วีดีโอ

Glad he wasnt my prof

15 minutes in and he continues to just babble 😂

47:16 Gleason's theorem

DI ver 3 ti bem sim entendi ti amo mais tarde então então vamos ver 3 chegou bem cedo

Excellent lecture. Thanks for this. Currently studying the Buddhist tenet systems (Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and the two Madhyamikas) - very helpful

43:13 :- It is 04:29 in the morning and my mind is a little blown away by this. Need a little sleep to process all this. Will come back to continue later tomorrow.

you can read Kalam sutta Buddha say never belive anything without prove Cintificlly logiclly we buddhist can.t belive anything unlogic uncintific this is mein point of buddhism

bruh my last name is cargile too

सेकेंड एग्जांपल समझ नहीं आया। 🧐

🧐👏👏 समझाने का तरीका अच्छा लगा ।

15:40 "ok, so what does this mean? What could this mean? How can people say such things? This seems... Can we say crazy, a little bit?" *Bumps into the mic* This is exactly how I feel.

Thanks in advance

THANK YOU

Does the venn diagram also help in attaining good logic and can we also use venn diagram in legal reasoning? Sorry am I asking a valid, logical question?

I think those are the mind processes in my brain that I need to improve, logic and reasoning and I also badly need that, legal reasoning.

Thanks . I ask you to add subtitles yo this video because my English not good and i can't follow you.

yg di kesini grgr pak nu'man coba like komen ini

Learn how liquid resins (succinates and maleinates) used as preservatives in vaccines cross-link (solidify) in contact with lactic acid in tissues thus damaging brains and other organs and how to remove these harmful deposits from tissues: medical-lies.blogspot.com/2019/04/poisonous-vaccines-mechanism-of.html

Does buddist philosophy recognize any fallaiies?

So, Dr. Tanaka is Schrodinger's cat. And Dr. Tanaka is me, all at the same time, in multiple dimensions, only on Fridays, because on Saturdays i play D&D. = )

Wow, this is great! I'm doing my master's thesis on the characterization of quantum logics through numerical events and this lecture is a convenient lead-in to the topic.

Anyone else think of Ms. Fowl from Jimmy Neutron with the opening introduction?

What an odd character! 😆

15:22 Wittgenstein devised no axiom system in the Tractatus.

Excellent explanation of lattices, thanks.

Starts at 6:20

With all the respect to Koji, I think there is better explanation by (Vidya-Mitra) take on Dinnaga and Dharmakriti on the the theory of perception debating with Naiyanikas.

The problem is there is too much focus on rationality and not enough on intuition. One level below g (IQ), is senses and perceptions, where a lot of intelligence is missed on IQ tests. Factors like associative memory, and computational fluency, that are component to intuition. Rationality, is essentially IQ minus any intuitive component. Intuition is important as it allows us to recognize repetition and apply relevant strategies or integrate relevant information when working on subproblems, so that when they are thinking in complex fields, we are minimizing the cognitive load, which can be conserved for more critical periods of thinking (with IQ) about elements of a larger problem. And in certain problem classes, intuition is a very powerful empirical tool, that allows to sift through, select, and arrange bits of distant information, based on underlying structural repetition - this allows for the 'generation' (as in intelli-gence), of a novel set ( a novel set is a free selection of associations, for example: 3, tree, tee). These sets can later be analyzed (with IQ), and new information extracted. That's why intuition deserves just as much attention as rationality. The system is getting more biased in favor of IQ, not less biased. And these rationalists, like Maggie Toplak, just use the exceptional cases, where intuition happens to fail. In most instances in life, and when thinking subconsiously about highly complex topics, intuition is a prerequisite, for the generation of new and useful ideas.

The problem is there is too much focus on rationality and not enough on intuition. One level below g (IQ), is senses and perceptions, where a lot of intelligence is missed on IQ tests. Factors like associative memory, and computational fluency, that are component to intuition. Rationality, is essentially IQ minus any intuitive component. Intuition is important as it allows us to recognize repetition and apply relevant strategies or integrate relevant information when working on subproblems, so that when they are thinking in complex fields, we are minimizing the cognitive load, which can be conserved for more critical periods of thinking (with IQ) about elements of a larger problem. And in certain problem classes, intuition is a very powerful empirical tool, that allows to sift through, select, and arrange bits of distant information, based on underlying structural repetition - this allows for the 'generation' (as in intelli-gence), of a novel set ( a novel set is a free selection of associations, for example: 3, tree, tee). These sets can later be analyzed (with IQ), and new information extracted. That's why intuition deserves just as much attention as rationality. The system is getting more biased in favor of IQ, not less biased. And these rationalists, like Maggie Toplak, just use the exceptional cases, where intuition happens to fail. In most instances in life, and when thinking subconsiously about highly complex topics, intuition is a prerequisite, for the generation of new and useful ideas.

The notion of recognize as a reasoner implies there were two forms of reasons, each of which do not agree with the sense of being a reasoner. This seems to suggest the implicit notion that subjectivity is dependent on some form of scaffold, as in the need to be behind a desk and supported by a referent in the form of points on a white board. A Buddhist logic points to the that which is mostly ephemeral, be that the one who does the inference, which entails that that person is not the inference, but the referent of the institutional gaze.

This neanderthal is a blithering idiot. If he is right, reason and knowledge have no foundation. He's telling you that A could be not A, 2+2 could equal 5, and that he could be right and wrong at the same time. His denial of logic refutes itself.

Thanks for posting! There's so much "be happy, now"-bullshit in Buddhist thought on the tube. But then, as Harry Frankfurt said, one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit

This is awful..

In contrast with the suggested at 13:14, negation doesn't work in quantum mechanics as expected, if 'as expected' means 'classically'.