I do tend to follow the line of Mackie and cry error theory for all external objects (including moral ones, values, etc.), but I gotta say I have so much respect for Blackburn and his understanding of the subject, as well as his attempts to clarify and defend all sides. He’s just a damn good philosopher
I have never encountered another human being who shares my same interests to the extent which you appear to....Thank you very much for the creation/production of this show.
Subjectivism is not necessarily eliminativism. Ethical Subjectivism is a cognitivist position which simply restates the truth-apt aspect of moral propositions.
Being unsure, when you don't know, is the best position to have. Because being aware of your ignorance is what motivates you to search for new information and to learn. It's a mistake to choose sides and become sure one or the other, when you don't have enough information and you don't know. Because the truth might be something entirely different from either one of those two sides.
I think Jacob Bronowski hit the nail on its head, and today Deutsch has been a great proponent of realism. You cannot derive an *ought* from an *is* , but you also cannot get an *is* without an *ought* In order to uncover truths about the physical world, a scientist must have certain attitudes and behaviours that are moral. Namely, values like: logical consistency, tolerance, openness to new evidence, explanatory elegance, preservation of reasonable dissent and honesty. Although facts and values operate in two different logical domains, they are fundamentally linked by *explanation* ... Hence why factual scenarios regarding a magic trick being performed has all sorts of implications on one's moral analysis (i.e. if you think the magician actually defied physics, then this will impact how you view the magician amongst other human beings)
@Oners82 with all due respect I think you are very confused. If you don't think that honesty and logistical consistency are values (i.e. a way to feel) then I don't think I can convince you otherwise. You literally said that these are attitudes, perhaps you should check what the definition of that word means? I would really love for you to provide me an example of a scientific explanation that isn't based on any oughts. Also, I didn't say science uncovers moral truths, I clearly said that they uncover physical truths about the world (but you must be working within a moral framework in order to conjecture these explanations: i.e. way you should behave, values like honesty!) You've provided a mathematical proposition (which occupies a different logical category to science; namely the reality of abstractions) without realising that math itself is based on axioms lol (i.e. rules that are assumed to be true and if followed can derive mathematical proofs) Triangles don't physically exist in the real world, only in the axioms of Euclidian geometry; maybe you should read them? Triangles nonetheless do exist as abstractions as aforementioned.
When studying Realism and Anti-realism people often mention Descartes’ Evil Demon and the Matrix-both which assume a brain of some kind. In my opinion, better references would be: 1) the ending of The Mysterious Stranger -Mark Twain (1908-1916); 2) the implications in the movie The Thirteenth Floor (1999).
Numbers are "adjectives" to describe something. They are a part of "language" we use to describe things. Language is in of itself essentially entirely "adectives". Even if you are talking about a real Noun, the "talking about it" is meta, descriptive, like adjectives are, which are again meta.
Careful… the word “numbers” is a noun, but “two” is an adjective. (e.g. I am thinking of two numbers…) So, doesn’t that leave us with the same problem?
@@hckytwn3192 all nouns are describing the object not actually the object. The word bus is not a bus it is describing a bus. The word number is describing a number the word isnt the number.
All language attempts to describe physical existence. But, trust me, irrespective of the language used, there is in fact a thing which is 5, for example. "5" is not an adjective... "5" is a real thing. We can use the concept of 5ness to describe a thing, but this does not in any way render "5" to being a trick of language or some sort of personal construct.
@@ianjohnson3546 Agreed on the "this is not a pipe" post-modernism, but you've said nothing about the difference between "numbers' and 'bus'. Are numbers 'real'? Are buses 'real'? And that’s my point: talking about if something is a noun or adjective does absolutely nothing to answer the questions posed here.
@@hughbarton5743 Most experts don't agree with that. Leopold Kronecker once said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" echoing what you said--but it's been since broken down and disproven. Godel and Tarski to start with. Numbers or math can never define mathematical truth let alone the truth of reality.
I don't see the problem. Every thought requires energy and a physical space to store it if it is to be remembered. There may not be a number 4 floating around outside ourselves, but there is an actual, physical number 4 in our brains that uses energy to exist. The same can be said of any word, idea, concept or fantasy. Thoughts are not energy-free and they're not stored in a non-physical realm.
Reality is a collective management of ideas, their control and organization, in relation to objects we perceive, and which is stimulated by the capacity and capability of the brain. The intellectual discourse between Robert and Simon, presented to TH-cam viewers, is real, otherwise we all are unreal, nonexistent. No brain means no idea, so no objective or subjective reality, let alone numbers. Visual, auditory, olfactory and other senses of the humans are way different from those of nonhuman creatures, hence their perceptions. The urge and necessity for survival generate moral values that vary from ages to ages, people to people, and even person to person, and collective management, control and organization of moral ideas give rise to a particular set of values that are temporaneous.
We’re here to become more conscious of our nature’s, and the older experiences should have renewed by the new conscious , which are more closers to truth!
If that person is more in context then they might be closer to truth, but they could stray from the truth also quite easily. I think this is the difference between realism and anti-realism, where the truth actually is. Something inherent i the world that I can get closer to or farther away from, or carried within and self realized, or not.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Truth is context, efficiency and identity working together in balance, but that's only one mechanism out of three, call it life in the universe. The planet mechanism is an adding of imperfect objects with segments of linear motion, that creates a higher order object which is sent out. The third mechanism is the perfect object from which an event horizon was left and then broken, into the line segments of motion. A quark emulates this perfect object with spin, and our awareness does too. This makes 2^3 interactions possible for a human, give and take inside, and outside, and the relation to that perfect object.
"I want to know what reality is all about" 'reality' is just a concept - I will allow you to define it for yourself. Have an open mind, tolerance, don't let it drag on you.
Well, ontology matters. Our collective ontology largely effects our behavior and how we organize the world. I mean, materialism is an ontology. Hasn’t materialism been pervasive in the culture and history? Also, if being is just a concept, then this also means it’s a non-predicate. Which means that there aren’t degrees of reality; reality just is. But it seems like this isn’t true. For example, take a tree. There is the seed or sapling of a tree, then there is the fully grown tree. These are the same thing or the same in essence, but not the same in existence. It seems like there are REAL differences of degree in each entity. And once you get enough differences in degree, do you not only get a difference in kind?
We can be deluded by the material mode of ignorance, which makes us see everything topsyturvied. However, the mode of passion is not the solution, for it makes us see everything foggy. In order to have a clear vision of reality we must develop the mode of goodness. And that takes specific values and practices.
It's not even about skepticism to a large extent. Anti-realists generally claim that things that are socially constructed constitute more of what we view as "real", a lot of what we value and see in the world has no real reference. You can think of things like bravery, or justice; these are concepts that motivate how we live but you can't find them with a microscope, they're constructs. Similarly, in terms of sexuality- if we accept the premise that gender is socially constructed then this means when you say "I'm attracted to women", you're not actually attracted to anything that has physical reference, you're not actually attracted to something inherent in the person. You're projecting your fantasy and construct of what "woman" is to you, which you've absorbed via enculturation since birth, and placing it onto them. That would be a psychoanalytic antirealist position, that what you desire isn't actually about the object, it's about your projection onto it.
Morality/ethics can simply be defined by our relations with other conscious creatures. There doesn't need to be an "absolute". As long as we are trying to cause minimal harm and maximize wellbeing, using both rationality and empathy as our guides, there's no need for either dogmatic commandments or purely mathematical codes of conduct. Why do so many people speak as if the extremely broad scope of "science" can't be ethical? Be rational and empathetic, and these other questions will sort themselves out as we keep using the scientific method to better understand whatever this "reality" stuff really is.
What is the power and capacity of Human sensory perception and the Intellect? What if our sensory perception is 'High Fidelity' to the external world? What if our Intellect is built to understand this reality? What if Humans are 'plugged into nature' in deep and profound ways? What if Human Intellect can reach out and touch the universe? What if the Intellect is transcendent (of the subject)? What if the Subjective is already an element of the Objective? What if we are not trapped in our own subjective immanence? Modernity presupposes too much about Human Nature. In my opinion, this is what happens when you don't have a proper metaphysics to ground the basic concepts, like the Philosophy of Being. Note: Arguing against Platonic universals is strange. Moderate Realism (Aristotle) has had more influence, especially through Thomism and Scholasticism in general.
We all carry values, what we’ve done is recognizing them and reward the practices of them. Example: a Bear saves a hurt deer getting off the water, the Bear showed altruism without realizing, but we identified the value of that action.
If there were no life on planet earth nor anywhere else in the universe, would there be any thing in the universe that we could describe as good or evil? Moral or immoral? Brave or chicken? Is a black hole evil ? Is a meteorite brave? Ethics and morals exist in the same way love or fear exist. They're meta phenomena of our electro-chemical brain activity.
The problem is certainty freaks, people who are invested in their preferred metaphysic to the extent they're prepared to say we know things that we don't. Most people occupy an ambivalent space regarding ultimate truth, accepting the habits of nature but also realising they only register within consciousness that dominates the interplay between subject and object.
There is existence independently from us, but this independence only in dependence from us. Physics can never answer such question, yes, but has to ask it! It's like we are feeling along the border between realism and antirealism. We learned most about quantum world through these experiments which want to answer these questions, but we can never answer these questions..
Philosophical realism: Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder ___ Wikipedia
For the humanity, reality is to live in the present time ! and remember the past , and used the past experiences, to creating your possibilities for brighter future !
I think using Newtonian physics, reality is anything that stops or Modifies any physical trajectory. And since human beings And all living things for that matter Can have their physical trajectory modified by language and idea-Reality idea and idea is reality. You cannot separate reality from idea
so are these interviews like the "uncut" versions from the larger collections of interviews episodes that this channel does? I noticed sometimes there things that should've been edited out (redoing lines, getting interrupted by background noise, etc.) that are still left in
Kant basically got it right. So called "things in themselves" or the noumena, we can never know with certainty. We are trapped by our mental apparatus that organizes the phenomena and can never escape it. However, Kant did believe there was something "out there" causing the phenomena so he wasn't an idealist. In a way , he saved science from skepticism and religion from science, a nice trick but science can never unveil ultimate truths about existence.
Are you implying that religion CAN unveil the ultimate truths? Even if we are in a simulation or some similar delusional state, the scientific method is going to give us a clearer picture of our quandary than random religious doctrines and rituals can.
@@con.troller4183 No, of course not. However, Kant's compelling argument effectively insulates religion from attacks by atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss and science in general.
@@jeffneptune2922 I don't see how it insulates superstition from science except as a nuclear option of mutual destruction. If we can't fundamentally trust our best methods for revealing truths, random woo-woo has an even slimmer chance of being relevant.
@@con.troller4183 I don't necessarily mean the God of traditional religions and the accompanying superstitions and myths , but the concept of some Being or for lack of a better word intelligence that is indeed responsible for all of creation with perhaps some of the traits associated with the traditions.
World is like a dream. But, very persistent one. We need to give up desire to realize our true self. Once we realize our true nature, there is no going back to Matrix like world.
Adorable. I would agree that reality is of illusion, but not that it is an illusion. Reality in this world is a construct, where creation intersectes with it own arbitrary rules, and morality is as it's fruit. I can respect the rules without any belief in them as reality.
If a boy asks hid dad why, is a sin and a premeditated sin just as worse as only one sin, does He tell his son God allows man to exercise free will? Or, does he lie to his own son and say that the two sins' are to be judged by God as only one sin?
Realism with respect to ethics is logically incoherent. How can you have moral facts that are independent of the human mind? If the human mind has no implications in what the moral theory ought to be, then it seems like you would be extraordinarily fortunate if those moral facts tended to conform to what our human minds prefer. In principle it could be anything. For all we know the moral thing to do is to make as many paperclips as possible, or to expand the universe as much as possible. It may have nothing to do with human affairs whatsoever. And a second issue is, how on Earth would you ever determine what the "true" moral facts were if they are meant to be stance independent? It no longer matters how you feel about something, because by definition of stance independent, your feelings can't tell you anything about whether your moral perspective is true or not. If there is no other way of knowing what these ethereal moral values are, then the theory is basically positing the existence of a magical, invisible dragon - a moral reality that we can never have access to or knowledge of, but which realists somehow "know" exists. Not only is this scientifically nonsensical - a theory that can never be tested, but philosophically illogical as well. There is no need to invent any such fantasy, especially since the basis appears to be nothing but emotionalism and wanting to "feel" that "things are really right or wrong". But we aren't children, and we shouldn't determine whether something is true or false merely because we want it to be. The fact that trained philosophers seriously entertain positions based on nothing but "it makes me feel bad" is appalling. They are reasoning like children. We can only claim something is real if we have GOOD REASON to think it is real. And for that matter, we have no way of knowing whether the reality we see is real. It COULD all be an illusion. But no one can say for certain, so we simply assume the simplest model - that reality exists and it is static, and until we know better we operate under this and other axiomatic beliefs about how we can trust our observations, our memories, that logic is a valid way to reason, and so on. You have to start somewhere, but assuming that your axioms are objectively valid is completely unnecessary and wishful thinking that we do not need to entertain to live meaningful lives. Just say "you don't know many things for certain". Its not that hard. Its not that self-destructive. Science has been doing it for centuries
A great interview and amazing topics discussed, but I just have one simple question. I'm not critical of the 2 men, but would like to add. Why are we so sure that it is to be defined by human or only human. We always seem to observe situations in the context of the human observer, the human perspective. And what we know is, there was a time before humans. And so, can it be only defined by human. The rationality escapes me. We always seem to be sold on ourselves for definitely everything.
@@Moodboard39 I believe in the phenomena that people observe and reach the conclusion that there are things which are supernatural. This observations belong in the realm of the anti-realists.
Marginalization from a need for efficiency, that simplifies the complexity, and this becomes the new stage. Also known as painting oneself into a corner.
@@projectmalus I like that comment. It says a lot; and much is true..., true, true. It is just my opinion, and really that is all life is. I say this is a conscious ride, but of many lives yet lived. This one life wouldn't make since otherwise. There is no one of anything. I think because we were and still are hunter gatherers, and because life was so much shorter 20,000 tears ago and physically arduous; we had to conceive of a world of mainly our perception. One had to hurry or be eaten, no time for philosophy. But then we are here now, our bellies are full and we have more leisure, and I think this perception: of it just be about human is changing, with animal rights and so. Is my chicken cage free, before we deep fry, this sort thing?
Likely because our classification of things or any that we can conceive and our descriptions and ascribe properties of those things might be wrong at all, not the correct path or insufficient to really understand what is reality. Perhaps the immaterial vs physical classification and their properties are not accurate representations of reality.
Whats people making exponential illusion compensations as soon as some emotional charge traps them about something whatsoever ... imagine consciousness onle exist when your not aware ot intemporal effects happening
I would like to share some thoughts I had about this topic, I hope you can find it stimulating. First of all, I retain realism to be a quite dogmatic approach. As a matter of fact, by stating that ethical principles, numbers and knowledge more in generale all have an ontological foundation, than we might give birth to a society where the members of the discourse all consider their opinion to be the only one that is ontologically verifiable. Anti-realism on the other hand doesn’t help the creation of a democratic society, since it doesn’t put much worth on ethical values, and therefore it might end up creating a society made up of relativists. I personally think (and this is not a permanent solution to the question) that reality, if it needs to be defined, can be interpreted as the result given by the production of all “linguistic games” and that there really is no reality other than the one that humans define. Ethical values in a democratic society are not arbitrary and shouldn’t be deemed as such, they should be rationally decided by all citizens while partaking a discourse
Consider morality not by vote but by induction. Wouldn't a person stranded on a deserted island have the need for morality? Of course she would. How would she come to hers? Morality's basic question can be asked in this way. How should I behave? The stranded woman knows that she needs answers as they are vital to her welfare. Before she learns them, however, she has to choose to live. These two, that she's on an island (Reality), and that she has chosen to live are the base for her to answer how. She needs moral guidelines in every choice that she'll make, especially on a deserted island. But there is no difference for her if she were to be rescued and renter society as a result. Morality is universally vital for an individual whether alone on a deserted island or in a society of millions of people; it is the science of answering the question how one should live and must be learned and must be practiced by the individual. The answers given by moral philosophy throught time have been wanting- one should live for God (or the gods) by divining God's Will has been one answer throughout the ages; living for the sake of others by identifying their needs has been a closely allied answer where God is replaced by others; and living for one's own sake by identifying the facts of reality, the facts of human nature and the requirements of an individual's life is a rather new answer, compared to the other two. Which morality is true can't be answered by divining, nor deduction nor by vote, but can only be answered by induction from the facts of reality including from the facts of our nature. Like any kind of thought, induction is a form of thought performed by the individual. So there is no genuine collective morality, no morality given from on high, no deduced moraity; there is only the moral thought and actions of the individual that identifies by induction these fundamentals principles. Taking an inductive approach to morality is the only way to know how one should act and why one should act that way. Philosophy deals with the basic questions, such as "where am I, how do I know it, and how should I act". From these one can identify how one should act in society and what form of government that must be institutionalized to uphold and protect one's actions with and among others. Historically, the philosophers' answers to these questions have been abysmal- Plato insisted on two realities and only the knowledge of one, his world of forms, as the reality that counts; Aristotle said no to Plato by saying that there is only one reality and we know it by the metaphysical essence in things, and Kant said let's not bother with reality because no one can know it, but we can know the reality of phenomenon because of how our minds are wired, (Kant's 12 Categories). Of the three Aristotle was the genuine best but his morality was based on his observations and conclusions of what the nobles were doing without explanation as to why, but, Aristotle did identify the principle that morality was for the individual in order to flourish. Instead of voting on morality, let's think as the sovereign individuals we are by our nature and learn how to flourish as individuals. .
But wouldn’t it be anthropocentric to say that there is no reality other than the one that humans define? Why do animals, plants and objects don’t have a say in it? As if everything revolves around humans.
@@Opposite271 Reality is what it is and nothing more, regardless of living, consciousness beings. There is no definition of reality, after all what would the genus be of its definition- nothing or nothingness? The absence of everything is meaningless.
I suppose everything should start from one belief on the origin of the universe - either accidental or created - and secondly depending on epistemolog - how one come to know because none can claim he/she knows anything before one consciously becoming a human being (prior to that only chemicals or biochemicals and prior to that depends on one's believe). In human common sense perspective "nothing can come from nothing". In this term reality must have been originated from something. Thus in one extreme the believe and the idea that the universe accidentally originated from nothing by nothing is totally unacceptable because they are fundamentally originally nothing too. Epistemically(human is totally depends on testimonial) they (idea and belief about origin) are basically falses and that has yet to take into consideration that human only come to be informed through his/her mental consciousness experience which can be true or only illusions. One needs the first person testimony as proof/evident to ascertain one claimed and belief are truly grounded in certainty and this is true for monism physicalism, monism metaphysicalism/consciousness idealism and dualism too. Obviously this is only possible for case of who believes that the universe has the originator/the creator, that is by comparison study or the consistency study of his linguistics and creative testimonials if available at all.
Nice Interview, from what I'm seeing here I like what Blackburn says in person better than his writings. But maybe that's because he gets into much subtler detail in his books, whereas this interview is a basic introduction to the subject. He comes across a lot like an Anglican minister, minus the God-talk.
Physics can never answer this question! The different reformulations of quantum formalism, from antirealistic to realistic, from deterministic to indeterministic interpretations, they all generate same empirical results!
The clou is, that we already know everything! The rest is only a question of "technics". Physics can never answer such metaphysical questions, yes, but has to ask it, because we learn about physical world by asking these questions, but can never answer these questions.
Quasirealism. I like that term. A quasar has to do with stars. And realism has to do with the universe. So I think it’s a very fitting term to describe being in the middle of anti - and not anti- realism
The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love). That coyote (greed) is a crazy clown... The roadrunner is the state bird of the "Land of Enchantment". The land of magic (love).
The interviewer doesn't understand what beliefs are. He asks what does the anti realist believe..? The anti realist believes anything and everything. Beliefs are a subjective affliction. The realist/scientist has no beliefs, believes nothing. He either accepts or rejects evidence.
In a work of fiction where her ideas are forced to be correct. Where her heroes are perfect and her enemies are even more perfect, destined for defeat. /s
You want to do it, so you make a fictional category. It's the same kind of shifting as compatibilism for free will, or ethical subjectivism; it's a category mistake made out of desire to have their cake and eat it too.
take the number 4. 10 billion years ago .. it has the quality of 4 10 billion years later teh number for haas not changed or has suffered any of the effects of entropy.. there for it is outside of physics.. the physics of the universe are real .. the umbers we use to describe them are not
Quasi-realism is a bad label because it isn't actually any kind of realism, even "quasi". Acting like something is real doesn't necessarily change the ontological status of that thing. And if it is acknowledged that you're just pretending, then the ontological status isn't even assumed to be changed. Of course, the meaningfulness is all that is essential in moral concepts.
Realism is the existence of God and His Spiritual World which many believe as HEAVEN..... while Anti-realism is the absence of this Spiritual World which is a state of cold dark emptiness that many believe as Hell - a state that many angels fell into for losing faith in God's love.
@@con.troller4183 You may not realize it, but you just spelled out the right description of a cold dark state (hell) which is VACOUS where your lost soul will return to.... so, have faith now before it is too late instead of staring at Darwin's Iguana as your Original Mama looking funny.
This is a weak interview with weak questions. Mr Simon Blackburn replies as someone who is interpreting these two states: of realism v anti-realism in a very condescending manner. He argues these matters teleologically. Establishing that numbers are abstract but then arguing they assert a demonstrable reality is about as subjective as suggesting that if there are "people saved by the blood of Christ" numbering in the thousands we then argue that the numbers do not assert the claim? Naturally the claim is called a "testimony" which is to say that the "experience" maybe subjective but the testimony when multiplied is what? No more than one unique anecdote? Well salvation has and always will be a faith claim and a faith argument. This does not confer upon the "faith claimant" the artefacts of our physical reality, being something which invalidates the faith claim?. It is simply an acknowledgement of our consciousness. In fact the biblical basis of a faith claim or testimony still determines many court proceedings. Despite this, the faith claim which is made, is bounded by the reality that "from dust you were made and to dust you shall return", a reality boundary. So denying or not denying a faith claim is no different than someone who claims no faith, and subsequently assumes that logically there must be life elsewhere in the universe thereby concluding that SETI for example is a logical necessity for our pursuit of education etc etc.
You want to get real about numbers, a man leaves his mother and father, to be joined to his wife, two shall be one flesh, one and one make two ,two make, one, real numbers baby, praise God the father in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! There's a lot of other math and numbers in the Bible also. You got scores in the Bible you got 69 weeks and then a week set aside and the book of Daniel a thousand years is but a day is the day is a thousand years. Whew! How much realer can you get!
Sure there is. Would you let the best MMA heavyweight fighter in the world punch you in the face as hard as he could? I suspect most of us wouldn't, because realism.
I’ve listened to (and watched) all the ‘Closer to Truth” episodes. I’ve come to the conclusion that you really have no desire to get closer to truth. Just like those who make a living from finding racism under every rock (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al) , if racism vanished they would be out of a job and if you discovered the truth you’d be out of topics for your show, or not.
Simon wrong. Reality numbers was proof are tautology ,means nothing. He obscure philosophy science failed discernir between sense comum anď etich. Ant scientif discussion, cynisn rethoric .
Man, Simon Blackburn is such an underestimated beast
Good to see you here bro
I love the way he described his quasi-realism here- I agree, Blackburn is definitely one of the greatest meta-ethical philosophers of our time.
I liked the small nuance: it's not about good or bad, it's about what's better or worse
I do tend to follow the line of Mackie and cry error theory for all external objects (including moral ones, values, etc.), but I gotta say I have so much respect for Blackburn and his understanding of the subject, as well as his attempts to clarify and defend all sides. He’s just a damn good philosopher
External objects? As opposed to what?
I have never encountered another human being who shares my same interests to the extent which you appear to....Thank you very much for the creation/production of this show.
Your not alone.
Subjectivism is not necessarily eliminativism. Ethical Subjectivism is a cognitivist position which simply restates the truth-apt aspect of moral propositions.
Good audio, lighting, camera work, and subject matter. Thank you.
Being unsure, when you don't know, is the best position to have. Because being aware of your ignorance is what motivates you to search for new information and to learn.
It's a mistake to choose sides and become sure one or the other, when you don't have enough information and you don't know. Because the truth might be something entirely different from either one of those two sides.
Reality in the face of erroneous judgements is reality out of ignorance. Reality in the face of correct judgement is reality unchanging.
Reality is most itself in the absence of language, but can only be communicated through language. -TM
I think Jacob Bronowski hit the nail on its head, and today Deutsch has been a great proponent of realism.
You cannot derive an *ought* from an *is* , but you also cannot get an *is* without an *ought*
In order to uncover truths about the physical world, a scientist must have certain attitudes and behaviours that are moral. Namely, values like: logical consistency, tolerance, openness to new evidence, explanatory elegance, preservation of reasonable dissent and honesty.
Although facts and values operate in two different logical domains, they are fundamentally linked by *explanation* ... Hence why factual scenarios regarding a magic trick being performed has all sorts of implications on one's moral analysis (i.e. if you think the magician actually defied physics, then this will impact how you view the magician amongst other human beings)
@Oners82 with all due respect I think you are very confused.
If you don't think that honesty and logistical consistency are values (i.e. a way to feel) then I don't think I can convince you otherwise. You literally said that these are attitudes, perhaps you should check what the definition of that word means?
I would really love for you to provide me an example of a scientific explanation that isn't based on any oughts. Also, I didn't say science uncovers moral truths, I clearly said that they uncover physical truths about the world (but you must be working within a moral framework in order to conjecture these explanations: i.e. way you should behave, values like honesty!)
You've provided a mathematical proposition (which occupies a different logical category to science; namely the reality of abstractions) without realising that math itself is based on axioms lol (i.e. rules that are assumed to be true and if followed can derive mathematical proofs)
Triangles don't physically exist in the real world, only in the axioms of Euclidian geometry; maybe you should read them? Triangles nonetheless do exist as abstractions as aforementioned.
When studying Realism and Anti-realism people often mention Descartes’ Evil Demon and the Matrix-both which assume a brain of some kind. In my opinion, better references would be: 1) the ending of The Mysterious Stranger -Mark Twain (1908-1916); 2) the implications in the movie The Thirteenth Floor (1999).
Maybe so, but I think they use these examples because in most cases they require little explaining and people just already know what they are
Numbers are "adjectives" to describe something. They are a part of "language" we use to describe things. Language is in of itself essentially entirely "adectives". Even if you are talking about a real Noun, the "talking about it" is meta, descriptive, like adjectives are, which are again meta.
Careful… the word “numbers” is a noun, but “two” is an adjective. (e.g. I am thinking of two numbers…) So, doesn’t that leave us with the same problem?
@@hckytwn3192 all nouns are describing the object not actually the object. The word bus is not a bus it is describing a bus. The word number is describing a number the word isnt the number.
All language attempts to describe physical existence. But, trust me, irrespective of the language used, there is in fact a thing which is 5, for example. "5" is not an adjective... "5" is a real thing. We can use the concept of 5ness to describe a thing, but this does not in any way render "5" to being a trick of language or some sort of personal construct.
@@ianjohnson3546 Agreed on the "this is not a pipe" post-modernism, but you've said nothing about the difference between "numbers' and 'bus'. Are numbers 'real'? Are buses 'real'? And that’s my point: talking about if something is a noun or adjective does absolutely nothing to answer the questions posed here.
@@hughbarton5743 Most experts don't agree with that. Leopold Kronecker once said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" echoing what you said--but it's been since broken down and disproven. Godel and Tarski to start with. Numbers or math can never define mathematical truth let alone the truth of reality.
I don't see the problem. Every thought requires energy and a physical space to store it if it is to be remembered. There may not be a number 4 floating around outside ourselves, but there is an actual, physical number 4 in our brains that uses energy to exist. The same can be said of any word, idea, concept or fantasy. Thoughts are not energy-free and they're not stored in a non-physical realm.
Reality is a collective management of ideas, their control and organization, in relation to objects we perceive, and which is stimulated by the capacity and capability of the brain. The intellectual discourse between Robert and Simon, presented to TH-cam viewers, is real, otherwise we all are unreal, nonexistent. No brain means no idea, so no objective or subjective reality, let alone numbers. Visual, auditory, olfactory and other senses of the humans are way different from those of nonhuman creatures, hence their perceptions. The urge and necessity for survival generate moral values that vary from ages to ages, people to people, and even person to person, and collective management, control and organization of moral ideas give rise to a particular set of values that are temporaneous.
We’re here to become more conscious of our nature’s, and the older experiences should have renewed by the new conscious , which are more closers to truth!
If that person is more in context then they might be closer to truth, but they could stray from the truth also quite easily. I think this is the difference between realism and anti-realism, where the truth actually is. Something inherent i the world that I can get closer to or farther away from, or carried within and self realized, or not.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Truth is context, efficiency and identity working together in balance, but that's only one mechanism out of three, call it life in the universe. The planet mechanism is an adding of imperfect objects with segments of linear motion, that creates a higher order object which is sent out. The third mechanism is the perfect object from which an event horizon was left and then broken, into the line segments of motion. A quark emulates this perfect object with spin, and our awareness does too.
This makes 2^3 interactions possible for a human, give and take inside, and outside, and the relation to that perfect object.
"I want to know what reality is all about"
'reality' is just a concept - I will allow you to define it for yourself. Have an open mind, tolerance, don't let it drag on you.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas a working definition of reality
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I do not perceive that which constitutes the things of my perception. I do not perceive that which is eternal.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas is that Hindu?
Well, ontology matters. Our collective ontology largely effects our behavior and how we organize the world. I mean, materialism is an ontology. Hasn’t materialism been pervasive in the culture and history?
Also, if being is just a concept, then this also means it’s a non-predicate. Which means that there aren’t degrees of reality; reality just is. But it seems like this isn’t true. For example, take a tree. There is the seed or sapling of a tree, then there is the fully grown tree. These are the same thing or the same in essence, but not the same in existence. It seems like there are REAL differences of degree in each entity. And once you get enough differences in degree, do you not only get a difference in kind?
We can be deluded by the material mode of ignorance, which makes us see everything topsyturvied. However, the mode of passion is not the solution, for it makes us see everything foggy. In order to have a clear vision of reality we must develop the mode of goodness. And that takes specific values and practices.
It's not even about skepticism to a large extent. Anti-realists generally claim that things that are socially constructed constitute more of what we view as "real", a lot of what we value and see in the world has no real reference. You can think of things like bravery, or justice; these are concepts that motivate how we live but you can't find them with a microscope, they're constructs. Similarly, in terms of sexuality- if we accept the premise that gender is socially constructed then this means when you say "I'm attracted to women", you're not actually attracted to anything that has physical reference, you're not actually attracted to something inherent in the person. You're projecting your fantasy and construct of what "woman" is to you, which you've absorbed via enculturation since birth, and placing it onto them. That would be a psychoanalytic antirealist position, that what you desire isn't actually about the object, it's about your projection onto it.
Morality/ethics can simply be defined by our relations with other conscious creatures. There doesn't need to be an "absolute". As long as we are trying to cause minimal harm and maximize wellbeing, using both rationality and empathy as our guides, there's no need for either dogmatic commandments or purely mathematical codes of conduct.
Why do so many people speak as if the extremely broad scope of "science" can't be ethical? Be rational and empathetic, and these other questions will sort themselves out as we keep using the scientific method to better understand whatever this "reality" stuff really is.
What is the power and capacity of Human sensory perception and the Intellect? What if our sensory perception is 'High Fidelity' to the external world? What if our Intellect is built to understand this reality? What if Humans are 'plugged into nature' in deep and profound ways? What if Human Intellect can reach out and touch the universe? What if the Intellect is transcendent (of the subject)? What if the Subjective is already an element of the Objective? What if we are not trapped in our own subjective immanence? Modernity presupposes too much about Human Nature. In my opinion, this is what happens when you don't have a proper metaphysics to ground the basic concepts, like the Philosophy of Being. Note: Arguing against Platonic universals is strange. Moderate Realism (Aristotle) has had more influence, especially through Thomism and Scholasticism in general.
We all carry values, what we’ve done is recognizing them and reward the practices of them.
Example: a Bear saves a hurt deer getting off the water, the Bear showed altruism without realizing, but we identified the value of that action.
Reality hits hard on the anti-realist and realist alike.
But the realist keeps it's happiness.
If there were no life on planet earth nor anywhere else in the universe, would there be any thing in the universe that we could describe as good or evil? Moral or immoral? Brave or chicken? Is a black hole evil ? Is a meteorite brave?
Ethics and morals exist in the same way love or fear exist. They're meta phenomena of our electro-chemical brain activity.
If there were no life then there would be no ethics but because there is life then there are ethics in order to affirm that life.
The problem is certainty freaks, people who are invested in their preferred metaphysic to the extent they're prepared to say we know things that we don't. Most people occupy an ambivalent space regarding ultimate truth, accepting the habits of nature but also realising they only register within consciousness that dominates the interplay between subject and object.
Fascinating insight.
There is existence independently from us, but this independence only in dependence from us.
Physics can never answer such question, yes, but has to ask it! It's like we are feeling along the border between realism and antirealism. We learned most about quantum world through these experiments which want to answer these questions, but we can never answer these questions..
Great channel 😀
Philosophical realism:
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder
___ Wikipedia
For the humanity, reality is to live in the present time ! and remember the past , and used the past experiences, to creating your possibilities for brighter future !
this a good one
How make the difference if nobody knows what means each one????
Yes. The terms themselves are so broad as to be pretty much useless.
I think using Newtonian physics, reality is anything that stops or Modifies any physical trajectory. And since human beings And all living things for that matter Can have their physical trajectory modified by language and idea-Reality idea and idea is reality. You cannot separate reality from idea
so are these interviews like the "uncut" versions from the larger collections of interviews episodes that this channel does? I noticed sometimes there things that should've been edited out (redoing lines, getting interrupted by background noise, etc.) that are still left in
Kant basically got it right. So called "things in themselves" or the noumena, we can never know with certainty. We are trapped by our mental apparatus that organizes the phenomena and can never escape it. However, Kant did believe there was something "out there" causing the phenomena so he wasn't an idealist. In a way , he saved science from skepticism and religion from science, a nice trick but science can never unveil ultimate truths about existence.
Are you implying that religion CAN unveil the ultimate truths?
Even if we are in a simulation or some similar delusional state, the scientific method is going to give us a clearer picture of our quandary than random religious doctrines and rituals can.
@@con.troller4183 No, of course not. However, Kant's compelling argument effectively insulates religion from attacks by atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss and science in general.
You described Kants position. But where do you get the certainty that he got it right?
@@jeffneptune2922 I don't see how it insulates superstition from science except as a nuclear option of mutual destruction.
If we can't fundamentally trust our best methods for revealing truths, random woo-woo has an even slimmer chance of being relevant.
@@con.troller4183 I don't necessarily mean the God of traditional religions and the accompanying superstitions and myths , but the concept of some Being or for lack of a better word intelligence that is indeed responsible for all of creation with perhaps some of the traits associated with the traditions.
World is like a dream. But, very persistent one. We need to give up desire to realize our true self. Once we realize our true nature, there is no going back to Matrix like world.
Adorable.
I would agree that reality is of illusion, but not that it is an illusion. Reality in this world is a construct, where creation intersectes with it own arbitrary rules, and morality is as it's fruit. I can respect the rules without any belief in them as reality.
I'm not a box! Now I am
If a boy asks hid dad why, is a sin and a premeditated sin just as worse as only one sin, does He tell his son God allows man to exercise free will? Or, does he lie to his own son and say that the two sins' are to be judged by God as only one sin?
Realist-AntiRealist debates essentially refer to Science rather than to Philosophy and Theology....
Realism with respect to ethics is logically incoherent. How can you have moral facts that are independent of the human mind? If the human mind has no implications in what the moral theory ought to be, then it seems like you would be extraordinarily fortunate if those moral facts tended to conform to what our human minds prefer. In principle it could be anything. For all we know the moral thing to do is to make as many paperclips as possible, or to expand the universe as much as possible. It may have nothing to do with human affairs whatsoever. And a second issue is, how on Earth would you ever determine what the "true" moral facts were if they are meant to be stance independent? It no longer matters how you feel about something, because by definition of stance independent, your feelings can't tell you anything about whether your moral perspective is true or not. If there is no other way of knowing what these ethereal moral values are, then the theory is basically positing the existence of a magical, invisible dragon - a moral reality that we can never have access to or knowledge of, but which realists somehow "know" exists. Not only is this scientifically nonsensical - a theory that can never be tested, but philosophically illogical as well.
There is no need to invent any such fantasy, especially since the basis appears to be nothing but emotionalism and wanting to "feel" that "things are really right or wrong". But we aren't children, and we shouldn't determine whether something is true or false merely because we want it to be. The fact that trained philosophers seriously entertain positions based on nothing but "it makes me feel bad" is appalling. They are reasoning like children. We can only claim something is real if we have GOOD REASON to think it is real.
And for that matter, we have no way of knowing whether the reality we see is real. It COULD all be an illusion. But no one can say for certain, so we simply assume the simplest model - that reality exists and it is static, and until we know better we operate under this and other axiomatic beliefs about how we can trust our observations, our memories, that logic is a valid way to reason, and so on. You have to start somewhere, but assuming that your axioms are objectively valid is completely unnecessary and wishful thinking that we do not need to entertain to live meaningful lives. Just say "you don't know many things for certain". Its not that hard. Its not that self-destructive. Science has been doing it for centuries
Can there be a physical realist and non-physical anti-realist / idealist?
Schrödinger!
A great interview and amazing topics discussed, but I just have one simple question. I'm not critical of the 2 men, but would like to add. Why are we so sure that it is to be defined by human or only human.
We always seem to observe situations in the context of the human observer, the human perspective.
And what we know is, there was a time before humans.
And so, can it be only defined by human.
The rationality escapes me.
We always seem to be sold on ourselves for definitely everything.
Cuz people don't believe in the supernatural.
@@Moodboard39 I believe in the phenomena that people observe and reach the conclusion that there are things which are supernatural. This observations belong in the realm of the anti-realists.
Our dreams include a time before us. Observing is within our dreams too…..if we don’t exist within a dream your question has no application.
Marginalization from a need for efficiency, that simplifies the complexity, and this becomes the new stage. Also known as painting oneself into a corner.
@@projectmalus I like that comment. It says a lot; and much is true..., true, true. It is just my opinion, and really that is all life is. I say this is a conscious ride, but of many lives yet lived. This one life wouldn't make since otherwise. There is no one of anything. I think because we were and still are hunter gatherers, and because life was so much shorter 20,000 tears ago and physically arduous; we had to conceive of a world of mainly our perception. One had to hurry or be eaten, no time for philosophy. But then we are here now, our bellies are full and we have more leisure, and I think this perception: of it just be about human is changing, with animal rights and so. Is my chicken cage free, before we deep fry, this sort thing?
Likely because our classification of things or any that we can conceive and our descriptions and ascribe properties of those things might be wrong at all, not the correct path or insufficient to really understand what is reality. Perhaps the immaterial vs physical classification and their properties are not accurate representations of reality.
Whats people making exponential illusion compensations as soon as some emotional charge traps them about something whatsoever ... imagine consciousness onle exist when your not aware ot intemporal effects happening
We are GOD dreaming he's no longer GOD. Thats the ultimate truth, thats truth,not close to truth but TRUTH
/thread. Finally we can go back playing earth.
I would like to share some thoughts I had about this topic, I hope you can find it stimulating. First of all, I retain realism to be a quite dogmatic approach. As a matter of fact, by stating that ethical principles, numbers and knowledge more in generale all have an ontological foundation, than we might give birth to a society where the members of the discourse all consider their opinion to be the only one that is ontologically verifiable. Anti-realism on the other hand doesn’t help the creation of a democratic society, since it doesn’t put much worth on ethical values, and therefore it might end up creating a society made up of relativists. I personally think (and this is not a permanent solution to the question) that reality, if it needs to be defined, can be interpreted as the result given by the production of all “linguistic games” and that there really is no reality other than the one that humans define. Ethical values in a democratic society are not arbitrary and shouldn’t be deemed as such, they should be rationally decided by all citizens while partaking a discourse
Consider morality not by vote but by induction. Wouldn't a person stranded on a deserted island have the need for morality? Of course she would.
How would she come to hers? Morality's basic question can be asked in this way. How should I behave? The stranded woman knows that she needs answers as they are vital to her welfare.
Before she learns them, however, she has to choose to live. These two, that she's on an island (Reality), and that she has chosen to live are the base for her to answer how.
She needs moral guidelines in every choice that she'll make, especially on a deserted island. But there is no difference for her if she were to be rescued and renter society as a result. Morality is universally vital for an individual whether alone on a deserted island or in a society of millions of people; it is the science of answering the question how one should live and must be learned and must be practiced by the individual.
The answers given by moral philosophy throught time have been wanting- one should live for God (or the gods) by divining God's Will has been one answer throughout the ages; living for the sake of others by identifying their needs has been a closely allied answer where God is replaced by others; and living for one's own sake by identifying the facts of reality, the facts of human nature and the requirements of an individual's life is a rather new answer, compared to the other two.
Which morality is true can't be answered by divining, nor deduction nor by vote, but can only be answered by induction from the facts of reality including from the facts of our nature.
Like any kind of thought, induction is a form of thought performed by the individual. So there is no genuine collective morality, no morality given from on high, no deduced moraity; there is only the moral thought and actions of the individual that identifies by induction these fundamentals principles.
Taking an inductive approach to morality is the only way to know how one should act and why one should act that way.
Philosophy deals with the basic questions, such as "where am I, how do I know it, and how should I act". From these one can identify how one should act in society and what form of government that must be institutionalized to uphold and protect one's actions with and among others.
Historically, the philosophers' answers to these questions have been abysmal- Plato insisted on two realities and only the knowledge of one, his world of forms, as the reality that counts; Aristotle said no to Plato by saying that there is only one reality and we know it by the metaphysical essence in things, and Kant said let's not bother with reality because no one can know it, but we can know the reality of phenomenon because of how our minds are wired, (Kant's 12 Categories). Of the three Aristotle was the genuine best but his morality was based on his observations and conclusions of what the nobles were doing without explanation as to why, but, Aristotle did identify the principle that morality was for the individual in order to flourish.
Instead of voting on morality, let's think as the sovereign individuals we are by our nature and learn how to flourish as individuals.
.
But wouldn’t it be anthropocentric to say that there is no reality other than the one that humans define?
Why do animals, plants and objects don’t have a say in it? As if everything revolves around humans.
@@Opposite271 Reality is what it is and nothing more, regardless of living, consciousness beings. There is no definition of reality, after all what would the genus be of its definition- nothing or nothingness? The absence of everything is meaningless.
How similar is Critical Realism to Quasi-Realism?
I suppose everything should start from one belief on the origin of the universe - either accidental or created - and secondly depending on epistemolog - how one come to know because none can claim he/she knows anything before one consciously becoming a human being (prior to that only chemicals or biochemicals and prior to that depends on one's believe).
In human common sense perspective "nothing can come from nothing". In this term reality must have been originated from something. Thus in one extreme the believe and the idea that the universe accidentally originated from nothing by nothing is totally unacceptable because they are fundamentally originally nothing too. Epistemically(human is totally depends on testimonial) they (idea and belief about origin) are basically falses and that has yet to take into consideration that human only come to be informed through his/her mental consciousness experience which can be true or only illusions.
One needs the first person testimony as proof/evident to ascertain one claimed and belief are truly grounded in certainty and this is true for monism physicalism, monism metaphysicalism/consciousness idealism and dualism too. Obviously this is only possible for case of who believes that the universe has the originator/the creator, that is by comparison study or the consistency study of his linguistics and creative testimonials if available at all.
Nice Interview, from what I'm seeing here I like what Blackburn says in person better than his writings. But maybe that's because he gets into much subtler detail in his books, whereas this interview is a basic introduction to the subject. He comes across a lot like an Anglican minister, minus the God-talk.
I'm distracted by the wondering camera.
Everyone is an anti realist or simulation-simp until they are punched on their face or thrown out of the plane without a parachute.
“Nominalism vs anti-nominalism” - funny, everybody can play ‘the word game’
If it's an allusion I got a bad deal I'm poor why didn't I get programmed as a rich man
Physics can never answer this question! The different reformulations of quantum formalism, from antirealistic to realistic, from deterministic to indeterministic interpretations, they all generate same empirical results!
So Basically...This Channel should be called....
"We Don't Know..."
... but we hope that somehow asking the same types of questions to people with the same types of beliefs will eventually give us a clue.
@@PaulHoward108 I hope so. Because most People's Beliefs are taught through tradition. Out Existence is a Great Mystery....
The clou is, that we already know everything! The rest is only a question of "technics".
Physics can never answer such metaphysical questions, yes, but has to ask it, because we learn about physical world by asking these questions, but can never answer these questions.
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ We "think"we know... everything. And that's Mankind's Problem...
Or let's pretend we don't know.
Quasirealism. I like that term. A quasar has to do with stars. And realism has to do with the universe. So I think it’s a very fitting term to describe being in the middle of anti - and not anti- realism
The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does.
Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love).
That coyote (greed) is a crazy clown...
The roadrunner is the state bird of the "Land of Enchantment". The land of magic (love).
The interviewer doesn't understand what beliefs are. He asks what does the anti realist believe..? The anti realist believes anything and everything. Beliefs are a subjective affliction. The realist/scientist has no beliefs, believes nothing. He either accepts or rejects evidence.
Ayn Rand will set you free
In a work of fiction where her ideas are forced to be correct. Where her heroes are perfect and her enemies are even more perfect, destined for defeat. /s
@@con.troller4183 nifty
Moral facts? Sounds suspiciously like "objective morality" with all the apologistic implications.
Moral autentical low open The true reality, othewise human stack în his own ilussion.
U wot m8?
@@doctorcrankyflaps1724 not understand.
You want to do it, so you make a fictional category. It's the same kind of shifting as compatibilism for free will, or ethical subjectivism; it's a category mistake made out of desire to have their cake and eat it too.
take the number 4. 10 billion years ago .. it has the quality of 4 10 billion years later teh number for haas not changed or has suffered any of the effects of entropy.. there for it is outside of physics.. the physics of the universe are real .. the umbers we use to describe them are not
NFS: ok:/60/use
Quasi-realism is a bad label because it isn't actually any kind of realism, even "quasi". Acting like something is real doesn't necessarily change the ontological status of that thing.
And if it is acknowledged that you're just pretending, then the ontological status isn't even assumed to be changed. Of course, the meaningfulness is all that is essential in moral concepts.
very good , interesting
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young
Great aletheia .
Both opposites are true. It's as real as it gets game
One more fly to help out of the bottle.
Dear Robert, being supercilious doesn't help you at all. Try a little respect and humility. You may even be pleasantly surprised.
Realism is the existence of God and His Spiritual World which many believe as HEAVEN..... while Anti-realism is the absence of this Spiritual World which is a state of cold dark emptiness that many believe as Hell - a state that many angels fell into for losing faith in God's love.
No. Repurposing words to support your invisible friend is not helpful to anyone, including you.
@@con.troller4183 what a stupid statement
@@Moodboard39 What a vacuous retort.
@@con.troller4183 The Almighty Divine Creator does not need support, but sinners like you do need it, to see the right path, for salvation.
@@con.troller4183 You may not realize it, but you just spelled out the right description of a cold dark state (hell) which is VACOUS where your lost soul will return to.... so, have faith now before it is too late instead of staring at Darwin's Iguana as your Original Mama looking funny.
This is a weak interview with weak questions. Mr Simon Blackburn replies as someone who is interpreting these two states: of realism v anti-realism in a very condescending manner. He argues these matters teleologically. Establishing that numbers are abstract but then arguing they assert a demonstrable reality is about as subjective as suggesting that if there are "people saved by the blood of Christ" numbering in the thousands we then argue that the numbers do not assert the claim? Naturally the claim is called a "testimony" which is to say that the "experience" maybe subjective but the testimony when multiplied is what? No more than one unique anecdote? Well salvation has and always will be a faith claim and a faith argument. This does not confer upon the "faith claimant" the artefacts of our physical reality, being something which invalidates the faith claim?. It is simply an acknowledgement of our consciousness. In fact the biblical basis of a faith claim or testimony still determines many court proceedings. Despite this, the faith claim which is made, is bounded by the reality that "from dust you were made and to dust you shall return", a reality boundary. So denying or not denying a faith claim is no different than someone who claims no faith, and subsequently assumes that logically there must be life elsewhere in the universe thereby concluding that SETI for example is a logical necessity for our pursuit of education etc etc.
You want to get real about numbers, a man leaves his mother and father, to be joined to his wife, two shall be one flesh, one and one make two ,two make, one, real numbers baby, praise God the father in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! There's a lot of other math and numbers in the Bible also. You got scores in the Bible you got 69 weeks and then a week set aside and the book of Daniel a thousand years is but a day is the day is a thousand years. Whew! How much realer can you get!
There's no evidence for realism.
And if there was, could you trust it?
Sure there is. Would you let the best MMA heavyweight fighter in the world punch you in the face as hard as he could? I suspect most of us wouldn't, because realism.
I’ve listened to (and watched) all the ‘Closer to Truth” episodes. I’ve come to the conclusion that you really have no desire to get closer to truth. Just like those who make a living from finding racism under every rock (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al) , if racism vanished they would be out of a job and if you discovered the truth you’d be out of topics for your show, or not.
I think the big reveal comes in the season finale.
We buy our knowledge with renunciations in thinking..🤷♂️
The whole truth is never found, but your point still stands.
😂😂😂
Nathan's almost correct...the truth was going to be revealed in season 4, but the show got cancelled
Or the questions don’t have easy yes/no answers
Simon wrong. Reality numbers was proof are tautology ,means nothing. He obscure philosophy science failed discernir between sense comum anď etich. Ant scientif discussion, cynisn rethoric .
standunder ca nt you r words