I completely disagree. The postulate is F=ma. From that (using calculus) the definition of work and energy are defined (classically). This isn't a "circle of logic," it is a mathematical derivation.
The mass energy thing is relativistic (and they're hardly synonymous!). Re: "Force is a mass..." Actually, a mass will accelerate under the influence of a force. In both cases, the "= " does not mean "is the same thing as."
Analysing the component parts of a computer system will not tell you anything about why Internet Explorer is more widespread than its superior competing browsers.
Nothing in the chipsets or harddrives, memory banks, switches and relays will tell you anything about bill gates or why most computers in the world run code which is owned by him.
Certain facts cannot be revealed only by slicing up an object and inspecting its contents.
I've been thinking about this for the last two days and I honestly cannot figure out what you mean by this. To me, "water" is just a colloquial term for the solution H2O. I think if I could understand what you mean by this then I would understand your argument against reductionism better. Because as it is I honestly do not even grasp what it is that you are objecting to....
I understand when people say that psychology is not reducible to biology (I disagree with them but I at least I see what they are getting at) but the statement that water is not reducible to H2O doesn't even compute with me.
What I was trying to articulate in the video is that the fluidity of water is not present in molecular or atomic components. The fact that H2O molecules of sufficient density become liquid is not explained by atomic theory (though it is of course allowed).
Is the liquidity of water real, or not? A metaphysical reductionist would say its not real. I prefer to say that the water I drink is as real as the atoms it is made of.
People say a lot of crazy things about quantum physics, but I bring them up in all seriousness as context for the following question: What is it, exactly, that a metaphysical reductionist believes everything is reducible to? "The laws of physics" perhaps...? But relativity and quantum theories form no unified system and offer no coherent cosmology. If science is grounded in physics, the discoveries of the 20th century have made the possibility of science doubtful. I think science is based...
in phenomenology, in our lived experience, and so even while I'm not a reductionist I think the scientific method is best at discovering truth. Science and reductionism are not synonymous. Science can study both systems and parts, and learn more about either because of knowledge about the other.
Perhaps youre not a metaphysical, but a practical reductionist, in that you recognize the utility of the method, but that it leaves many questions unasked and other questions obscured (if so, we agree).
Science based in phenomenology implies that we have to account for intentionality (consciousness) and causality (matter) in a mutually non-reductive way (not reducing one to the other). Such a method is more open to discovering the way things really are than one which assumes from the beginning that all phenomena are ontologically reducible to the phenomena that compose them.
good job. You could say for example that a plant pollen for example could have an effect on animals at certain times of the year and so you could introduce the pollen at any time and get a similar effect. but it might make the animal feel off cause of the timing, Who are we to say what the natural process would result in. It could be totally different and unpredictable until they play out over long unpredictable time periodes. And too the experiments would have unpredictable directions..
I think you need to present a case for philosophy. Modern philosophy is typically interested in the discussions of god(s), and the arbitrary assumption that we have a soul, or are somehow dualistic (ie clap-trap assumptions from religion).
U're setting urself up for lots & lots & lots & lots of criticism. I bet we as an audience would be better off if u didnt speak ur mind so much but wrote it & then read. Some people might not like it, but u'd present urself more succinctly (an important word for people such as urself) & w/the ability to take greater responsibility for what u say. W/greater applied analysis. I disagree with A LOT of what u said. Careful of revolving the same words too often, that's the poet's job. Keep going!
I completely disagree. The postulate is F=ma. From that (using calculus) the definition of work and energy are defined (classically). This isn't a "circle of logic," it is a mathematical derivation.
The mass energy thing is relativistic (and they're hardly synonymous!). Re: "Force is a mass..." Actually, a mass will accelerate under the influence of a force. In both cases, the "= " does not mean "is the same thing as."
waspull 2 years ago
I have yet to understand the reply function. This was a reply to loneskeptic.
waspull 2 years ago
Hahaha... the sudden leap to turn off the answering machine at 6:25 LOL!
otonanoC 2 years ago
linguistic conundrum.
yamaha893 2 years ago
Analysing the component parts of a computer system will not tell you anything about why Internet Explorer is more widespread than its superior competing browsers.
Nothing in the chipsets or harddrives, memory banks, switches and relays will tell you anything about bill gates or why most computers in the world run code which is owned by him.
Certain facts cannot be revealed only by slicing up an object and inspecting its contents.
simonodell 2 years ago
"Water is not the same thing as H2O."
I've been thinking about this for the last two days and I honestly cannot figure out what you mean by this. To me, "water" is just a colloquial term for the solution H2O. I think if I could understand what you mean by this then I would understand your argument against reductionism better. Because as it is I honestly do not even grasp what it is that you are objecting to....
Nykytyne2 2 years ago
I understand when people say that psychology is not reducible to biology (I disagree with them but I at least I see what they are getting at) but the statement that water is not reducible to H2O doesn't even compute with me.
Nykytyne2 2 years ago
What I was trying to articulate in the video is that the fluidity of water is not present in molecular or atomic components. The fact that H2O molecules of sufficient density become liquid is not explained by atomic theory (though it is of course allowed).
Is the liquidity of water real, or not? A metaphysical reductionist would say its not real. I prefer to say that the water I drink is as real as the atoms it is made of.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
People say a lot of crazy things about quantum physics, but I bring them up in all seriousness as context for the following question: What is it, exactly, that a metaphysical reductionist believes everything is reducible to? "The laws of physics" perhaps...? But relativity and quantum theories form no unified system and offer no coherent cosmology. If science is grounded in physics, the discoveries of the 20th century have made the possibility of science doubtful. I think science is based...
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
in phenomenology, in our lived experience, and so even while I'm not a reductionist I think the scientific method is best at discovering truth. Science and reductionism are not synonymous. Science can study both systems and parts, and learn more about either because of knowledge about the other.
Perhaps youre not a metaphysical, but a practical reductionist, in that you recognize the utility of the method, but that it leaves many questions unasked and other questions obscured (if so, we agree).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Science based in phenomenology implies that we have to account for intentionality (consciousness) and causality (matter) in a mutually non-reductive way (not reducing one to the other). Such a method is more open to discovering the way things really are than one which assumes from the beginning that all phenomena are ontologically reducible to the phenomena that compose them.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Our understanding of a water molecule's structure explains why water, unlike other liquids, EXPANDS when it freezes, rather than contracting.
Just one example of why you're a moron.
psychoholicmike 2 years ago
good job. You could say for example that a plant pollen for example could have an effect on animals at certain times of the year and so you could introduce the pollen at any time and get a similar effect. but it might make the animal feel off cause of the timing, Who are we to say what the natural process would result in. It could be totally different and unpredictable until they play out over long unpredictable time periodes. And too the experiments would have unpredictable directions..
Beardedyoungman 2 years ago
I think you need to present a case for philosophy. Modern philosophy is typically interested in the discussions of god(s), and the arbitrary assumption that we have a soul, or are somehow dualistic (ie clap-trap assumptions from religion).
stefanlittle 2 years ago
forms change,,,one constant.
the inner river of blood, bust open...
flowing out to another world...
experience of passing to another womb.
like the butterfly, to learn anew...
on and within...i say,
womb of my father...
mother... i am you.
BlazzingSun 2 years ago
you think its insane?
i mean, we gonna have to redefine sanity with common sense,
but it seems recession and common sense correlates reversably to its equivalent?
"omgekeerd evenredig"
so sanity just might be a construct society uses to regulate its self... but participating in society.... is it even still legal?
thx fr yr vids- all startling
smoking3co 2 years ago
U're setting urself up for lots & lots & lots & lots of criticism. I bet we as an audience would be better off if u didnt speak ur mind so much but wrote it & then read. Some people might not like it, but u'd present urself more succinctly (an important word for people such as urself) & w/the ability to take greater responsibility for what u say. W/greater applied analysis. I disagree with A LOT of what u said. Careful of revolving the same words too often, that's the poet's job. Keep going!
semasiologistics 2 years ago
When you say there was always experience to some object of the world, do you mean on a microscopic scale of the atoms? Just trying to understand.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
HaleyMary: he doesnt know what the fuck he means
LimpLoser 2 years ago
Language itself is metaphorical.
zurbarab 2 years ago
not all language is metaphorical, no not at all.
semasiologistics 2 years ago