Some random thoughts. The fallacy: Red and Blue are not distinct colours because there is a continuum of colours between them. Humans perceive the difference between red and blue because we have dedicated sensors, cones, for short wavelength, blue, and long wavelength, red. When we look at something that is red our red cones are activated and we perceive red. When we look at something blue, our blue cones are activated and we perceive blue. What makes something definitely red or definitely blue is then somewhat personal and defined in terms of the aggregate response of a person’s red or blue cones. Since the majority of people would be able to sort things into red and blue categories without making any mistakes, we would say that red and blue are distinct colours.
Very good explanation AND good examples of two people exchanging their reasoning. I think I would add the following example: PersonA: I believe there is a small teapot orbiting the Sun, but I can not seem to find it with our current telescope technology. PersonB: Then why do you believe a teapot is orbiting the Sun? PersonA: Because two times when I was walking late in the evening and I happened to look up, I saw what looked like a quick glimmer reflecting off the shiny surface of a randomly moving teapot...but I was not in a position to gather details to repeat the observation. PersonB: Sounds interesting but it seems like multiple other hypothesis could also explain your observation. PersonA: Perhaps, but I think it's a teapot, which also fits my data so far. ;-)
While it is perfectly reasonable to insist that the person trying to force religious beliefs upon others or society as a whole be able to prove their beliefs beyond any doubt, it is also perfectly reasonable to demand that those who believe there is no God, gods, or supernatural be able to prove that beyond any doubt before they force their beliefs on others or society as a whole. In the end, Atheism is just another belief that can't be proven. Beliefs are harmless unless it is the belief that you have the right to force it upon others.
Why would I care if there was or wasn't a teapot? Does it in any way effect me? Does the other person believing in the teapot effect me? This is a good reason to forbid the forced teaching of religion or allowing religion to influence government, but not a reason for people to turn away from their beliefs. We all have beliefs that we just accept without proof. Scientists believe hypothesis that have not and may never be proven. Beliefs only become an issue if you want to teach them as facts and force others to believe them and live by them or suffer. Then we need to be able to protect ourselves, and philosophy has never protected anyone from fanaticism. Applying it to religion for no other reason than to try to discredit religion and steal beliefs that bring comfort to people is just crass. Applying it to science, where proof is everything, or to law, where evidence is king (or should be) makes far more sense. I am a firm believer in freedom of religion and respect all faiths, even Atheism. The only true "unbeliever" is the agnostic who refuses to commit either way, stating the obvious fact that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural. An absence of evidence only proves there isn't enough evidence, not that a thing is untrue or doesn't exist. That's why juries never find defendants "innocent", only "not guilty." When philosophy is used to berate people's religious beliefs it becomes nothing more than a tool for school yard bullies. Hardly a worthy intellectual pursuit.
Causal attributions! There are people in the "state functions" that have no comprehension on the impact of their brainless actions. They do talk about business and environment but they fully cant apply or master what they are saying. Their value is equal with nothing due the bullshitting while creating only chaos. Let them 5 years period to see the result of their action on all plans: sociological, cultural, economic and educational. What is the result of a chain of liers, functional thiefs, corruption and work inhability?
Thanks for the video, its always good to hear you. The points you two make remind me a lot of the new fase of JREG, and his new podcast (except he embraces the contradiction of making content against the overstimulation with a satirical vain, where as you guys do it earnestly). The stiles tho are very diferent tho, he says the same things defending slowness in a very fast pace and schizoid manner, wereas you guys do it slowy, and it is a lot like watching a slow movie, it something that slows you down.
Interesting, I used to watch JREG back when he blew up, he was a huge inspiration for my wacky ethics series, so the thought that we're converging again feels kinda satisfying, thanks!
Using this technique, what is going on with Kate Middleton and the at least three fake photos of her, the two sightings of doubles, and the announcement of her cancer while she is on a bench? AI experts say her announcement on the bench is AI. So, using Occam's Razor, what is the most logical conclusion about Kate Middleton?
Hello there @Babeflapula, great video there. I consider myself to be a cognitive psychology enthusiast and your videos two of which I've just watched this morning (here in Kampala, Uganda🇺🇬) buttresses things I've been looking into myself. Thank you for the work. My attention was caught again in about the 6:45 mins mark when you observed that when one searches RU-vid for Gestalt psychology, quite a number of what I have seen is it's application to design! Even in my amateurish mind I had observed this a very limited application of the principle is commonly highlighted or emphasised and have wondered why couldn't the principle be explained and applied as the original researchers who came up with it had in mind? You pointed that out and I just wanted to let you know I have noted that also 😅 Thanks for sharing!
Good day, thank you for the resume. There is a basic difficulty : to think AS HUMAN, with a philosophical perspective. We miss here some door to open in "biomimicry, ecomimicry" and th possibility to LEARN about the NATURE in the matter of energy, time, space and organization of "society" ! Try, or study how natural complex system "work" together to be efficient since more then 5 millions of year...It is a political and social problem ! Occident is based on anthropocentric way of thinking, that is the conclusion. "Indigeneous" or "ancestral" people have saved there ecological "efficiency" in the Long Time, because they have suffer different breakdowns as we, european, along it : like anthropocentric religious, or economical dogmas domination. You begin your presentation 350 years BC...like the History of Humanity began only at this moment... Sinthumule NI (2023), Traditional ecological knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation: a systematic review. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1164900, look here or there : www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science ...
A Word is a symbol (noises, marks on media, etc) that points to a concept. Which concept it points to depends on the context (speak, listener, time, location. previous words following words). The speaker has a concept in mind and chooses words the he hopes will evoke similar ideas in the listener and cause her to behave in the desired manner. A concept can be defined in terms of a Comprehension function which decides which terms are included and which are not. The resulting set can have a cardinality of 0, 1 or many. God then is tag for a description that is not satisfied by any existent entity. Replace God by say "The present king of France" to see that it is possible to have a well-defined term that has no reference. The God is that it's not a well-defined description. Everybody can have a different idea of what description is being tagged.
Sysiphos fate was ment to be a PUNISHMENT. This myth is a part of linear timeline civilization. Didn't see the whole podcats, but this is a good illustration, how uneducated self help gurus take artifacts of our culture and mythology and falsify them for their own purposes.
As I understand it, Albert Camus's point in his essay, "Le mythe de Sisyphe", is that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" because he accepts his fate ("concludes that all is well"), and finds accomplishment in the exercise of rolling the rock uphill over and over ("The struggle itself to the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.") rather than seeking a transcendent meaning to it. This act is, in a sense, his ultimate act of insolence towards the gods, because he was able to subvert their punishment once more. But I was also trying to point out something else: the reason we (and the Greeks, as you put it) see Sisyphus's situation as punishing and absurd is precisely because we view it from the viewpoint of a linear culture. If we reinterpret it in a more circular framework, it loses this pessimistic tone.
I agree with the animal rights lawyers at Harvard who say that animals need their own set of legal rights protecting them where they are not seen as property of humans anymore which would give them more rights and freedoms than they currently have. Like John Rawls, but for animals. But based on their cognition, so they may not do things like vote (unless they are smart enough to vote and use our language to tell us what they want, as I suppose apes and parrots and whales and elephants and octopuses might be able to do one day or we could extrapolate from what they say they desire for themselves we can apply to others of their species to give them rights and protections).
I'm excited for the film channel! I've been following you on Letterboxd for about a year now. It's great to see someone else interested in philosophy and/of film
I disagree with Ockhams razor. A better approach would be to use: 'facts, common sense and logic' one shouldn't just look for the simplest answer, just because it is the simplest answer.
So we should all be solipsists because it's the simplest explanation? Solipsism postulates only one entity - your mind and it has better explanatory power - all is in your mind. Occam's razor doesn't work because it leads to solipsism.
At the end of your video, when you are talking about how Wittgenstein and Merleau-Ponty both reject substance dualism and claim that our mind is our body, does that mean they both were defending a form of panpsychism?
Isn’t this similar to Edith Stein’s phenomenological view of “direct perception” theory of empathy (which is opposed to both simulation-theory and theory-theory)?
It still feels wrong to consider two opposite ends of a spectrum uniquely and definitely things in and of themselves. Baldness doesn't feel like a thing, it feels like an ammount of hair. Is heat as much of a thing as temperature? What is even a thing?
