Bet You Won't Understand.

[PrimeConsciousness]

And the material universe is only "real" so long as you experientially exist within it. Once dead, I can't find a single "real" aspect about physical reality. Whether consciousness goes on is irrelevant to the fact that any subset is only illusion amongst the superset unless expressed as a perpetual pattern in the superset.

[PrimeConsciousness]

The hat thing makes you look pompous just FYI. No judgement here, because I don't pretend to know people from trivial YT vids, but I thought I'd let you know. Interesting thoughts though.

[brendynireland]

I stopped when he put the stupid fucking somrero on... Is he trying to be funny and fake a trip cuz this is dumb

[ByteSmasher]

Boolean logic isn't flawless.... only recognizing absolute states of true and false causes serious paradoxes which break logic. Conditional truths are required, at the bare minimum, to make logic even close to usable as a base axiom of philosophy, at least in relation to approaching the true (lol) nature of reality.

[DogOfTheSpag]

He should read the sceptic's debate in 'Atheism: The Case Against God' by George Smith. A complete refutation of this premise.

[DogOfTheSpag]

He should read the skeptic's debate in 'Atheism: The Case Against God' by George Smith. A complete refutation of this premise.

[NoxieDC]

Well, first of, you don't give an argument as to why "I think therefore I am" is wrong. An argument would have made it clearer.

Springing from the basis of "positive emotions are good": Reality is real, that's certain. If it were only a dream then it's strange how every other human being has expressed thoughts similar to your own so you're not exactly a god. If it is a dream, it's kind pretty stupid - why aren't there constant good emotions if it's YOUR dream? Not the case.

[Valthepixie]

@NoxieDC "Reality is real, that's certain." Not so. Nothing we experience is first hand, but via electrical signals interpreted by our brian that constructs the signals into a reality. Dreaming and 'awake' realities are accepted as 'the' reality when we are experiencing it, including any history no matter how absurd. About the only thing we do have is "I think therefore I am". In all cases it is 'you' doing the experiencing. The only constant is our sense of self. :D

[PaddyCuinne]

@ArtMusicRepeat In a bad mood at all?

[ArtMusicRepeat]

@PaddyCuinne dont even remember what i posted. probs was upset about being lured away from jeff's discussion, youtube drama bulsshit anyway, to something completely off topic. thnka

[0ldow]

I don't think you really can refute any philosophical frame, but this cartesinanistic thinking makes me angry. Moar phenomenology pls. I mean, lets asume that world is really a dream. What is changed than in our thinking and talking about reality?

[SylvanBL00d]

all i think therefore i am means is that, because you think, you must exist in some form or another. this does not mean than you exist physically. you could be no more than a single thought floating around in space, but you would still exist.

[Ormaaj]

Utilitarianism states that you should strive for what is in the best interests of all humanity.

This explanation doesn't necessarily justify why you should be good to others unless doing so is of utility to you. It seems like it would require an assumption that there is somehow virtue in doing so.

The existence of good and bad feelings for you only tells us about a property you have, but not about what you ought to do.

[87Julius]

Regarding utilitarism, I'm not so familiar with it either but it does have a bad reputation as a lowbrow popular ethic. Personally I prefer ethics that'll give you some kind of ideal to reach instead of just trying to count physical pleasure and well-being "objectively". It just seems to focused on the ego, it ignores intentions and only considers consequences. I really don't think pleasure and pain are what is good by definition, pleasure is different than happiness and accomplishment

[PaddyCuinne]

well don't judge a book by it's cover. :P. Well it does give you an ideal in my view. a world focused on pleasure. and pleasure in utilitarianism ranges from spiritual happiness and intellectual happiness to eating a chocolate bar. there are different levels of pleasure.

[87Julius]

I really hate the word pleasure. I think you can assume different concepts from those 'levels' you're mentionning, but yeah this is just giving it a more dignified name. I think if utilitarism would want to shine its reputation it might want to stop talking about material well being because that shit is boring. Would you say that having pleasures and good times is as meaningful as being a better human being, or there's no difference? Are you grading pleasures or just differencing them?

[PaddyCuinne]

Well its whatever you think true happiness is. A better human being is one that evokes deep and happy emotions in others and lives an emotional life. The pleasures value is how good it feels. I'n deep meditation i've felt much "better" (calm at peace) than having sex.. It all depends on the person but the value is still felt objectivly at one value.

[87Julius]

I don't know Descartes but this stuff seems a bit funny to me, it's like he assumes reality is less real than thought. To me reality forms your intelligence, not the other way around. I don't think you need to doubt that reality exists so much, we have senses so we can use them. Anyway the only think that we can know for sure is that we can doubt, I think this contemporary desire for absolute certitude is misguided and hopeless

[PaddyCuinne]

Well the point was try to and find one irrefutable piece of knowledge. and he did that. :D then he pland to work up to a full understanding f reality fro that solid base.

[87Julius]

Yes, but full understanding of reality is not possible. I'm wondering how Pascal and Descartes work together, since I'm more familiar with the former. But I think a lot of Pascal's bile would be directed toward someone like Descartes, who thinks reason is all powerful (??). Anyway not much point in speculating, but if you're familiar with Pascal I'd like to hear what you can say about that

[metaphilosophy]

okay, so then how, under this system, should a sadist/ masochist behave(i am neither btw). This seems to pose a contradiction because they are causing negative emotion, which you say should be avoided, but they are deriving positive emotion from it, which you say should be sought after. So, if by hurting you, I gain a greater degree of positive emotion than you do negative emotion; should I do it?

[PaddyCuinne]

well to them a small amount of physical pain creates a lot of emotional pleasure. and i would say emotional pleasure has much more value. therefore in the end the net happiness would be positive.

the theory of equity is also included in utilitarian philosophy. basically one persons pleasure should not be chosen over anothers.

[metaphilosophy]

one quick argument - dark and painful times in a person's life can often lead to significant personal growth and greater happiness in their future. we may fear rejection or public speaking etc. but often despite our initial negative emotions associated with them, they turn out to be positive growth experiences. so if we only seek positive emotion, we will avoid these situations, and ultimately miss out on much of what life has to offer us.

[PaddyCuinne]

Well you see in that case you are doing what leads to the most positive. you have to look at the long term and the net happiness. if not eating chocolate can lead to a healthier and happier life then that is the utilitarian choice.

[metaphilosophy]

As far as I can tell, all you have accomplished is to set up a collection of axioms based assumptions.

1. assumption that logic is the correct axiom

2. assumption of physical existence

3. assumption of other separate consciousnesses

4. assumption of scientific theories

btw basis of science is not necessarily just "finding out what's incorrect" (philosophy of science is a fascinating study, look into it)

So basically all you've said is that feelings exist, so seek pleasure and avoid pain

[PaddyCuinne]

Yeah and that's extremely important. it gives us a positive and a negative value and an objective moral code.

[deathstarcafe]

Nihilism. I'm not a Nihilist, but I like certain concepts and apply them to this.

[Subsqueeze]

But how can you prove that you think without proving that there is a "you" that thinks? Descartes' first point is to prove a "thinking thing", a rational faculty or a consciousness, not a body and all that other stuff. Doubting the existence of a rational faculty itself involves rational first-person thought, thus confirming the rational faculty.

Similarly we can also confirm the axion of logic by saying that logic can't be refuted without applying logical reasoning, thus confirming logic.

[PaddyCuinne]

what im saying is we prove emotion exists and then act as if we exist so that we can try tp get the most emotion. sorry im not explaining this very well.

nah but just because you cant disprove something doesnt mean it exists.

[Bmajor87]

Hey Paddy, I've been offline for quite some time but still evolving abd as i can see so are you and your ideas. Loving the new videos, A question for you to ponder Pad, alot of people are quick to answer but i would love to hear what you think, Can there ever be a balance between the binarys?

[PaddyCuinne]

sorry binarys?

[Bmajor87]

Yeah binarys, as in positive and negative, light and dark, false and fact etc

[PaddyCuinne]

i think there has to be a balance. :P

[YourGuardian]

eh, I think I would disagree. Anything branded with qualities of positive and negative are so because of a subjectiveness to the self. "True" good and evil is determined by a collective interpretation of a group with similar or same subjective views. Basically, any collective of summed agreement makes subjective interpretations seemingly objective whether by religion, politics, tradition or otherwise. Its unlikely one can calculate what exists in a subjective form. So, is there true good/evil?

[PaddyCuinne]

Well to me there are certain emotions you would avoid and some you would seek. this shows me that to you those emotions are objectively good. Now using tautology you can say that all positive emotions are good. all positive emotions are objectively good. all negative are objectively bad. by definition in fact.

[YourGuardian]

It is a given that the average individual seeks pleasure, but the identity of that pleasure is neither good nor bad. It may be gained from food or some form of accomplishment, but maybe its in the act of superiority or even murder. These all will likely bring about positive emotions and pleasures out of some, but they may not always be seen as morally good or morally bad. Once again, we find any situation and any outcome is essentially judged by the observer or the one experiencing it.

[YourGuardian]

There should be no means to prove the absolute nature of such, and this thus casts a shade of grey over the possibility of good or bad. I think its better to consider them to be merely descriptive, even opinions over something we all dont have to agree on. In the end, I may find "generalizations" to be bad and unhealthy, and you might find them to be good and simplified to benefit those that otherwise wouldnt understand. Yet how could we prove each other wrong in regards to our own views?

[PaddyCuinne]

Well simply through the outcome of the events. us humans are good at seeing patterns.

[YourGuardian]

I don't see where this was about seeing patterns. If someone was to come about an absolute good or bad, they need to understand it, objectively. But there has yet to be something "objectively good" that one could not experience in a way that is subjectively bad. That alone eliminates the possibility of either absolute and leaves it to be determined by the self.

[PaddyCuinne]

There is no absolute good in reference to actions. but there is objectively positive and negative emotions. you cant argue with this tautology unless you say no emotion is good or bad...

[YourGuardian]

Emotions in itself are a piece or catalyst to subjective thought. Whatever emotion is obtained through one's perception is incomplete in its reflection of objectivity. Anyone's observation of the others emotion is subjective, and therefore cannot adequately describe any existence of a positive or negative attribute to the others emotion. Even your emotional reaction is inconsistent in regards to the external and will likely erupt into a different form even as a response to the same situation.

[YourGuardian]

Emotion has no significant connection to logic. One cant prove its existence just as similarly as one cant prove their own physical being. Unless youve adopted rationalism, which you seem to be a skeptic in your video (correct me if I am wrong), Im not too sure if you can say that emotions even exist, for it could just have to do with the functionality of the brain in order to ensure effectiveness. How can you even prove objectively what is positive or negative in terms of emotion?

[YourGuardian]

Is it that I feel good, therefore it is positive? I am sad therefore my emotion is negative? That doesnt seem to be in any sense a tautology, neither does it seem to have any basis for its existence. Your emotion is a reaction to some sort of stimulus, completely vulnerable to external in regards to whether the external subjectively good or bad to you. So where does objectivity even come in to this?

[PaddyCuinne]

good and positive are the same..

tautology.

no?

[YourGuardian]

I wouldn't say so. Positive is more like a representation of abundance, when negative is the latter. Good is a contrast to bad, a determination between right and wrong. In essence Good is a moral related word. Something that is used to describe things that happen to have some sort of positive meaning to us.

Good and positive are not the same, its not a fact. If anything they are two distinct words. Just as distinct as hot or humid.

[PaddyCuinne]

@YourGuardian You can prove emotion exists every time you feel it.

[YourGuardian]

@PaddyCuinne That's an understanding with only a first person relation. You can be pissed as hell, and show it, but I can still be quite skeptical. And no matter what you say, there is nothing for me to conclude you are in fact feeling emotion except your own word, so we run into a terrible predicament. Besides, if I am evening having trouble proving that I exist, then proving that something I'm not sure exists can feel is also pretty hazy. In the end, we run into a big fat wall of uncertainty

[PaddyCuinne]

well murder is bad because it also creates negative pain.. and prevents the feeling of further pleasure from the victim. so its an immoral act (generally).

[YourGuardian]

Its sort of unreasonable to state that anything is good for everyone. Just because murder may not be positive for one person doesn't mean that the murderer and maybe others would reap benefits. Its the same as promotions, though good for one person, others in that same division have failed to obtain that status and they might possibly be laid off to cut expenses. In fact, I don't think death, in any form, is in fact negative. Its an absence of being, including pain and suffering.

[psychedelnick1]

I enjoyed that, and understood it for the most part. I wasn't ready to log on to youtube and think so much.

I think if we all went about life like it weren't real (which it cannot be proven life is real) we would all be sucked into a purgatory type place where you just float and it's all white haha. It is to insane to think about and my brain cannot have these conversations by itself any more.

[PaddyCuinne]

lol yeah. well i puzzled with it for ages as a kid. i ouldn't function without this realisation.

[emmamma123]

Maybe you should look into neurology a bit more, to give your ideas some scientific weight, so when you talk about "feeling emotions" you can really be sure you know what you mean.

I'm not at all saying that in a patronizing way haha, nor am i suggesting you don't know enough about it- I just think your arguments would be better built upon factual foundations.

Interesting though :] and i did understand- i think

[PaddyCuinne]

i'm gaining as much knowledge as i can in philosophy at the moment. i branch of when i have to. i know a bit about neurology however and i chose to put it in simple launguage to work for the majority of viewers. thanks for the advice though.

[emmamma123]

I'm not an expert in philosophy but I know about science and I think your connection between proof of thought and proof of emotion is slightly flawed."If u can prove u can think u can prove that u feel, because WHILE U EXIST IN THIS BODY u can still feel sensations and pleasurable and painful emotions".

U just used the idea that we have bodies to prove that we have emotions, when you said you disagreed that to think is to exist and said only to think is to think and to think is to feel emotion.

[TheStarSpark]

I think you missed something here. "I" stands for yourself- refuring to yourself and no one else.See I think therefore I am is not proving the existence of all thinking beings-just yourself.You cannot prove that other beings exist because of beliefs like Solipsism (if you don't know what that is Wikipedia it).So I think Descartes was right as far as "I think therefore I am" goes-it is the only true way of proving your existance, seeing as our 5 senses are so easily fooled we cannot rely on...

[TheStarSpark]

....them to gain any true knowledge or base our beliefs on what knowledge we get from them.Epistemology and Ontology can be a bit hard because what we have to debate about can be so logical its illogical at times.

[PaddyCuinne]

no my point was even if you cant prove others we should accept them as real as to be able to function in this reality.

[TheStarSpark]

Of course, Descartes said that too.He said that we should keep our philosophical thinking and our actual daily life separate as possible, because if we actually applied these theories we come up with, we wouldn't be able to function in society.

[PaddyCuinne]

Althouhg i think if you do manage to work your way up to a truth you find irrafutable then you should apply it.

[superextremelaser]

I only THINK that I am thinking, but maybe it's an illusion...

you got me thinking man, good work

[PaddyCuinne]

thanks. :D

[Link10893]

In conclusion..

I'd rather enjoy my life, rather than loathe it.

Even if the life physically doesn't exist.

I still feel good, and I still feel bad.

[PaddyCuinne]

Truer shit has never been said.

[Link10893]

Honestly, I used to think about things like this all the time.

And, then I came to a conclusion.

It doesn't matter.

I'm not saying stop, but I'm saying if we do exist okay, if we don't exist, okay, but I want to make my magic thought process very pleasing while I have it.

Meaning, I still can enjoy something, and I still can hate something.

I wouldn't choose the latter.

'Something' being my existence of thought.

[PaddyCuinne]

exactly. :D

[eroshiyda]

In order to think, you have to exist. In order to feel, you have to exist. In order to be human, or to be anything at all, you have to exist. Descartes' argument is valid.

As for thoughts and feelings, they are physically measurable. Brain waves are calculated using electromagnetic scanners. Certain emotions illicit corresponding physiological responses.

We've mapped the basics of the human genome and have tests for that, too.

You think. You feel. You're human. That's about all you can prove.

[PaddyCuinne]

thats not neccesarily true. what if matter came together at one point to form a momentary consciousness.. you dont have to exist for thoughts to exist.

you cant prove the physical.

private message if you wana have a proper debate.

[rozeboosje]

What's the "I" that is supposed to do the "thinking" here? ;-)

[PaddyCuinne]

well really all you can prove is the thought exists. my point is you cant prove that thought is linked or created by anything.

[rozeboosje]

Indeed not - thought is reality.

[TheStarSpark]

No, perception is our reality.Lol.

[PaddyCuinne]

mm hmmm :D how are your videos doing by the way my pc has broken and just recently fixed it.

[rozeboosje]

they're doing very well. I'm just after rippin our friend Geerup a new one.

[PaddyCuinne]

:D lol. i really need an arch enemy here on youtube..

[littlekatanaweilder]

the hick teh secoind time looked like kermit teh frog a bit with his action. i also understand what your saying, you thinik therefore you think makes sense because you could possibly not be in your body, you could just be a ball of sensations and thoughts somwhere or somthing of the like, and like a dream these sensations are completely valid no matter the stimulus, and from a utalitarian point of veiw you should try to find ways to maximise these feeling. can i has cookie now?

[PaddyCuinne]

great stuff man right on. :D i will find a cookie...

[dackjaniels555]

I think therefore I am, At the very least... A sentient being.

Dreams are real to =/.

[PaddyCuinne]

but a thought could exist without a thinker

[MattTheGodOfTime]

you should have gone into more depth

[PaddyCuinne]

i know.. was spur of the moment.

[Mentalspud49]

Right on, Josephine.

I was gonna say something but I don't know how to explain it... ha. It'll probably end up looking like jibberish, but yeah, I understand you.

[PaddyCuinne]

sweet. :D

[KevinSolway]

It's a good start. What's interesting is where you're going to go from there. That will be the test.

[PaddyCuinne]

well you need a base to build on.