I practice mindful meditation. I ofthen ask myself what that is "for". "Being objective" came to mind - observing what's in my surroundings with no reactivity or any type of analysis or "evaluation" of what I observe. Not even my thoughts - they are just there. So I searched "objectivity" here and found this. Authour/philosopher Ayn Rand originated a philosophy she calls "Objectivisim". What she has to say would surely help you become more clear and understanding of what you brought up here.
It occurs to me that someone would argue that you get reactive judgements to support or deny yourself for a security towards society. What if ego were driven instead to have no mitigating circumstances for security, and it just gets it's own high from critique integrity.
Subjective can be objective, but objectiveness is always objective. And yes, you can objectively judge yourself with your own "objective" critique. I say objective in quotation marks when referring to critique, because I know that no judgement is truly objective. Still, if you don't bullshit for yourself, then what I mean is correct.
THat is your choice, I respect that, we may not always agree with you or not agree, however when understanding can come to be whether we agree or not with you, we are than showing true care, and true compassion towards another human being who deserves to be heard, and not silenced. You deserve to speak your mind and heart, as does your neighbor, as do I. and so forth. You are what you speak, you speak what you are. You're my friend, and always will be. You're realist, and I am too at times.
I absolutely agree. Everone MUST be able to speak their minds, but I do wish and pray (probably not your kind of prayer) that more people learn to throw away their present beleifs when they receive new "evidence". I have done so, many times, and it have given me so much in respect to understanding.
"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part..."--Albert Einstein, 1950
I do agree with what you say, but we are a piece of reality looking at itself - i.e. self recursion, and all of our thoughts are derived from the world itself, before you were born you were matter/energy strewn across the world, you (and me, everyone) were merely reshaped, and formed into a human being out of pre-existing stuff.
Concepts are derived from the world, the concept 'subjective' and 'objective' are incoherent, in themselves, many highest IQ people know there is only one reality...
Is it not language that generates the idea of objectivity, not to mention many other things? Language is the attempt to transcend our singular consciousness, which would surely be a whole lot more subjective if we did not have the connection between us that is language. Objectivity is not what we have, I would say intersubjectivity, that is, two or more singular minds believeing that they each share the same interpretation of something, but obviously not knowing that they do....
Energy is consciousness. Everything is energy. Not everything is conscious. Is consciousness special? Only if the perceived mind or ego give it value. Good and evil, right and wrong are just views, perception, frames of reference, and opinions ect ect... What does it all mean? What meaning do you give it? What is the purpose? What purpose do you give it? What is the meaning to life? What meaning do you give it? Peace.
As to purpose; as we are humans we need to understand everything that may have effect on our existence, therefore an empiric analytical method is applied to reach fundamental agrement. Such an agrement is antropocentric obviously, but still valid for the human existence. So, any data that makes us reach a fundamental conclusion is of interest. My point is that the brains of humans share similarities. Thereofore, "purposes" do share similariesties as well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I love you Atheists, listen to the bullshit by the Guru pervert. you all do make me laugh So so much, Best comedy in the world, I think God had to put people like you guys in the world because it proves he has a great sense of humor.
Thank God For Atheists, It is the best comedy in the world. even if they are not worthy!
Answer to question on Homo's man + man = 0
Man + woman = Baby, as man & man Equals FA = perversion. Hehe
You are a little unsure of yourself, are you not?
You have no actual information in this comment proving anything, nothing substantial that makes anybody think. Only your own anger and insecurity. As for the gay thing; the world does not need more people my dear, it is already overpopulated. Become gay now, save our world!
There is different meanings of what is objective. Water is wet, light is bright is objective in one sense of the meaning of the word. This is the only objective I look for. However I admit these facts are a result of me being a subject, being a fact of the subjective objective relation. I am not interested in the objective without subjet relation. No one knows this reality. We are subjects.
I am not contesting subjectivity, I am contesting linguistics. Behind the lingual mind there is a structure created to identify the objective. The problem arise when we try to explain what we react to cognitively. Then meta-cognition comes into play.
I can't think physical and metaphysical is the same thing. This because the mind is metaphysical reality. It is objectively there and interact with other metaphysical properties. What comes out of the absolute objective is observed objectives, which must have a background, not there by their own.
Again, I do not agree with the words used. Words and thoughts are nothing but soundwaves created by the brain to communicate with other objective entities. Just like a neuron sends signals to other neurons in the brain. It is not very magical or special, it just is.
Let me illustrate what is objective. Light is bright right? Whatever causes image mentally has brightness. Ultrasound is probably bright to bats. I guess their ears makes such good navigation that their subject interpret sound so sophisticated that they see their area with screaming ultrasound. If this is true, ultrasound is bright to them. Light is bright to us. These are the objective standard for us, and we are similair mentally, so we have same experience of external.
I ain't calling the mind magic. I believe my mind is real. If I were to believe my mind is my brain, there is some kind of delusion in my experience of having a mind. I would believe it to be magic in other words. Now, my brain has actions related to my mode of awareness. This proves with inductive reasoning, and if you label both aspects to be real and none being magical, that physical energy can have conscious properties.
Yes, physical energy can create what we call "conscious". And this effect is nothing special, its just reflective awerness; actions done with regression to other components. One part of the brain asks another part what to do.
"One part of the brain asks another part what to do."
It sounds like you are giving different parts of your brain different intentional systems, making your brain a society of identities. That could very well be true, but all these are what is a part of what is considered "YOUR" mind. Also, you are a part of the mind of your society, so your theory isn't that far fetched. :)
That is my point. I have a problem with the black and white blanket statements like "everything is subjective". It is not of interest that everything is subjective, when the identifier of that "fact" is an objective entity identifying other entities processes. I am not saying it is not correct; I am saying it is not that easy. A full grasp of the words is necessary.
I don't think physical energy create minds. That would make the sum of existing things in the universe not always the same. Believing thoughts are created by energy and not a property in the energy is believing minds magically appear (ergo not actually there according to the physicalist). See my latest video "Physicalists who believe in magic"
As for the mind, it is nothing but a physical product. That is all the evidence points towards at this time. We will see, but I think we have fooled ourself to see consciousness as something far more special then it is.
me saying this may seem out of place here because i have NO philosophical background wahtsoever (as i am only 14) but the topic fascinates me. i read a comment by FatGermanBastard, and he said this "How do you know your eyes don't lie to you?" What is a lie?
It is one of the quintessential questions in philosophy; what do we know and how can we know it. If you read up on René Descartes, you will encounter this problem in its first worked-through form. Use wikipedia.
I am an empiricist and do not question testable, falsifiable reality; I see the question of illusion to be circular and uninteresting.
At age 14, your already ahead of most. Focus on introductionary material and do not take a stance yet. Read up on many different views and think clearly through them. Many have been lost in philosophy, leading them to become unproductive "thinkers". Its not wrong, but its not right either... ;)
Use the link I have posted in the bottom of the description box of this video.
thank you so much! ive only read the first section of the introduction, but i like the way its written. it says that its an online textbook...is there any chance that its printed as a book? if so, i'd really like a copy to keep my own notes on.
Sorry to say, the source book is not available as written text, as this source is slightly interactive and made for easy access. I would recommend that you keep and make notes with reference to the chapter/under chapter on the top of your paper sheet, for easy back peddling. If you take an hour each day, you will successfully maneuver this material in a few weeks. Use wikipedia for more links if you get stuck on any topic.
I have a psychologist friend who goes down a path of infinite regression using "why" when discussing things such as moral conduct. Why is killing people wrong followed by as many whys as I can answer, because she could always reply with "why" I commented to her that to fully explain this (if I had all the infinite answers) we would both have to exist forever. But I still "feel" that killing people is wrong even though I cant completely explain "why", any ideas anyone??
WE do not murder because it is hardwired in the ethical center in the brain. We have survived through evolution by social means, and those that had a block on killing their own race survived. That makes murder feel bad. It is pretty much that easy.
We do murder, we have steadfastly advanced in techonology for effeciency in the killing of our own species, perhaps what contitutes a threat to survival has always been subjective and perhaps that creates the block. Perhaps survival included culling of the weak of a group for the benefit of the rest. Murder does not yet feel bad enough to result in peaceful planet
No, we do not murder, the social engine does. But it is encoded in the human being not to murder, obviously, or we would never evolve. If threatened (true or false) or hungry, murder will be possible.
We can evolve through murder. By culling off the weak who cannot mentally understand the concept of (fill in blank) objective or are physically insignificant to serve such a purpose, culling such individuals would be energy efficient through time and set example of what is required from others
Yes, while philosophy is important, without support of evidence, without using anything derived from the real world, it'll be going around in circles.
But the same problem applys to EVERYTHING ! How do you know that your eyes don't lie to you ? How do you know that you even exist ? Live could be a dream. You may be stuck in a matrix. You have to dogmatically assume it, go in circles or go on giving reasons infinitely.
While this is so, but if you remember having seen a camel (for instance), this would be more likely if you have actually experienced seeing a camel. The probability of you experiencing that is greater if you've actually had a camel before you than if you haven't. Clip on evidence about evidence coming up.
I don't know that my eyes are showing me the truth. But I know that having the impression of seeing a specific object is more likely if the object is right in front of me than if it isn't. Because in addition to me just having the impression and the object accidentally being there, there is the possibility of an actual causal relationship between the impression and the object.
What *really* hints that an object I've got an impression of seeing really is there there is that I can make predictions based on it. For instance, if I see a ball, I can kick it. I'll predict that my foot won't go right through it but that it'll bounce. More often than not this is precisely what it'll do. Under the assumption that it's not there, anything can 'happen'. Things behaving as predicted is evidence, per def.
I know this is a hint because experiencing predictable patterns of actions open to scientific scrutiny is to be expected if there is an objective reality, but would be quite surprising if there isn't.
>Much like "Free will"... Its not mechanically possible, but we live our life abstractly as it is there, obviously.
There I don't agree with you, as you understand. The fact that you can make predictions on the assumption of there being a reality and on there being free will means that this is evidence of these two things. I.e. the most parsimonious explanation for explaining that which we experience is that what we experience is real.
If all people experienced God, if that experience could be compared and analyzed and subjected to powerful predictions, then I would answer yes. The case that this isn't so and the experiences pulls in different directions (different religions) suggests that this is entirely subjective.
Well, I hold the position that the feeling of free will does not mean you chose anything, it only means you perceive the mechanical outcome and act. An impulse (like drinking alcohol) is checked in the prefrontal cortex for information on further action, and if there is information available, like the fact that you have to drive later, the impulse needs to be stronger then all the stored counter charges. Thats pretty much it.
Your the man on philosophy. I am still trying to understand this world around us, and how we are apart of this universe, we are children of stardust. Great video. I saw the other one first.
GA, I agree strongly with everything you said here. I mean that seriously.
I have thought this ever since I started reading philosophy. Granted, I am certainly NOT a philosopher, nor am I anything close to being an expert on philosophy. However, I have read more than the average human.
So many philosophers simply fail to resonate with me. Often, I cannot even articulate why that is, but I just "feel" that their arguments are not working. [...]
Of course, many philosophical types would then insist that I have not understood, or cannot understand. Perhaps that is often the case, but I rarely think so. I understand general relativity. I understand calculus. I understand (as far as it can be understood) QED. I quite readily understand many difficult subjects. Therefore, I am confident that I am capable of high level understanding. [...]
Yet, still, much philosophy fails to resonate. And, I think that is so for the reasons you talked about in this video.
All of that said however, there are several philosophers that do ABSOLUTELY resonate. They speak to me! I read them and just keep saying, "YES!!!!" They all happen to be materialists. A few examples: Dan Dennet, Anthony Flew, George Smith, and so on.
I do concur with many philosophies, as long as they are either; literature in form, to generate thought and therefore not meant to give clear understanding, or; empirically based, scientific philosophy.
Ok, I get it!
goreyed 1 month ago
@goreyed Thats good... I .. what did you get?
GnosticAtheist 1 month ago
the eerie sound effects were a little unnecessary but i think this guy is on the right track
martrontroid 7 months ago
I practice mindful meditation. I ofthen ask myself what that is "for". "Being objective" came to mind - observing what's in my surroundings with no reactivity or any type of analysis or "evaluation" of what I observe. Not even my thoughts - they are just there. So I searched "objectivity" here and found this. Authour/philosopher Ayn Rand originated a philosophy she calls "Objectivisim". What she has to say would surely help you become more clear and understanding of what you brought up here.
.
BooeyHogue 7 months ago
It occurs to me that someone would argue that you get reactive judgements to support or deny yourself for a security towards society. What if ego were driven instead to have no mitigating circumstances for security, and it just gets it's own high from critique integrity.
ApogeeProsecutor 1 year ago
Subjective can be objective, but objectiveness is always objective. And yes, you can objectively judge yourself with your own "objective" critique. I say objective in quotation marks when referring to critique, because I know that no judgement is truly objective. Still, if you don't bullshit for yourself, then what I mean is correct.
ApogeeProsecutor 1 year ago
I AGREE! Completely right, circular logic is without a doubt a breeding ground for subjectivity.
I do not enjoy philosophy that is circular either.
-austin
GungnirStrike 2 years ago 2
wow!
Someone saw this video! 8D
Yes, I have changed on many fronts but this stands pretty unchanged.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
THat is your choice, I respect that, we may not always agree with you or not agree, however when understanding can come to be whether we agree or not with you, we are than showing true care, and true compassion towards another human being who deserves to be heard, and not silenced. You deserve to speak your mind and heart, as does your neighbor, as do I. and so forth. You are what you speak, you speak what you are. You're my friend, and always will be. You're realist, and I am too at times.
dan144x 3 years ago
I absolutely agree. Everone MUST be able to speak their minds, but I do wish and pray (probably not your kind of prayer) that more people learn to throw away their present beleifs when they receive new "evidence". I have done so, many times, and it have given me so much in respect to understanding.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part..."--Albert Einstein, 1950
FoolishCanadian 3 years ago
Oh that Albert... ,)
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
I do agree with what you say, but we are a piece of reality looking at itself - i.e. self recursion, and all of our thoughts are derived from the world itself, before you were born you were matter/energy strewn across the world, you (and me, everyone) were merely reshaped, and formed into a human being out of pre-existing stuff.
Concepts are derived from the world, the concept 'subjective' and 'objective' are incoherent, in themselves, many highest IQ people know there is only one reality...
FoolishCanadian 3 years ago
Yes. I concur.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
....because they are each singular minds, and cannot know other minds.
begily 3 years ago
But the point (in my mind) is that thoughtpatterns can be analysed and "downloaded".
More science fiction to come! ;)
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
Is it not language that generates the idea of objectivity, not to mention many other things? Language is the attempt to transcend our singular consciousness, which would surely be a whole lot more subjective if we did not have the connection between us that is language. Objectivity is not what we have, I would say intersubjectivity, that is, two or more singular minds believeing that they each share the same interpretation of something, but obviously not knowing that they do....
begily 3 years ago
Energy is consciousness. Everything is energy. Not everything is conscious. Is consciousness special? Only if the perceived mind or ego give it value. Good and evil, right and wrong are just views, perception, frames of reference, and opinions ect ect... What does it all mean? What meaning do you give it? What is the purpose? What purpose do you give it? What is the meaning to life? What meaning do you give it? Peace.
Esseyex 4 years ago
Well, yes. I agree.
As to purpose; as we are humans we need to understand everything that may have effect on our existence, therefore an empiric analytical method is applied to reach fundamental agrement. Such an agrement is antropocentric obviously, but still valid for the human existence. So, any data that makes us reach a fundamental conclusion is of interest. My point is that the brains of humans share similarities. Thereofore, "purposes" do share similariesties as well.
GnosticAtheist 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love you Atheists, listen to the bullshit by the Guru pervert. you all do make me laugh So so much, Best comedy in the world, I think God had to put people like you guys in the world because it proves he has a great sense of humor.
Thank God For Atheists, It is the best comedy in the world. even if they are not worthy!
Answer to question on Homo's man + man = 0
Man + woman = Baby, as man & man Equals FA = perversion. Hehe
patcondellTGAGroup 4 years ago
You are a little unsure of yourself, are you not?
You have no actual information in this comment proving anything, nothing substantial that makes anybody think. Only your own anger and insecurity. As for the gay thing; the world does not need more people my dear, it is already overpopulated. Become gay now, save our world!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
There is different meanings of what is objective. Water is wet, light is bright is objective in one sense of the meaning of the word. This is the only objective I look for. However I admit these facts are a result of me being a subject, being a fact of the subjective objective relation. I am not interested in the objective without subjet relation. No one knows this reality. We are subjects.
Censeo 4 years ago
"we" are subjects, but the cognitive part of the brain is objective, formed by evolution, to understand the objective, real.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I am not in the mood for a full blown debate now so I just sy this. I'd still consider this to be the real world, even if you are wrong here.
Censeo 4 years ago
;)
I am not contesting subjectivity, I am contesting linguistics. Behind the lingual mind there is a structure created to identify the objective. The problem arise when we try to explain what we react to cognitively. Then meta-cognition comes into play.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I can't think physical and metaphysical is the same thing. This because the mind is metaphysical reality. It is objectively there and interact with other metaphysical properties. What comes out of the absolute objective is observed objectives, which must have a background, not there by their own.
Censeo 4 years ago
Again, I do not agree with the words used. Words and thoughts are nothing but soundwaves created by the brain to communicate with other objective entities. Just like a neuron sends signals to other neurons in the brain. It is not very magical or special, it just is.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Let me illustrate what is objective. Light is bright right? Whatever causes image mentally has brightness. Ultrasound is probably bright to bats. I guess their ears makes such good navigation that their subject interpret sound so sophisticated that they see their area with screaming ultrasound. If this is true, ultrasound is bright to them. Light is bright to us. These are the objective standard for us, and we are similair mentally, so we have same experience of external.
Censeo 4 years ago
And with the scientific method we know what "bright" really is.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Everything we can see in our brain is external btw. It is not an infinite regression if you study the whole brain of yourself live.
Censeo 4 years ago
Do not understand what you mean.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I think that was probably the point...he's just trying to sound smart.
Crunt123 4 years ago
I ain't calling the mind magic. I believe my mind is real. If I were to believe my mind is my brain, there is some kind of delusion in my experience of having a mind. I would believe it to be magic in other words. Now, my brain has actions related to my mode of awareness. This proves with inductive reasoning, and if you label both aspects to be real and none being magical, that physical energy can have conscious properties.
Censeo 4 years ago
Yes, physical energy can create what we call "conscious". And this effect is nothing special, its just reflective awerness; actions done with regression to other components. One part of the brain asks another part what to do.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
"One part of the brain asks another part what to do."
It sounds like you are giving different parts of your brain different intentional systems, making your brain a society of identities. That could very well be true, but all these are what is a part of what is considered "YOUR" mind. Also, you are a part of the mind of your society, so your theory isn't that far fetched. :)
Censeo 4 years ago
That is my point. I have a problem with the black and white blanket statements like "everything is subjective". It is not of interest that everything is subjective, when the identifier of that "fact" is an objective entity identifying other entities processes. I am not saying it is not correct; I am saying it is not that easy. A full grasp of the words is necessary.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I don't think physical energy create minds. That would make the sum of existing things in the universe not always the same. Believing thoughts are created by energy and not a property in the energy is believing minds magically appear (ergo not actually there according to the physicalist). See my latest video "Physicalists who believe in magic"
Censeo 4 years ago
I will see it.
As for the mind, it is nothing but a physical product. That is all the evidence points towards at this time. We will see, but I think we have fooled ourself to see consciousness as something far more special then it is.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I do not know what the mind is, but that it is I do know :)
Censeo 4 years ago
Well, we agree there, no doubt. ;)
We know it is something there, and we are working on it. Thats good enough for me. One day, it is my belief, that we will get it. I hope...
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
me saying this may seem out of place here because i have NO philosophical background wahtsoever (as i am only 14) but the topic fascinates me. i read a comment by FatGermanBastard, and he said this "How do you know your eyes don't lie to you?" What is a lie?
WhOiScHo 4 years ago
"How do you know your eyes don't lie to you?"
It is one of the quintessential questions in philosophy; what do we know and how can we know it. If you read up on René Descartes, you will encounter this problem in its first worked-through form. Use wikipedia.
I am an empiricist and do not question testable, falsifiable reality; I see the question of illusion to be circular and uninteresting.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
okay, thanks. i really like philosphy, and i want to learn more about the different philosophers/philosophies, but i don't know where to start.
WhOiScHo 4 years ago
At age 14, your already ahead of most. Focus on introductionary material and do not take a stance yet. Read up on many different views and think clearly through them. Many have been lost in philosophy, leading them to become unproductive "thinkers". Its not wrong, but its not right either... ;)
Use the link I have posted in the bottom of the description box of this video.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
thank you so much! ive only read the first section of the introduction, but i like the way its written. it says that its an online textbook...is there any chance that its printed as a book? if so, i'd really like a copy to keep my own notes on.
WhOiScHo 4 years ago
Glad to be of service.
Sorry to say, the source book is not available as written text, as this source is slightly interactive and made for easy access. I would recommend that you keep and make notes with reference to the chapter/under chapter on the top of your paper sheet, for easy back peddling. If you take an hour each day, you will successfully maneuver this material in a few weeks. Use wikipedia for more links if you get stuck on any topic.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
will do! and again, thank you!!!
WhOiScHo 4 years ago
No problem. Any problems, questions, just PM me or ask here.
Peace out.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
good video. could you tell me the song from NIN that is playing in the beginning?
mormongod 4 years ago
I have a psychologist friend who goes down a path of infinite regression using "why" when discussing things such as moral conduct. Why is killing people wrong followed by as many whys as I can answer, because she could always reply with "why" I commented to her that to fully explain this (if I had all the infinite answers) we would both have to exist forever. But I still "feel" that killing people is wrong even though I cant completely explain "why", any ideas anyone??
paniapichu 4 years ago
WE do not murder because it is hardwired in the ethical center in the brain. We have survived through evolution by social means, and those that had a block on killing their own race survived. That makes murder feel bad. It is pretty much that easy.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
We do murder, we have steadfastly advanced in techonology for effeciency in the killing of our own species, perhaps what contitutes a threat to survival has always been subjective and perhaps that creates the block. Perhaps survival included culling of the weak of a group for the benefit of the rest. Murder does not yet feel bad enough to result in peaceful planet
paniapichu 4 years ago
No, we do not murder, the social engine does. But it is encoded in the human being not to murder, obviously, or we would never evolve. If threatened (true or false) or hungry, murder will be possible.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
We can evolve through murder. By culling off the weak who cannot mentally understand the concept of (fill in blank) objective or are physically insignificant to serve such a purpose, culling such individuals would be energy efficient through time and set example of what is required from others
paniapichu 4 years ago
The ethical center in the brain have a tendency to disagree, leading to mass uprising in the end.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
yes and we kill to stop the killing, we are always killing the perceived threat to ourselves
paniapichu 4 years ago
Yes. Or solve it cognitively.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Good video.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
Thanks.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
good video. Perhaps you should be a psychologist. You could make new theory perhaps.
biobot04 4 years ago
Well, I do not really study psychology as a lone subject, I study socio-psychology.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
well good morning to you to!
achampag 4 years ago
.... Happy birthday to you!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
b-day?
achampag 4 years ago
The end of days!
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Yes, while philosophy is important, without support of evidence, without using anything derived from the real world, it'll be going around in circles.
trondreitan 4 years ago
My problem exactly.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
But the same problem applys to EVERYTHING ! How do you know that your eyes don't lie to you ? How do you know that you even exist ? Live could be a dream. You may be stuck in a matrix. You have to dogmatically assume it, go in circles or go on giving reasons infinitely.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
While this is so, but if you remember having seen a camel (for instance), this would be more likely if you have actually experienced seeing a camel. The probability of you experiencing that is greater if you've actually had a camel before you than if you haven't. Clip on evidence about evidence coming up.
trondreitan 4 years ago
> this would be more likely
Now what is your source for this belief ? How you even know that your eyes are showing you the truth ?
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
I don't know that my eyes are showing me the truth. But I know that having the impression of seeing a specific object is more likely if the object is right in front of me than if it isn't. Because in addition to me just having the impression and the object accidentally being there, there is the possibility of an actual causal relationship between the impression and the object.
trondreitan 4 years ago
What *really* hints that an object I've got an impression of seeing really is there there is that I can make predictions based on it. For instance, if I see a ball, I can kick it. I'll predict that my foot won't go right through it but that it'll bounce. More often than not this is precisely what it'll do. Under the assumption that it's not there, anything can 'happen'. Things behaving as predicted is evidence, per def.
trondreitan 4 years ago
> What *really* hints that an object I've got
> an impression of seeing really is there
> there is that I can make predictions based
> on it.
Now how do you know that this is a hint ?
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
The scientific method.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I know this is a hint because experiencing predictable patterns of actions open to scientific scrutiny is to be expected if there is an objective reality, but would be quite surprising if there isn't.
trondreitan 4 years ago
If reality is an "illusion" it has no bearing on us whatsoever, therefore it is reality.
Much like "Free will"... Its not mechanically possible, but we live our life abstractly as it is there, obviously.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
>Much like "Free will"... Its not mechanically possible, but we live our life abstractly as it is there, obviously.
There I don't agree with you, as you understand. The fact that you can make predictions on the assumption of there being a reality and on there being free will means that this is evidence of these two things. I.e. the most parsimonious explanation for explaining that which we experience is that what we experience is real.
trondreitan 4 years ago
So when religious people experience god, it is real?
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
If all people experienced God, if that experience could be compared and analyzed and subjected to powerful predictions, then I would answer yes. The case that this isn't so and the experiences pulls in different directions (different religions) suggests that this is entirely subjective.
trondreitan 4 years ago
Well, I hold the position that the feeling of free will does not mean you chose anything, it only means you perceive the mechanical outcome and act. An impulse (like drinking alcohol) is checked in the prefrontal cortex for information on further action, and if there is information available, like the fact that you have to drive later, the impulse needs to be stronger then all the stored counter charges. Thats pretty much it.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Because I have the scientific method.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
By the scientific method.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Your the man on philosophy. I am still trying to understand this world around us, and how we are apart of this universe, we are children of stardust. Great video. I saw the other one first.
hollywodhack 4 years ago
Yeah, that was the point. This video is me rambling some on the same topic. ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
1 of 3
GA, I agree strongly with everything you said here. I mean that seriously.
I have thought this ever since I started reading philosophy. Granted, I am certainly NOT a philosopher, nor am I anything close to being an expert on philosophy. However, I have read more than the average human.
So many philosophers simply fail to resonate with me. Often, I cannot even articulate why that is, but I just "feel" that their arguments are not working. [...]
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
2 of 3
Of course, many philosophical types would then insist that I have not understood, or cannot understand. Perhaps that is often the case, but I rarely think so. I understand general relativity. I understand calculus. I understand (as far as it can be understood) QED. I quite readily understand many difficult subjects. Therefore, I am confident that I am capable of high level understanding. [...]
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
3 of 3
Yet, still, much philosophy fails to resonate. And, I think that is so for the reasons you talked about in this video.
All of that said however, there are several philosophers that do ABSOLUTELY resonate. They speak to me! I read them and just keep saying, "YES!!!!" They all happen to be materialists. A few examples: Dan Dennet, Anthony Flew, George Smith, and so on.
YOUR videos SPEAK to me. Thanks.
dfarmer1584 4 years ago
Thanks for the comments. ;)
I do concur with many philosophies, as long as they are either; literature in form, to generate thought and therefore not meant to give clear understanding, or; empirically based, scientific philosophy.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
I'm off to bed, I'll watch this in the morning.
azrienoch 4 years ago
Watch my other video first, as this is just me babbling on the other video this is a response to. ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Has anybody told you that you kind of look like Rob Zombie?
evilaj2010 4 years ago
Yes, plenty of people. ;)
And thats a good thing. I'm fatter though...
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Fat or not you look good either way :)
evilaj2010 4 years ago
Well, thank you good sir! :)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
you need what you need. (?)
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
Yes. You need what your brain says you need. ;)
Need simply is two things; what you need for survival, and what you think you need, for comfort.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
You need to feel needed... Was it that part you heard wrong?
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
No. that was exactly, totally what I got from what you said. In fact I got it so clearly I was afraid I had imposed my own thoughts into your words.
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
Alright. Hope you enjoyed the video. Now, see the original video ;)
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago