วีดีโอ

polish zaraki clothes drying and seems like it's improving time after that we collide star means lot today

oh come on this quality

Lucky Woman

@19:00 I'd count myself a platonist and Fregeian, but the idea here is that arithmetic truths certainly do have something to do with the way people think about quantity, but that this is not a foundation for mathematics. It is a precursor. You get dirty and beaten up, then you learn the rules of Rugby properly. (OK, I'm a Kiwi, so cannot resist the our religion analogy.) Once you are done piddling around in the baby waters of experience and empiricism your thought matures then you realize mathematics is indeed properly independent of our minds. You also don't have to give up on the notion we use our minds to probe the structures of mathematics. There is a distinction between what mathematics *_is_* and how we go about exploring the thing. By the way, this was one of the best intros to Frege on youtube. Patricia kept it simple but no simpler than necessary.

Hi. At 22:14, I am in complete agreement that it does make sense to assume that physical processes in nature _can_ be Genuinely Probabilistic, as opposed to say Pseudorandom, i.e. merely Random Looking. I agree with this idea that it is perfectly reasonable to think that a physical process could be genuinely random, but I am not satisfied with the reasons you gave. And I also think it's very dangerous to read Keynes lmao, I have a copy for reference but yeah that is definitely not going to help people get a passing grade if they're taking an intro class lol. Keynes is VERY interesting in one respect ... because he puts the "Locus of Randomness' in the mind of the observer. Things are random because of out inability to know the future. This fact alone makes it worthwhile to study Keynes. However, a physicist will probably think that the "Locus of Randomness' is somehow physically inherent to a particular process. Alternatively some other physicist may look at that same exact process and conclude that randomness does not exist (physically), because the observed behavior is merely Pseudorandom, i.e. the "Locus of Randomness' does not exist ...or is (Keynes) perhaps only in the mind. I think that it is possible to regard probabilistic potentials as being tangibly real, very much the same way that time is regarded as being tangibly real. I'm seeing a similarity there. And I'm also seeing one other similarity which is that Waves require a Medium in which to propagate, and similarly it seems that Probabilities (or their potentials) also need some kind of Medium in which to propagate (assuming that they actually exist). I would love to hear more about this and share some notes. Thanks for this great video :)

I am a teacher in SHS I teach Philo. I am always watching your videos.

What are some actual examples of philosophical progress (historic or modern)? This can be any branch of philosophy such as ethics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of language, aesthetics, metaphysics, and so on.

Thanks for the content

We need metaphysics of metaverse. Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Great aletheia .

antimetametaphysicists

Daniel Dennett wrote a good book on why free will exist.Check it out.

discussion on truthmaker starts at 8:24

Great job! More videos on Counterfactuals, please. Hehe... I am trying to make use of this one in order to incorporate Modal Logic to Legal Philosophy. Thanks.

thank you for having this fascinating discussion it taught me the possibilities of love and its dynamics between its elements it's 2021 and I still feel that love is still constrained in my generation but I realized the transformations of love in this discussion I was afraid to ask questions about love but now I feel much more courageous to do so thanks again 💕 Happy June 💕

sir JJ I would like to know if ever can I use philosophy as a course to do counseling to help people deal with their personal problem as a career or psychology the only way

keep going sir JJ.

Are you a theist sir?

Schaffer is a hottie

i really enjoyed this. thanks jj!

This topic is an interesting discourse worthy of discussion and exploration. The only thing that amaze me is the objectivity that existence requires for something to be called a thing and I am confused concerning the secure condition of existence that even history is put into scrutiny. History operates in space and time, is it still safe to appeal in history ( the existence of man named Moses, etc.) if some historical accounts which until now (or even in the future) cannot be objectively proven? Its implication is so grand that a certain individual may live a life of unquestioned concerns of existence.

must watch!!!!!

Malupit.

Good stuff!

*☼**41:30** you mean birth cis normative male identifying* #2020

*☼ but then how do you explain God-magick?* _check and mate_

Very good discussion on the philosophy of probability and latest trends. Some practical advice to people who want to study philosophy (probably they will end up with tons of debt and jobless or lesser job).

Nice discussion

I think I shouldn't watch stuff that I find interesting that I know zero about. I come away with a lot of questions, and some frustrations. I'm not sure who the audience of this is for. It reminds me of the experiences of youngish men, I read about with a certain Australian aboriginal tribe, they have an ongoing formal conversation that continues on over centuries if I remember correctly. It's like a collective memory library. So anyone entering into the conversation has to wait a time to understand what went before, where the conversation is at, so they're on the same page and can make a contribution to add to the richness of the conversation for the group. Otherwise, you're a clumsy dim-witted oaf who annoys all the elders and get booted out for disrupting the flow. But at the same time when the main speaker was touching on real-world stuff, it's like well okay actually that's stuff I have to deal with, in designing solutions for small communities. That's exciting if it gives you a different way to see things and opens up possibilities. So yes, good stuff, different perspectives useful. And I'm thinking to myself 'What is this? Are these models you are making are they designed to explain only. And or is it models so you can look to leverage change, make change happen, why? Are the models static? It feels like the model is static. What is the design of your thinking? What informs your models? What type of real-world scenarios can you map them over to...' Very irritating- very interesting, *sigh* Very distracting. I ended up buying the book.

Thank you for this interview! I think you are pretty good to make a synthesis of what the speaker said and then ask another question that is linked to it. This is helpful to follow the conversation.

Thank you very much for the wonderful interview with the professor. There were a lot of topics in the interview that are very interesting. I am only interested in topics and not certificates, and I watch with interest how the professor teaches. I am interested in her way of teaching, because my mother was also a teacher. I realize it's very difficult. I think that the professor knows well the success of her teaching, because she talked about it in the interview, in the sense of passing on her knowledge. This success can be monitored in connection with the reactions of students. Cheers Karel

You should put the name of your guest in the title of your video.

Is this on Apple podcasts? Can’t seem to find it. 😭

pero kulang si tomas para ipaliwanag ang Dios...kailangan niya ng mismong paliwanag ng dios...gospels and revelations

dalawang logic ang pinilit nilang irreconcile...at napaganda ng dalawang koponan ang usapan...wow

ang hirap maging devil's advocate sa Dios pero ang galing ng con napaikot niya ang mga pro...

mahirap talagang ipaliwanag ng human logic ang divine...pero kayang ipaliwanag ng divine ang dalawa...kasi siya ang gumawa nun...

galing

How manny arguments Stoljar presented?

Is it the same method or a process (if I may call it a method/process) used by Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Marx in searching for an 'ideal' society? Some sort of 'hypothetical' way of thinking.

Thanks for the great interview. I would strongly recommend that you post the video with the faces taking up the full screen, to make it more engaging.