Just a quick note on the UFO’s. They are “impossible” given the distance between stars, and the impossibility of accelerating mass to or beyond the speed of life. For aliens to get to earth, they must violate the laws of physics or at least be able to jump between dimensions or something like that. I think it’s fair to put alien visitors in the “not possible” category. Alien life in the universe. Very probable.
@koldtoft I strongly suggest you research into the field of UFO studies, as there is logically consistent rationale aiming to prove their existence with supporting science.
It seems to me that your definition of philosophy does not allow much if any space for theism. But if you would have asked me last week, my assumption would have been that most philosophers where theists? As opposed to most scientist being atheist. Is that a false assumption? Or maybe it’s just that most people where or at least said they were theists when philosophy was in its prime. (before science took its place on the throne)
Great video. Just to be nitpicky, it has certainly not been established that crop circles are a hoax, although some hoaxing has been revealed. Also, the assertion "this wall is red" cannot be objectively validated due to the limitations of your 2006 video equipment. Neither point detracts in any fundamental way from the fundamental precepts of your arguments.
Nevermind I didn't listen to the rest of your statement regarding the wall. Now you say that ghosts are not real because it goes against the laws of physics. For one ghosts are supernatural, and physics cannot explain anything other than what is physical. By claiming this you're asserting that physics is the only way to explain how existence works which is very ironic for a philosopher do even make such a claim. There are other things besides physics that make up existence.
When you say that it is true to say the wall is read, here is where you're wrong. It doesn't look red to me, it looks purplish brown. Also, to say that the wall is red now, turn off the lights, now the wall is black. Truth is only an interpretation of what one thinks is more likely in all reality.
"We can apply them to maybe some more of your sacred cows." That was hilarious! I'm learning so much valuable information from Stefan. I noticed huge improvements in a debate I had with someone just a day after watching the videos on epistemology, namely the basic principle that our propositions have to be in accordance with reality in order to be accepted as true. My goal is to watch this whole introduction. I just purchased his book titled "On Truth." I became impatient to receive it the
'Red' is just the name you are giving to the way you and many people perceive the wall's color. There is nothing objective about it whatsoever. It is a word. A language. To someone who does not speak English the wall is not red. So while the phenomena of color is consistent, it is not universal. It is simply your value. Your SUBJECTIVE value. The only way it may be validated is through the use of the same language.
'Red' is TOTALLY subjective. There is nothing inherently red about the wall. Red is simply how you are perceiving the light reflecting off the wall. To someone who is colorblind, or a dog, the wall is certainly not what you call 'red'.
Stef, yes it was very helpful of you to rename the titles of some of the earlier shows because (for the novice like myself) it makes the subject-matter appear less intimidating.
Numbers are concepts, dude. They can't "exist" in the real world. I can hold a green pencil in my hand. I cannot hold the color green. That doesn't mean that "green" is nonexistent.
Since we can't formulate the laws of physics without numbers, I have to wonder if mother nature share this problem. She builds all kinds of counting mechanisms.
One cannot hold the laws of physics in one's hand either, my friend. They are concepts which describe things in the real world, much like the concept of "green" is expressed in green paint on a pencil, or the concept "two" is expressed when we see one orange sitting beside another on a table. You can see the laws of physics in action or a green pencil or two oranges. You cannot see or touch Newton's laws or the concept "green" or the concept "two."
You seem to want to predicate the existence of space on the existence of concepts of physical laws which describe that space. The existence of space and matter has to come first. There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist.
You precluded numbers from existence on the basis that you couldn't see or touch them but seem prepared to accept space as real despite these same short comings.
Not at all. In fact, I did just the opposite. I said that the concept of a "number" exists to describe a state in reality. The concept of "two" - which is not a physical entity that has its own separate physical existence - is used to describe the physical reality of one orange sitting next to another on a table.
With regard to, "There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist"; well I like to have a plan before I start building something. Condescension doesn't dignify your position.
The concept of "space" - and the concept, AGAIN, has no physical existence - is used to describe something in the state of reality. The _concept_ "space" has no physical existence. You cannot hold a concept in your hand. That which the concept describes _does_ have physical existence. Please try to read what I actually say. :)
I don't construct sentences employing double negatives (That doesn't mean that "green" is nonexistent.) and I'm sure green doesn't really exist. It's not a primary colour. You wrote, "The existence of space and matter has to come first". Now it's a "concept"? Space does really exist and can be measured.
With regard to, "There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist"; well I like to have a plan before I start building something. Condescension doesn't dignify your position.
Your definition of "concept" and mine obviously differ. I am speaking of concepts in the sense of philosophy. I don't know what sense you're using it in. I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I've said what I wanted to say already, and you've provided no contrary evidence whatever, nor do you seem likely to. Thanks for the debate.
Great podcasts! How can you say reality exists independently of consciousness? Doesn't quantum physics indicate that reality exists as probability until it is observed? Or are you speaking from a Newtonian perspective?
There's simply no reason to believe that matter does not exist independently of consciousness. Of course, this doesn't directly prove what I'm arguing, but your statement is absolutely unverifiable.
This reminds me of a story in which a student, drunk after a hard night of partying, decided to take a nap on a set of train-tracks. I'm guessing you know what happened.
For anyone seeking the truth, please check out the scribd website that is listed on my channel.
DreamsofMajesty 2 months ago
saying a proposition is possible, is just saying, that u are not aware of anyway in which ur statement is a contradiction. learned this from leibniz.
boshea8498 5 months ago
Just a quick note on the UFO’s. They are “impossible” given the distance between stars, and the impossibility of accelerating mass to or beyond the speed of life. For aliens to get to earth, they must violate the laws of physics or at least be able to jump between dimensions or something like that. I think it’s fair to put alien visitors in the “not possible” category. Alien life in the universe. Very probable.
koldtoft 9 months ago
@koldtoft I strongly suggest you research into the field of UFO studies, as there is logically consistent rationale aiming to prove their existence with supporting science.
KristenLumbato 7 months ago
@koldtoft not a ufo advocate. but the laws of physics are not completed. therefore physics has nothing to say about the issue.
boshea8498 5 months ago
Appreciate your work. Very elegant.
It seems to me that your definition of philosophy does not allow much if any space for theism. But if you would have asked me last week, my assumption would have been that most philosophers where theists? As opposed to most scientist being atheist. Is that a false assumption? Or maybe it’s just that most people where or at least said they were theists when philosophy was in its prime. (before science took its place on the throne)
koldtoft 9 months ago
Great video. Just to be nitpicky, it has certainly not been established that crop circles are a hoax, although some hoaxing has been revealed. Also, the assertion "this wall is red" cannot be objectively validated due to the limitations of your 2006 video equipment. Neither point detracts in any fundamental way from the fundamental precepts of your arguments.
gottogochild 10 months ago
Easily understood and well done.
railroadtrash09 1 year ago
Nevermind I didn't listen to the rest of your statement regarding the wall. Now you say that ghosts are not real because it goes against the laws of physics. For one ghosts are supernatural, and physics cannot explain anything other than what is physical. By claiming this you're asserting that physics is the only way to explain how existence works which is very ironic for a philosopher do even make such a claim. There are other things besides physics that make up existence.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Are you actually making an argument for ghosts on a philosophy video???
railroadtrash09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@railroadtrash09 "Are you actually making an argument for ghosts on a philosophy video???"
Not I'm making an argument against the claim for saying ghosts don't exists, not an argument saying they do exist.
nazra7 1 year ago
When you say that it is true to say the wall is read, here is where you're wrong. It doesn't look red to me, it looks purplish brown. Also, to say that the wall is red now, turn off the lights, now the wall is black. Truth is only an interpretation of what one thinks is more likely in all reality.
nazra7 1 year ago
"We can apply them to maybe some more of your sacred cows." That was hilarious! I'm learning so much valuable information from Stefan. I noticed huge improvements in a debate I had with someone just a day after watching the videos on epistemology, namely the basic principle that our propositions have to be in accordance with reality in order to be accepted as true. My goal is to watch this whole introduction. I just purchased his book titled "On Truth." I became impatient to receive it the
queensNY2185 1 year ago
@queensNY2185 moment I ordered it. Thanks Stefan!
queensNY2185 1 year ago
The word 'truth', and the word 'red', or any word at all, is descriptive, but not prescriptive.
landgabriel 1 year ago
Comment removed
landgabriel 1 year ago
Comment removed
landgabriel 1 year ago
'Red' is just the name you are giving to the way you and many people perceive the wall's color. There is nothing objective about it whatsoever. It is a word. A language. To someone who does not speak English the wall is not red. So while the phenomena of color is consistent, it is not universal. It is simply your value. Your SUBJECTIVE value. The only way it may be validated is through the use of the same language.
landgabriel 1 year ago
'Red' is TOTALLY subjective. There is nothing inherently red about the wall. Red is simply how you are perceiving the light reflecting off the wall. To someone who is colorblind, or a dog, the wall is certainly not what you call 'red'.
landgabriel 1 year ago
Thanks for this series of videos, Stefan! I'm learning a lot and enjoying them!
TDawg2002 2 years ago
they have aliens that are pure thought in star treck. Q is a god for goodness sake.
racsonam 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google: Alexandrian Philosophy Politics
For Philosophy
For Intelligent Politics
For a 21st Century Enlightenment
AlexandrianDoctorate 3 years ago
Very deep and enlightening, thanks!
namename654 3 years ago 7
May I suggest putting "epistemology" in the tags of your "Knowledge" videos.
findingthepath 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will do - thanks!
stefbot 3 years ago
Haha yw. :) I was doing a search for epistemology videos, and pretty much came across your "knowledge" videos later by accident.
findingthepath 3 years ago
Stef, yes it was very helpful of you to rename the titles of some of the earlier shows because (for the novice like myself) it makes the subject-matter appear less intimidating.
monsterjazzlicks 3 years ago 4
Do numbers exist in the "real world"?
"Real number?"
If they do, what is the value of Pi?
And then there are the "imaginary numbers...
If Numbers don't exist in the "real world" then logic has severe limitations.
hweiglein 4 years ago
...uh?
bobbincygna 4 years ago
Numbers are concepts, dude. They can't "exist" in the real world. I can hold a green pencil in my hand. I cannot hold the color green. That doesn't mean that "green" is nonexistent.
debaiona 4 years ago
Since we can't formulate the laws of physics without numbers, I have to wonder if mother nature share this problem. She builds all kinds of counting mechanisms.
hweiglein 4 years ago
One cannot hold the laws of physics in one's hand either, my friend. They are concepts which describe things in the real world, much like the concept of "green" is expressed in green paint on a pencil, or the concept "two" is expressed when we see one orange sitting beside another on a table. You can see the laws of physics in action or a green pencil or two oranges. You cannot see or touch Newton's laws or the concept "green" or the concept "two."
debaiona 4 years ago
To be able see or touch something or even for something to really exist, don't you need space?
hweiglein 4 years ago
You seem to want to predicate the existence of space on the existence of concepts of physical laws which describe that space. The existence of space and matter has to come first. There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist.
debaiona 4 years ago
So space exists then? Even though you can't touch it or see it?
hweiglein 4 years ago
Where are you going with your argument? Don't bother going off on a tangent.
debaiona 4 years ago
You precluded numbers from existence on the basis that you couldn't see or touch them but seem prepared to accept space as real despite these same short comings.
hweiglein 4 years ago
Not at all. In fact, I did just the opposite. I said that the concept of a "number" exists to describe a state in reality. The concept of "two" - which is not a physical entity that has its own separate physical existence - is used to describe the physical reality of one orange sitting next to another on a table.
debaiona 4 years ago
With regard to, "There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist"; well I like to have a plan before I start building something. Condescension doesn't dignify your position.
hweiglein 4 years ago
The concept of "space" - and the concept, AGAIN, has no physical existence - is used to describe something in the state of reality. The _concept_ "space" has no physical existence. You cannot hold a concept in your hand. That which the concept describes _does_ have physical existence. Please try to read what I actually say. :)
debaiona 4 years ago
I don't construct sentences employing double negatives (That doesn't mean that "green" is nonexistent.) and I'm sure green doesn't really exist. It's not a primary colour. You wrote, "The existence of space and matter has to come first". Now it's a "concept"? Space does really exist and can be measured.
hweiglein 4 years ago
With regard to, "There is no need for a concept if the thing the concept describes doesn't exist"; well I like to have a plan before I start building something. Condescension doesn't dignify your position.
hweiglein 4 years ago
Your definition of "concept" and mine obviously differ. I am speaking of concepts in the sense of philosophy. I don't know what sense you're using it in. I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I've said what I wanted to say already, and you've provided no contrary evidence whatever, nor do you seem likely to. Thanks for the debate.
debaiona 4 years ago
Your definition of "concept" and mine obviously differ.
THAT...is life baby.
letitb4ug0 3 years ago
Please try to read what I actually say.
Excuse me...is that possible?
letitb4ug0 3 years ago
So it's not impossible those damn aliens are f'n with my mind again! I knew it was true.
docrufus 5 years ago
Great podcasts! How can you say reality exists independently of consciousness? Doesn't quantum physics indicate that reality exists as probability until it is observed? Or are you speaking from a Newtonian perspective?
pipslingerz 5 years ago
There's simply no reason to believe that matter does not exist independently of consciousness. Of course, this doesn't directly prove what I'm arguing, but your statement is absolutely unverifiable.
This reminds me of a story in which a student, drunk after a hard night of partying, decided to take a nap on a set of train-tracks. I'm guessing you know what happened.
msbsevensixseven 4 years ago