason okay so if

purely fictional names refer to

something that exists what what sorts of

things they refer to well there are two

plausible candidates one is mental

representations and one is abstract

objects so in the Locke lectures for

example so quickly suggest that purely

fictional names wrote may refer to

abstract objects they're abstract

objects that we've brought into

existence by it and a writer or an

author but they're abstract objects the

other possibility which is perhaps the

first one that would occur to you is

that purely fictional names refer to

mental representations now I'm ending

answer about one of these because you'll

see that there are real problems I'm not

going to talk about the other because

exactly the same problems arise so once

you've seen the problems with this guy

then you can extrapolate and you can

figure out what the problems for the

other account is so let's consider the

possibility that purely non-existent

names refer to mental representations

okay now there's an obvious problem with

this straight away so suppose that the

name Holmes proposed to a mental

representation okay

Holmes is smarter than any actual

detective let's suppose that's true

okay that's a category mistake mental

representations are not the kinds of

things that can be smarter okay people

are smarter than other people so there's

immediately a problem with this because

you've got a bunch of category mistakes

in the true things that we say okay next problem

problem

ah no one really thinks that Sherlock

Holmes exists okay if you do you have

mistaken a work of fiction for a work

effect so um if Holmes refers to an

existent metal representation Holmes

does exist okay so when you say sherlock

holmes doesn't exist you cannot mean it

doesn't exist you've got to mean

something else

well maybe exists outside the mind so

when I say Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist

because I'm referring to a metal

representation what I'm referring to one

what I mean is that Sherlock Holmes

doesn't exist outside the mind Sherlock

Holmes exists merely in my mind okay but

that doesn't seem to work either

look plato existed but as use does not

that's true so this is a contrast and

what it is that I'm saying of Plato I'm

denying as use so in a bit of logical

notation there's some property such that

Plato hasn't has it and youth doesn't so

when I say that this youth doesn't exist

I mean doesn't exist in the same way

that Plato did exist I don't mean didn't

exist outside the mind um okay

one more argument let's suppose I write

a work of fiction and in it I tell a

I then wonder whether that mental state

actually exists so let's call this the

mental state s okay so I wonder where

that s exists and then I do my research

into the psychological literature and I

find that there's no such thing as yes s

so the word s refers to what mental

representation and I've just discovered

that the mental reputation that mental

representation doesn't exist I doesn't

exist outside the mind but I never

thought it did okay I will talk about a

mental state I never thought that it

existed outside the mind okay so this is

crazy okay so those are objections to

the assumption that purely fictional

names refer to mental representation

once you've seen the arguments you can

sort of Twigg them to get exactly the

same arguments against the view that

purely fictional names refer to abstract

objects so I won't go through that um so

here's another piece of terminology I'm

going to call an object fictional if it

occurs in a work of fiction so before we

talk about names right now I'm talking

about objects so an object it's

fictional if it occurs in a work of

fiction and a fictional object is purely

fictional if it doesn't exist so I told

you there were three possibilities

either purely fictional names do not

refer or they refer to things that exist

or they refer to things that don't exist

so I'm going to consider now that third

possibility and I'm going to call an

object purely fictional if it's causing

the work of fiction and it doesn't exist

now what we've seen is that the first

two possibilities namely that a purely

fictional name doesn't refer or it

refers to something existent are fraught

with problems okay so why would you buy

into those if you can do something much

more sensible and the sensible thing is

to suppose that these names refer they

just refer to non-existent things

then you can say everything you want to

about them you can say for example that

homes are let's say Zeus lived on Mount

Olympus in the Greek myths because Zeus

refers to a particular non-existent

object and in the myths well that's

say that Jesus does not exist it

existence is a perfectly ordinary

property and youth does not have it all

right so you can do just the

philosophy of language in the 20th

century maybe not to other people

however um the story involves this guy

William Van Orman Quine

and Klein published a paper in 1948 on

what there is and he trashed the idea of

non existent objects okay he the paper

is full of rhetoric rather than arguing

but he argued that it was crazy to

suppose there are non existent objects

and I think that view is starting to

so so you know why did Quine save us

well if you read the paper wines and

main argument is an argument by

exclusion so he says well look how do

you express existence

you can't existence you can't use it

with names because you can get rid of

those with Russell's fear of deaf descriptions

descriptions

you can't express existence with a

what's left quantifiers okay so when you

say some what you mean is some existent

that's all you've got left okay now this

is this is crazy okay look um some

things don't exist like father Christmas

serious butterfly this is a perfectly

ordinary sentence of English translation

Italian it's perfectly ordinary Italians

Henderson is true okay oh I've wanted to

buy you something for Christmas but I

found that it doesn't exist

maybe Sherlock Holmes is a magnifying glass

glass

okay if some made some existent these

will be contradictory patently they're not

so okay what's wrong with Quinn's

argument well as I said it's an argument

by exhaustion can't be mr. quantifier

some now the most obvious thing if you

think about it is that Quine does not

consider in the most natural way of

saying that something exists namely to

use the monadic predicate exists right

so when I say Nagasaki exists and

Lilliput are placing Gulliver's Travels

doesn't exist then I'm referring to

those places and applying the monadic

predicate of existence so why doesn't

Quine consider this possibility which is

the obvious one well I think probably

this is the influence of Russell

so in 1918 Russell published his

lectures on logical atomism

and what are your views in those

lectures is that exists is not a monadic

predicate rather exists is the second

order predicate you can only apply it to

another predicate like cat okay to say

that cats exist is to say that some

things are cats so if it's a predicate

of predicate it makes no sense to apply

two proper names

that's Russell's argument okay this this

view is also crazy look I used to

believe that Holmes exists when I was a

kid and then I learnt that he doesn't

know what I believed on what I learnt

those were meaningless hardly I mean

all right so Russell I mean you know has

his reasons or at least has his

arguments and in the lectures on logical optimism

of arguments as to why existence is a

second order predicate and they are

absolutely frightful okay go read it

paying to make and I'm not going to

defend it here unless you in the book

that Alberto referred to towards not

being there is an analysis of Russell's

arguments and they really are terrible

arguments okay okay

last thing on existence sometimes the

view that existence is not a predicate

is sheeted back to Kant in his remarks

on the ontological argument in the first

critique this is a misreading of Kent

Kent does not say that existence is not

a predicate existence cannot is a

perfectly meaningful monadic predicate

for Kent it has to be because it's one

of these categories namely the category

of reality what can't actually say some

can go away read it is that existence is

not a determining predicate just in

normal so

prayer is a perfectly fine predicate

it's not determining or what he means by

that is that to say that something is a

cat is exactly the same as say if an

existing cat

okay so existence adds nothing new

that's what he means but it's a

perfectly legitimate pretty now when our

existence is merely a determining

predicate well that's another matter

existence is a perfectly meaningful

monadic predicate and you can use it to

that butter you

look at the properties of nonexistent

objects so the sorts of properties that

non existent objects have well there can

be status properties like this Holmes is

a possible object sylvans box is an

impossible object serpent's box is an

object from the story intentional

properties such as use was worshipped by

the Greeks our little Johnny kid next

door three fears golem

but the ones that really interested are

things like this today Holmes lived in

Baker Street that's not true I told you

that okay

but in Doyle stories Holmes lived in

Baker Street

that's a property of Holmes not living

in Baker Street but living in Baker

Street in Doyle stories similarly in

Silver's box priest finds an empty box

that has something in it okay it's not

actually true that priest found a box

was empty and had something in it but

it's true of the empty box has some in

it that priest found it in sylvans story

okay so a very important species of

properties of non existent objects is

precisely that the ones they have in the

work of fiction okay so I'm going to

all right so so much for the first part

purely fictional names do exactly what

naively you think they do they refer to

non-existent objects the existence is a

the fictional purely fictional objects

may or may not have the properties that

they are said to have but and they

certainly have the properties in the

work of fiction

okay so let's turn to the second part of

the talk and this is about not the

object of the fiction but the self that

appreciates the work of fiction so let

me clarify one thing to start with a

person is a biological entity you and I

are people okay a self in the sense that

I'm going to use the word is a part of

the person which exists while the person

exists is constant and defines the

person as that person that's what I mean

okay so yourself is your if you like

your essential you and what I'm going to

argue in this part of the talk is the

self does not exist okay now it

certainly appears that it does we have a

sense of self okay so we certainly seem

to have a sense of something so when you

wake up in the morning so almost a

little voice comes on at the back here

by and say hello back again right it's

me okay this is a sense of self or if

you want to put it in Teutonic terms you

can do it like

okay every thought is accompanied by an

I think if King if zdenka okay which

provides the synthetic unity of a

priority to be experience okay in other

words you know it's a self which kind of

binds on okay so we certainly have a

sense of self but do we have a self well

we know the brain plays tricks okay so

there's the blind spot phenomenon you're

probably familiar with this so

at the back of your eyeball there's a

place where the optic nerve joins the

retina and where that happens there are

no rods no cones no no nerve cells which

ridge the light falling on them so if

light falls on the blind spot you can't

now and if you will work very hard you

can actually manipulate yourself into

seeing the blind spot of not seeing the

blinds by suppose but we don't normally

see the blind spot why not

it's cause the brain is very clever and

the brain fills in gaps so the brain

says oh well I can't really see what's

there but you look so it's going to be

this so it must be that and that's what

you see okay the brains really good at

filling in gaps here's another example

it's called the r5 phenomenon you may

not have heard of this before but it's

what you use to make movie films okay

here's a very simple example sometimes

you see some neon lights maybe the

cinema or a restaurant and in fact

there's what there is is a sequence of

bulbs globes okay and what they do is

they flash each one flashes but they're

flashes there very soon as this one

flashes if you look at this what you

will see is something moving I'm sure you

it's not an argument it's just a

question okay so the thought is this may

be sure you have a sense of self but the

now this view may sound rather strange

the 20th century but in fact it's a very

standard of you in Buddhist philosophy

so Buddhism arises in the fifth century

BCE and it makes two major breaks with

the general Indian culture of the time

Hinduism the first that in Buddhism

there is no God in Hinduism areas the

second is the in Buddhism there is no

self in Hinduism there is so the

Buddhists believe that there is no self

and the Buddhist philosophers were very

smart they gave a number of arguments

for this so let's so let me see what

reasons might you have for supposing

there's our self

well reasons for the existence of

something can be of two kinds

observational I can see it or

inferential I can infer it okay so some

things I know to exist because I can see

them for example you some things I can't

see but I infer that they exist because

that provides a good explanation of the

things that I do see like quarks like

black holes like dark matter so if

there's a good reason for supposing that

the self exists it's got to be one or

other of those and the Buddhists had

argument against both of these

possibilities perhaps the most extensive

discussion is by a Buddhist philosopher

called rasa bando in about the 4th

century I'm going to update it a bit

just to make it a bit more intelligible

so two possibilities observation

inference let's start with observation

can you observe yourself my

introspection okay and the answer was

already given to that by the 18th

century philosopher David Hume sometimes

it's said that Hume has a very similar

view of herself and Buddhists I'm

telling it's probably true

although the Buddhists had it 2,000

years before so this is this is David

Hume there are some philosophers who

imagined that we are every moment

intimately conscious of what we call

ourself that we feel its existence and

its continuance in existence and we are

certain beyond the evidence of

demonstration both of its perfect

identity and its simplicity the

strongest sensation the most violent

passions so they instead of distracting

us from this view only fix it them more

intensely and make us consider their

influence on self either by their pain

or their pleasure but from my part when

I enter most intimately into what I call

myself I always stumble on some

particular perception or other a heat or cold

cold

lighter shade love or hatred plain dull

pleasure I can never catch myself at any

time without a perception never can

observe anything but the perception if

anyone upon Sirius and unprejudiced

reflection thinks that he has a

different notion of himself

I must confess I can no longer reason

with him all I can allow him is that he

may be in the right as well as I and

that we are centrally different in this

particular he may perhaps perceive

something simple and continues which he

calls himself though I'm certain there

is no such principle in me um but it

setting aside some meta position of this

kind okay

Humes not serious he doesn't really

think there are other people which

perceives themselves this is just human

irony right

setting aside some medication of meta

vision of this kind I may venture to

affirm of the rest of mankind that's all

of us really that they are nothing but a

bundle or collection of different

perceptions which succeed each other

with an inconceivable rapidity and are

in perpetual flexion movement so things

like the lights in the five phenomenon

okay well what Hume is pointing out is

that you cannot perceive yourself human

empiricist and he thinks that that gives

you reason suppose itself does exist but

that was the 18th century we know better

now because there's the other

possibility name means that we can infer

herself even though we can't see it so

from what okay well we're postulating

something right like dark matter or

strings in string theory and when we

postulate things what gives us reason to

believe they exist is precisely that

they serve some explanatory function

they can explain something then we can't

otherwise explain so the next question

is what is it that the self is supposed

to explain that you can't explain

without postulating the self well I

guess there could be a number of answers

but as cancer it it's the self that

holds all your perceptions together and

provides the unity the a priori

synthetic unity or a perception so in

other words look some mental states hang

together like mine okay like yours the

some mental states like yours and mine

don't hang together so there's something

which holds my mental states together

which doesn't hold yours and mine

together what can that be okay and the

thought is well it's the self the self

is kind of what all the mental states

kind of fixed to and join them together

now exactly how the self does that is

not entirely obvious can't

notwithstanding but the question is can

you explain the unity of thoughts or

experiences without the self and the

answer is yes you can and this is

pointed out by Vasu band oh look the

unity of our experiences is both sync

run synchronic and diachronic okay and diachronic

diachronic

pulls into passed on to orientate in the

future order so let's consider these two

things so synchronic at the same time so

I'm walking down the street and I fear

but motorbike go past and I hear a

motorbike go past so I have a visual

experience and an auditory experience

but these pain together my

phenomenological experience is just of

the one thing okay

in a way that for example if I'm walking

down the street with Alberto and I see

it and he hears it okay but I don't hear

it he doesn't see it

then these don't hang together there's

something about the way my auditory

experience and my visual experience hang

together what is it well you know we

know the answer to that from modern

theories of the brain when I see the motorbike

encountered in the part of my brain that

vision and visual cortex when I hear the

motor bike the information is encoded in

another cortex the auditory cortex and

those two cortices communicate with each

other to produce a multi-sensory

integrated a perception okay this is

what cognitive scientists will tell you now

Thanks

X so you can explain the integration

simply in terms of the cause or

functioning of your brain all right um

okay diachronic so this is over unity

over time so this can be past oriented

our future oriented past oriented and

yesterday I saw the motorbike today I

remember the motorbike okay I think

there's a connection um because there's

no connection for example between

Alberto seeing the motorbike yesterday

and my remembering it today okay

there is a connection between my seing

the motorbike yesterday and my remember

it today but again there's a perfectly

good neurological explanation of this

when I saw the motorbike the information

every name your limbic system and today

limbic system now okay so the

integration is explained by the neural

workings in my brain okay obviously

there's no similar integration between

your seeing the motor bike yesterday and

my remembering it today

okay future-oriented so tonight I go to

the restaurant and I have a drink and I

enjoy the drinks have another drink and

then I have another drink and tomorrow I

wake up with a hangover and a headache

and so on

now there's an obvious connection

between my pain tomorrow and my desire

to drink tonight in a way that there's

no connection between your desire to

drink tonight and any hangover that I

might have tomorrow okay well why so

well you know the answer is obvious okay

when I over drink tonight I drink too

much alcohol poisoning that the alcohol

is broken down in my liver to produce

byproducts which are kind of poisonous

and the body registers this by the

headache and maybe the nausea of this of

the hangover tomorrow so again the

connection between my actions today and

the consequence of tomorrow are

explained precisely by the neurological

connections in my brain so sure there is

a there is a unity that ties my

experiences together in a way that

doesn't tie my experiences in your

experiences together you do not need

itself to explain that it's explained in

purely quarters well if that's the best

you can do by an argument so pospos your

self have some explain for each function

okay stop - doesn't work so if that's

all right then we have no good reason

for believing there is itself and so

that opens right so we're talking like I said

said

there's no reason to believe exist you

shouldn't believe that you have so okay

that's the second of the second one so

the last part is reasonably short pieces

well we have a census of but there's no

self which we made sense self is an

illusion it's like you know the circle

of the moving things you see in the five

form it doesn't exist it's just an

illusion in the same way when you have a

sense of self that's the middle ocean

now delusions be very useful look in the

mirror I see something that's behind me

in front of me that's an illusion it's

something really in front of me but it's

very useful it allows me to see what's

behind me without so in my head so

illusions to be very useful and it may

well be that the illusion self is very

useful for evolutionary reasons it may

well be the creatures with a sense of

self are much more successful in

surviving long enough to pass on their

genes okay that's just a conjecture but

whether that's right or not yourself is

new of course it can be a very

persistent illusion the fact that you

know something is an illusion doesn't

forget whose evolution this is but what

you have is a bunch of life squares

white brute if you look at this one see

this no because it's a crappy diagram

right and you know it's an illusion

cause you know that this box really

aren't there but in fact um that you see

this is a function of a perfectly

normally operating brain it's an

illusion but you can't help seeing the

damn things so the fact that something

then it doesn't mean that you won't have

the experience of it and in the same way

it's very very hard to get rid of the

experience of a self even if you know it

is so Buddhists have this code of regime

of practices which helps you to sort of

stop having the experience of self we

want to go into that but the self if

that's right is a very persistent

illusion now that does not show that the

because after all when you have an

illogical acquaintance with something

just as well I'm thinking of Sherlock

Holmes I have this phenomenal option

acquaintance with something it's just

that that something does not exist okay

so when you had this experience of self

you have an experience of something

which does not exist so the self is this

object which you can add a

phenomenological acquaintance with just

as you can have a phenomenological

there are a number of content

cognitive scientists who have exactly

this view so perhaps one of the most

influential cognitive scientists of the

last 30 or 40 years is Dan Dennett okay

he has a number of books on

consciousness and this is a quotation

from one where he says exactly this

there is no single definitive stream of

consciousness because there's no central

headquarters no Cartesian theatre where

it all comes together for the perusal of

a central Meanor instead of such a

single stream however wide there are

multiple channels in which specialized

circuits try in parallel pandemonium's

to do their various things creating

multiple drafts okay so this is the loop

this is a reference back to something

you said earlier drafts of the self so

the brain creates a narrative about the

self okay so the brain is busy telling a

story about its experiences so it's not

only having experiences it's actually

telling itself a story about what's

going on and this story has the multiple

drafts you know the brain keeps revising

it so the multiple channels do their

various things creating multiple drafts

of a narrative of the self as they go

most of these fragmentary drafts are a

narrative place short-lived roles in the

modulation of current activity but some

get promoted to further functional roles

in Swift succession by the act so we're

back to the five phenomenon okay by the

activity of a virtual machine in the

brain bla bla bla bla bla okay so what

that it is saying is that the self is

not an illusory object it's not just a

non-existent object it's a fictional

object okay

it's a fictional object in a narrative

so the brain tells itself about itself

so the brain kind of wants to make sense

of what it is going on in the various

parts so it formulates a narrative

which includes the self said the self is

an object in the narrative the brain

tells about itself it's a fictional

object so what does that do to the other

objects of fiction

well look we know there can be fictions

within fictions this is not uncommon in

literature or drama so that in

Shakespeare's play Hamlet there's a

famous scene where Hamlet arranges for a

troop of players to come in and enact a

murder he wants to see how he thinks the

real murder will react so there's a play

within a play in Hamlet and in that play

the leader of the troupe actually plays

someone who's murdered that person is

called Gonzago

so Gonzago is a fictional character in

fact Gonzago is a fiction within a

fiction because already the plays are

fiction in Hamlet and Gonzaga is a

so frictions with infections are very

well known okay so what we've just seen

is that when a self appreciates a work

of fiction

then the are not just fictions they're

fictions within efficient so the brain

is creating a fiction the fiction

contains the self and the self is

reading this novel and in this novel

there are fictional objects

so these purely fictional objects are

fictions within a fiction so the bottom

line of this talk is as follows the self

is a purely fictional object which is

such that in the fiction it can grasp

other purely fictional objects namely

the objects that you and I read about in

works of fiction so remember where I

started the question was um in fiction

you've got these two poles the objects

of the work of fiction

and the self which appreciates these

objects are understands these objects of

grasp these objects what I've been

telling you is that the self is a purely

fictional object in a narrative

constructed by the brain and at least

purely fictional objects are also non

existent objects as is the self so the

self is a non-existent object which

features in a narrative told by the

brain about what's going on and in that

fictional narrative the brain tells

itself the

actually grasps other possibly

non-existent objects okay so you may not

agree with me you probably don't but

that's you can have your chance to you

know say why in a minute that's all I'm

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…