Why is it that Diamond cracks when subjected to extreme conditions while carbon evolves into another new form? Aren't both same in chemical compositions, and just differ in bonding structure?
And thinking metamorphically, why is it easiest for an infant or young kid to adopt to a new place, easier for a young adult and most difficult for an old person?
Let's take a wider look at things! Why did dinosaurs vanish? Weren't they supposed to very complex life forms? And why did simple bacteria from the same time exists even today?
I thing reductionism in science is a more valuable method than some of us admit it to be.
And, of course, our cognitive processes need to be carefully considered, and the conceptual metaphores we employ, when making mathematics, for example.
I refuse to consider our unconscious sense of the 'noeminous' as something real.
Going beyond dogma is one of the hardest things to do. It's so much easier to let the more charismatic and articulate do our thinking for us.
I must admit that some of your metaphors were inscrutable to me, but I agree with you that we have become simplistic either/or thinkers [that includes kneejerk right/wrong thinking btw]...
Great video. But Socrates' "don't know" could be a certainty: he could not know the nature of Universe (i.e. Everything) with a single abstraction, since the latter is impossible.
I don't think Socratic humility means avoiding certainty, but avoiding unreasoned certainty (egotism).
Socrates (Plato's Phaedo) taught even rationally based truth is limited by the confusing effect of the senses - truth can only be approached - never reached (till death).
And that's the humility i'm getting at. Our problem is we never know how purely rational we are being, and how great a part unconscious impulses are playing. The nature of the unconscious is that is IS unknown so we CAN'T know for certain - hence its irrational not to be humble about certainty.
@soulfetcher Well, I think I see where you're coming from.
But my 2c worth. There is a difference between reason based on the senses and that which isn't. Would you agree with that? More info:
The scientific method is the former. That is the "a posteriori" kind, posteriorly meaning "after". That is, proof obtained "after" sensory evidence. Then philosophical is the former, the "a priori" kind, proven before sense data (which is arguably not even relevant to the proof).
Thanks Kelly, i agree that there is a difference between reason based on (or even slightly infected by) the senses and that which isn't - the problem we struggle to know when reason is being effected by senses (including mind) - especially in the more interesting areas of thought.
Don't you find even the best minds can still be quite irrational even when they think they are being reaonable. Pure reason is great as an abstraction but hard to be certain of.
@soulfetcher Well, if someone is irrational, they're not what I'd class as the best minds. ;-)
And, well, one *can* be certain of reason. That's the only way one can be certain...
It's not that reason is hard to be certain of, but that people don't particularly care that they don't use reason. I think they know just enough about it to avoid it like the plague.
8:30 More complex forms are no more efficient in the battle of survivial?
Now that is simply wrong. How the more complex bacterium, with a flagellum to move around, is more efficient in the battle of survivial, is easy to see. When you take multicellular organisms, even the simple sponge can filter large amounts of water much more efficiently than any single celled organism ever could.
Every increase in complexity opens up new niches that way.
Thanks for this. Is it really this simple though? why did simple cells forgo the degrees of individual freedom involved in bonding with others to form more complex organisms when they were already survivors par-excellence? Jonas etc raised this question bacteria etc are already the most ubiquitous and efficient life forms- the most rapidly adapting to their environments (and adapting their environments in turn).
I intend returning to these ideas in a future vid though.
@soulfetcher If everybody is good at surviving, after some time, an environment is full. To gain an edge over the competition, communication is an advantage (even bacteria do that). From communication it's only a small step to cooperation (which often means just sticking together; bacteria do that too). When you can communicate well and are already sticking together, cells (as well as people) can orchestrate a division of labor.
And after that, you basically have a multicellular organism.
I agree. But its considering mechanisms beyond Darwinian & neo darwinian reductionism that i'm interested in exploring, as simple Darwinian competition seems insufficient to fully explain cooperation & the rise of complexity that we observe - it may turn out to be, but this is seeming increasingly unlikely - (for example see "Darwin's blind spot : evolution beyond natural selection" by Frank Ryan).
p.s. and i'm not suggesting intelligent designer ;-)
@michelvec actually, your talking about capitalism ... most scientists seek knowledge for knowledges sake ... dunno where you get your fucked up views from dude
Exactly! IMO, your brilliant mind has discovered that discrepancy, which many,otherwise also brilliant minds here, on you tube, don't notice - the word 'god'. When we try to prove its non-existence, we've already accepted it as an entity. What it actually is, is a concept, an idea in the human mind. Ideas in the human mind are the neurological activity in the human brain, nothing more, nothing less, They are not things, entities, having a separate existence. I talk about that in my latest video.
The so called "genius" have a tendency to be more developed in certain areas while being more imature(underdeveloped if you like) in others, a bit like autists.
Authority to make such claims doesn't exist. God is love and Science has no measure for that. It's amazing to me that such intelligent people have sight to so much and yet are blind to the rest. Proving you love someone takes a lifetime... Perhaps many lifetimes... and so does the understanding of creation. And, after you understand the lessons of life, how do you convey it all to others? Life is a mystery, the lessons we learn from it are saved only if we use them to create good character.
Why is it that Diamond cracks when subjected to extreme conditions while carbon evolves into another new form? Aren't both same in chemical compositions, and just differ in bonding structure?
And thinking metamorphically, why is it easiest for an infant or young kid to adopt to a new place, easier for a young adult and most difficult for an old person?
SDSen 1 year ago
Let's take a wider look at things! Why did dinosaurs vanish? Weren't they supposed to very complex life forms? And why did simple bacteria from the same time exists even today?
SDSen 1 year ago
You are engaging in animism.
I thing reductionism in science is a more valuable method than some of us admit it to be.
And, of course, our cognitive processes need to be carefully considered, and the conceptual metaphores we employ, when making mathematics, for example.
I refuse to consider our unconscious sense of the 'noeminous' as something real.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
Going beyond dogma is one of the hardest things to do. It's so much easier to let the more charismatic and articulate do our thinking for us.
I must admit that some of your metaphors were inscrutable to me, but I agree with you that we have become simplistic either/or thinkers [that includes kneejerk right/wrong thinking btw]...
Very interesting thoughts. Glad you're back!
2bsirius 1 year ago
Great video. But Socrates' "don't know" could be a certainty: he could not know the nature of Universe (i.e. Everything) with a single abstraction, since the latter is impossible.
I don't think Socratic humility means avoiding certainty, but avoiding unreasoned certainty (egotism).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00
Thanks Kelly
Socrates (Plato's Phaedo) taught even rationally based truth is limited by the confusing effect of the senses - truth can only be approached - never reached (till death).
And that's the humility i'm getting at. Our problem is we never know how purely rational we are being, and how great a part unconscious impulses are playing. The nature of the unconscious is that is IS unknown so we CAN'T know for certain - hence its irrational not to be humble about certainty.
soulfetcher 1 year ago
@soulfetcher Well, I think I see where you're coming from.
But my 2c worth. There is a difference between reason based on the senses and that which isn't. Would you agree with that? More info:
The scientific method is the former. That is the "a posteriori" kind, posteriorly meaning "after". That is, proof obtained "after" sensory evidence. Then philosophical is the former, the "a priori" kind, proven before sense data (which is arguably not even relevant to the proof).
E.g. 1+1=2 (a priori).
KellyJones00 1 year ago
@KellyJones00
Thanks Kelly, i agree that there is a difference between reason based on (or even slightly infected by) the senses and that which isn't - the problem we struggle to know when reason is being effected by senses (including mind) - especially in the more interesting areas of thought.
Don't you find even the best minds can still be quite irrational even when they think they are being reaonable. Pure reason is great as an abstraction but hard to be certain of.
soulfetcher 1 year ago
@soulfetcher Well, if someone is irrational, they're not what I'd class as the best minds. ;-)
And, well, one *can* be certain of reason. That's the only way one can be certain...
It's not that reason is hard to be certain of, but that people don't particularly care that they don't use reason. I think they know just enough about it to avoid it like the plague.
KellyJones00 1 year ago
8:30 More complex forms are no more efficient in the battle of survivial?
Now that is simply wrong. How the more complex bacterium, with a flagellum to move around, is more efficient in the battle of survivial, is easy to see. When you take multicellular organisms, even the simple sponge can filter large amounts of water much more efficiently than any single celled organism ever could.
Every increase in complexity opens up new niches that way.
Wollff85 1 year ago
@Wollff85
Thanks for this. Is it really this simple though? why did simple cells forgo the degrees of individual freedom involved in bonding with others to form more complex organisms when they were already survivors par-excellence? Jonas etc raised this question bacteria etc are already the most ubiquitous and efficient life forms- the most rapidly adapting to their environments (and adapting their environments in turn).
I intend returning to these ideas in a future vid though.
soulfetcher 1 year ago
@soulfetcher If everybody is good at surviving, after some time, an environment is full. To gain an edge over the competition, communication is an advantage (even bacteria do that). From communication it's only a small step to cooperation (which often means just sticking together; bacteria do that too). When you can communicate well and are already sticking together, cells (as well as people) can orchestrate a division of labor.
And after that, you basically have a multicellular organism.
Wollff85 1 year ago
@Wollff85
I agree. But its considering mechanisms beyond Darwinian & neo darwinian reductionism that i'm interested in exploring, as simple Darwinian competition seems insufficient to fully explain cooperation & the rise of complexity that we observe - it may turn out to be, but this is seeming increasingly unlikely - (for example see "Darwin's blind spot : evolution beyond natural selection" by Frank Ryan).
p.s. and i'm not suggesting intelligent designer ;-)
soulfetcher 1 year ago
@soulfetcher Thank you for the reference, I'll look into it. Since it really sounds interesting.
Wollff85 1 year ago
God makes science possible, meaningful, inspiring and fun. Science without god is driven by money, compromise, competiton or madness.
michelvec 1 year ago
@michelvec actually, your talking about capitalism ... most scientists seek knowledge for knowledges sake ... dunno where you get your fucked up views from dude
Oddessuss 1 year ago
Exactly! IMO, your brilliant mind has discovered that discrepancy, which many,otherwise also brilliant minds here, on you tube, don't notice - the word 'god'. When we try to prove its non-existence, we've already accepted it as an entity. What it actually is, is a concept, an idea in the human mind. Ideas in the human mind are the neurological activity in the human brain, nothing more, nothing less, They are not things, entities, having a separate existence. I talk about that in my latest video.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
nice to see you back...
Elenkhos 1 year ago
The so called "genius" have a tendency to be more developed in certain areas while being more imature(underdeveloped if you like) in others, a bit like autists.
Its quite simply, a question of balance.
Nebelung13 1 year ago
Authority to make such claims doesn't exist. God is love and Science has no measure for that. It's amazing to me that such intelligent people have sight to so much and yet are blind to the rest. Proving you love someone takes a lifetime... Perhaps many lifetimes... and so does the understanding of creation. And, after you understand the lessons of life, how do you convey it all to others? Life is a mystery, the lessons we learn from it are saved only if we use them to create good character.
euripideesshreds 1 year ago
thank you for your return! looking forward to more from you.
mojomanhand 1 year ago
It is very nice to see you have returned to making videos.
mathiasgandy 1 year ago
Eloquently stated and deeply thought provoking!
battlebauble 1 year ago