Timestamps for our brave mobile memesters: 1:14 - (Debate start) Materialism / Physicalism 4:11 - Destiny's Physicalism definition 6:16 - Marty's issues with ^ 10:00 - Marty defines propositional content 17:37 - On naturalism in relation to physicalism 29:48 - On Dialetheism 36:55 - What's the difference between the material and immaterial? 41:19 - Mind without the brain 49:08 - Brief summary 55:14 - On Mary's room 59:40 - On David Chalmers's zombie experiment 1:20:39 - Normativity of the mind 1:31:52 - Title 1:35:45 - Wrap up / summary
Destiny. Thank you being less about ego whin this particular convo. I seriously hwve been working through thes3 words thatcreated discussion. I watchhow otherstakepositionsand 2hethernot they wre show8ng ego or uncertainty or jus5 7nfamiliaritu . Arrggg... I hate text. Hope thtougj rereading itll be coherent6
I think destiny should acknowledge when he is out of his field and invite real philosophers like Trainwrecks to deal with continental philosophy instead of talking like he knows what's up....
What do we do if the arguments for a moral ontology/epistemology is being pushed on us to force life decisions into a certain direction even though we are not philosophers?
@@OriginLinear What if we do, and there's still someone saying we shouldn't be involved in the conversation? Like I guess, who's the arbiter of who's qualified? And when we find them what might be the qualifications they would use to exclude certain people from the conversation? And what if someone has to work, and take care of family so even though they have stakes in the conversation they don't have the time to search, judge relevance among the sources, and memorize philosophy? I'm not just trying to be obstinate. From my view these are serious questions that I don't know the answer to. I have asked these before, but haven't really gotten a good answer, or an insufficient answer like "If someone (don't want to know)/(can't know) then their F'd".
The splitting hairs at 1:04:00 was so dumb. Marty defines a mind as being separate from the brain and everything material. Of course he can conceive of a p-zombie. That's tautological. Why does he think that proves anything? There's no logical contradiction because Marty has presupposed it. If I presupposed that a square could have any number of sides, of course there's no logical contradiction with conceiving of a square with five corners. That's what Marty is doing. He only disagrees when Destiny accuses him of this because there's a universally understood definition of a square, and he's acting like they have a universally understood definition of a mind, and that definition presupposes it's immaterial. Destiny made a mistake by saying he defines a mind as being an emergent property of a "brain" because then they both are making the same tautological mistake. Destiny should have said that he sees no reason to presuppose that the mind is immaterial, because he has all empirical observations of minds backing up this argument. We should assign a very high credence to the belief that minds are an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex computational system like the brain because we've never observed a mind without a brain, but we have observed minds be destroyed or significantly altered as a direct result of physical changes to the brain. Marty has to do the legwork in explaining why, despite never observing this in human history, that a mind can exist without a brain. Or that the existence of the mind is independent of the physical configuration of the brain. If Marty is right, then a brain should be able to have any arbitrary physical configuration without destroying the mind. Clearly that's ridiculous. And if he disagrees, then he'd have to explain why the physical nature of the brain influences the expression or existence of the immaterial mind. Then we run into the same debates that have happened for hundreds of years. We don't have a complete understanding of the brain, so of course we can't explain logically why the mind is emergent. But that doesn't mean it's NOT emergent, and Marty has given nobody any reason to believe that it's immaterial.
When did the mind suddenly arise out of nowhere? One moment we were apes with unsophisticated brains without mind and then along the way it just suddenly arises while the brain becomes more complex?
@@flamingo1912 you've nailed it, that's the big question. Is there just a sudden point in a brain's development when SNAP, suddenly theres consciousness? Theories of emergence cant seem to really get around this little idea, that it seems vastly problematic to point at two brains with similar levels of development, and say "this one has conciousness, and is allowed all the privileges and rights self-aware beings deserve", and "this one doesnt". Not only is it unintuitive, this kind of idea also comes with all sorts of moral and ethical issues. Huge roadblock for team emergent consciousness!
@@flamingo1912 Nothing in biology happens 'suddenly'. Apes themselves are very intelligent and most would argue they also have minds of their own. We humans developed slowly over the course of hundred of tousands of years. We do not know exacly when was the point that the mind 'emerges' but It's because he have yet a lot to understand about minds. To the best of our knowledge mind seems to emerge at some point in the evolutionary proces. We don't know when and why, but all available evidence so far suggest that it does. If you think this things happen suddenly and out of nowhere then I have a question for you: When was the exact moment when a Latin speaking parents gave birth to a Italian speaking child? The answer to this question is the answer to your inquiry about the mind,
I think teaching simply isn't a very common skill regardless of the field you're in. I agree with the sentiment though. As someone who's studied philosophy for about 20 years and specifically the philosophy of consciousness over the last quarter of that time, it's really frustrating knowing exactly what Marty is attempting to point out while seeing him fail so badly at explaining it. It's admittedly a difficult concept to explain and even a great teacher would likely be unable to make it understandable to the average layperson, but Marty is doing an especially poor job imo.
Sometimes I feel like a lot of philosophy students are really just history of philosophy students. I feel many keep trying to box any topic into things that other philosophers have already said. There seems to be this kneejerk force to assign a certain already existing philosophical theory to any conversation partner, so all the old counter-arguments can be applied.
That's the big problem with philosophy when you're a student and not starting your own thing. Most of the course work boils down to reciting other philosopher's works, and therefore subscribing to whichever one lines up with your personal world view.
After my 3rd semester of doing philosophy, this fear of only being able to regurgitate ideas without providing any new ideas of my own sort of overwhelmed me. I'm now on my 6th semester and doing much more of my own reading as well as frequently engaging in debates has definitely helped. I think Phi students definitely need to be put on the spot to argue more often.
I think this is more to do with the fact that humans have been tackling the philosophical questions for thousands of years and there is no point re-inventing the wheel if that line of thought has already been addressed and potentially discredited. Takes a long ass time to cover the bases.
Marty is good if you want a live encyclopedia, but useless if you want to discuss new ideas. Morty just ignored any questions he didn't have an answer from a book he has read. No opinion ever.
5 dollars is 2 dollars less then my fucking Netflix scrip. And I get endless big budget content for that. Not just a talking head and sub par gaming lol jk
It feels like this person is glossing over pattern recognition which can convert sense data into a concept of "likeness". An infant won't form concepts around 'a' tree, but once it sees multiple trees, it will begin to form a conception of a tree through perceived commonalities.
Reienroute You should read up on Neural Networks and how they operate on a technical level. I think it's very interesting from an epistemological standpoint, as they effectively can create abstracted concepts and use them to perform incredible things in the modern age.
I think Destiny addressed this and was accused for denying a priori normativity. The other guy was arguing that we are connected to the concept of a tree immaterially, wether we ever come into contact with a material tree in our lives or not. He demonstrated this with his Maria thought experiment where a women knows everything about the color red but has never seen it. One day she sees the color red and understands red without any new knowledge (since Marty doesnt believe in sense perception or induction, he does not count seeing red as information). One must assume at some point that Marty is disingenuous or a solips
I will not challenge Martys knowledge and expertiese is the field of Philosophy but i have to say that he is trully TERRIBLE at explaining anything regarding this field. This whole conversation sounded like Marty demanding Destiny to justify his materialism, but when challenged he himself just justifies immaterial things as "Well it just seems like it is immaterial". I would say it would do much more good for Marty to learn a little bit more about rhetoric and use some time to put his ideas into simpler, better understood forms because it just looks like phylosophy major lost to a music school dropout in this debate.
Just because you have a philosophy degree doesn't mean you are right. If this was true, philosophers would have to agree with each other. This is also true for fields like Physics, whenever there is room for interpretation and the human mind is required to make sense of something you will get a huge amount of conceptually coherent but simply untrue theories. The difference between a field like Physics and Philosophy is that atleast Physics has a solid process of verification, where progress is possible due to the clear ability to predict outcomes. Philosophy however runs on ideas that came people 2000 years ago, who because they were the founders of western philosophy are hailed like gods. Imagine if you had physicists today who would be still operating under the assumptions of scientists 2000 years ago, or infact 200 years ago? In philosophy, you pick your favourite philosopher and indoctrinate yourself into his particular viewpoint. Then you proceed to tell everyone how convincing you find that viewpoint and how unconvincing you find everyone elses viewpoint. There is no process of selection, most of it is unverfiable, assuming that the human capacity for reason is the ultimate tool to attain Truth.
@@EpFiDude People don't really hold to the views of 2000 year old philosophers all that strongly. At least not in a broad sense. You're not going to find many modern philosophers hailing Plato's hatred of democracy.
@@EpFiDude People don't hail ancient philosophy of 2000 years ago, at least no more than modern or contemporary philosophers. Aristotelians and neoplatonists exist, but this is just one position, and in philosophy there's a huge range of positions, like you yourself pointed out. If you're just making a general point about how philosophy doesn't progress like science, and thinkers 2000 years old are still taught, then I agree. It just doesn't have that type of linear progression, and broader insights are more likely to survive the test of time than something that can be proven empirically false. About picking a philosopher and sticking with him, this is just not how philosophy is taught. Yes, professors and yourself can specialize in certain authors, but that will be a deliberate conclusion you've arrived at after learning the most standard currents and schools of thought. A professor that is extensively read has stuck with a certain position because it is to him the most correct. I hope this didn't come off too strong, it's not tha big of a deal, but I just want to see that myself and my classmates, at this initial stage at least, are precisely afraid of getting "bought into" any one philosophy right now.
and its not even because of jargon. a lot of it self explanatory, but his explanations are either to vague or too bad. not sure if he does that on purpose or not
Hempel's Dilemma is literally just a formally proposed, "Science is a liar sometimes" argument. Physicallism is based on our understanding of physics and the material world, but since that will change in the future, and there is no way to know what it will change to beforehand, that you can't base any sound conclusions on our current understanding, the alternative is to base our understanding on completely immeasurable, unobservable ideas which are known to never change, it's not like there are multiple fields of study constantly changing our understanding of the metaphysical like philosophy, ethics, theology, etc... seriously, it is pure mental gymnastics built upon a self-contradictory premise.
What annoys me about these types of conversations is that it can be reduced to 2 sides of "we don't know enough". One side says we don't know enough to claim material *is* all that exists. One side says we don't know enough to claim material *isn't* all that exists. Which in turn just leaves us with what a person wants to believe. Which is infuriating because belief is fluid, belief can change on a dime. I walk into a restaurant thinking the food will be trash to have my mind changed in an instant once trying to food. I believe we have a material world with nothing beyond that. Guess the fuck what. That belief can change in an instant the moment someone shows me something to convince me otherwise. Low level philosophy is just a ton of word games and it is obnoxious.
But the objective of the conversation isnt to solidify a conclusion. It's the sharing of self-conceptual ideas and trying to come together on concepts. Getting everyone to believe and accept the world as it is - the understanding that it can change so quickly like you have described is a perspective that has be learned. So while these kinds of chats may be obnoxious or redundant, I think they serve a good purpose to steer people in the right paths
Walking in to the restaurant and having your mind changed; did it change because of revelation, perception, or deduction? When Destiny and Marty argue whether it was perception or deduction, they are leaving the door open for theists to walk right in.
Conceptual content seems to be things we value in what we perceive. A tree cannot be a tree without someone to name it so. It doesn't change any of the physical properties of the tree, but other creatures that value different aspects of trees could come up with their own categories of conceptual content about a tree and perceive that set of content as existing regardless of what views the tree, which would be false.
@fluoxy L. no , they are both correct. those properties just have different value to each other creature. You could value a tree's lifespan in one creature's view or the value of its trunk for building material. Neither is wrong in their assessment of the tree, but the conceptual info is different and lost when the creature is gone.
@fluoxy L. The notion that any set of conceptual information being intrinsic regardless of what creature views the tree. While the information might still exist for another creature to understand or value, it doesn't mean that creature would. The builder might never value the trees lifespan or note it. It still lives a amount, but it's false to say that one creatures concepts are more important or more real than another's. Those concepts can die when those creatures die (and all their recorded history) but the tree remains.
The guest speaker is terrible at explaining things, he can't change his language to accommodate a less sophisticated audience... There is a lot of definitions that you need to keep straight in your head to engage with his line of dialogue that puts anyone who is not in his field of study at a distinct disadvantage in being able to understand his ideas. If you can't communicate an idea to people outside your field what good is it to talk about it?
This is my argument against all philosophy. Terminology almost seems to be used to obfuscate disagreement between anyone not on that level of philosophy. A lot of it also just looks like thought exercises, from the outside, so nobody, myself included, actually cares about what they are arguing.
Its so hard to follow what's being said when they are saying "epistemic justification for the value of truth" or whatever shit until someone grounds what they mean with a real world example, or even an analogy.
@@piedpiper6425 it almost feels like this is a big ironic joke to this guy, because he spent like 10 minutes saying that an idea that isn't grounded in something that is tangible or exists is mostly worthless.
@@zwoope I feel that. Whenever Destiny speaks to either Rem or Marty it always seems like the objection to his moral anti-realism or moral nihilism is a foundational thing that goes way way way deeper into philosophy than is really necessary. An example of what I mean is like the idea of free will. Destiny might say something like "Causality means that when event 1 happens, event 100 is determined to happen in a fixed way because the categorical end of the universe is predictable maths" And Marty will say "the problem with believing that is that you don't even know you exist. You could have came into existence 10 minutes ago with pre-installed memories, and the maths you're relying on appear consistent through time, but you haven't justified why they would be" And it's like...well okay yes I understand that, but it's not really an answer to what I'm saying.
Marty's position is a cautionary tale about what happens when you ONLY ground your philosophical positions in philosophy. Marty explaining the physical world solely with philosophy is like a STEM lord explaining the metaphysical in terms of mathematics.
anything you could point to as a ground for philosophical positions could be accounted for by a philosopher. Marty is not just ignoring possibile grounds for his positions.
@@porteal8986 I have no doubt that a skilled philosopher, purely using philosophy, could account for just about anything, and then other equally skilled philosophers could argue against it until the end of time
Concepts exist in the mind. If minds exist in a world, then concepts exist in the world by existing in minds that exist in said world. Seems tidy enough without having to resort to silly stuff like platonic forms or concepts "existing" in the same sense as physical things. Nobody cuts up a computer wondering why they can't find movies or music inbetween the circuits. Nor do we posit that music and movies must exist in some spooky way separate from the circuitry.
Interesting perspective, and I would agree. Though that necessarily limits perceptions of concepts to the individual, as we can't share "subjective" experiences between minds like we can copy the binary data of a movie between hard drives unfortunately. We have to rely on common understanding of our perceptions. It also suggests that concepts are not elevated to the metaphysical in a self justifying stort of way, like the way Marty seems to want them to exist.
@@SirLied That might be the case currently, but I don't think that's a hard problem as much as just of soft problem of current tech. If experience is just electrical signals firing in the brain, then mapping those signals out and then reproducing them in a different brain would reproduce the experience. I think we already have good reason to believe this is possible. For example, there is now current tech that allows blind people to see via an electronic lense wired to a person's optical nerves. This seems to indicate that there is some universality to the experience of sight that reduces to physical data. If we had no clue what it was like to "see as a human", we could not determine whether such a device was indeed successfully reproducing sight or not. This suggest that visual data can be reproduced and transmitted as well. Obviously, the problem of solipsism precludes us from metaphysically knowing that the data projected into another mind is experienced exactly as it was in the original mind, but honestly, that's not a substantive issue warranting much consideration imo. I mean, I don't know that you observe the color red as I do, or experience pain as I do. However, that does not preclude the experience of red or pain as being physical phenomenon with commonality between sentient beings. It's just the old problem of solipsism rearing its ugly head as always. Ultimately, there's a distinction between the veil of ignorance as a product of hyperskepticism and hurdles of tech in practical reality. By confusing the two, you might as well say that you cannot know for certain that the songs you transfer from your PC to your phone aren't somehow different as well because perfect knowledge of everything isn't available to us.
Everytime Destiny asks Marty to explain something Marty acts so hesitant and despondent as if he were about to convince himself out of his own position by giving an explanation. Lol
44:34 I'm surprised Destiny didn't bring up his shroom trip as an example here. A drug completely removed his sense of self by chemically changing the brain.
If you understand a concept well, you can explain it to a lay-person. You can use examples, you can use metaphors, you can avoid words you know a lay-person cannot be familiar with. Several times, Destiny asked him to explain things and he used even more obscure words than before. Unless this person has never talked to anyone without a doctorate in philosophy, he must know how to be understood. Destiny even asked him to explain it "as if he was a twelve-year old" and he used the word "dialetheist" in his explanation, for fuck's sake. That smells of bad faith to me. Nobody is unaware that they shouldn't be using that language if they want to be understood.
marty's really smart and interesting but he constantly uses this weird attack where he claims someone is begging the question by appealing to a definition of a concept or object, or just making a basic observation. "oh, you're saying that a circle is round, but there are no circles that are not round? heh, kind of begging the question there bro" also comparing scientific progress to shamanism, wtf lmao
His issue is that he has learned quite a lot and can recite a lot of theories and names, but he hasn't thought about all the ideas deeply to actually have his own opinion and ideas. All his answers seem to come out as just quotes from books. This is why he has such hard time explaining stuff in simple terms or answer questions he hasn't directly read about before. I don't think he ever gives his own opinion on anything.
The last ~30:00 of this is just Marty taking a "god of the gaps" approach to mind. He agrees that lots of behavior which subjects believe is intentional is, in fact, directly traceable to material causes. He then brackets that off by just saying "Well, we know *those* behaviors have material causes, but we can't conclude *all* behaviors have material causes." Which is true to a limited extent -- if you want to retain a degree of agnosticism here, that's fair game. But that "degree" should be precisely as large as your agnosticism about physical causality in general: after all, I can't conclusively demonstrate that every rock that ever fell was responding to gravity (as opposed to, say, magic or free will), but I have enough evidence of the general pattern that it's not really worth considering the alternative until/unless I'm presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.
I thought destiny was suppose to be the final boss? External: perception is a physical response to an environment by sense organs. Internal: perception is experience of discriminated objects and their structures and relationships. Hierarchical: perception integrates sensational forms of awareness, yet perceptions are integrated into concepts. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts.
Much as I enjoy philosophy, this seems like the problem in choosing philosophy over science. No one in neuroscience (besides cranks) takes this seriously. The mind is the product of the brain. Nothing else is required, and nothing else has predictive power. Philosophy of mind is fun, but it doesn't move us forward... neuroscience does.
@@sovietsandvich8443 To be clear, not knowing an answer doesn't support anything. I agree with that. However, induction is on the side of a mind being the product of a brain. Throughout human history, everything initially attributed to something non material, and then actually tested, was discovered to have a material cause. Everything discovered about the brain so far has been based on a material model. We are justified in predicting that existing unknowns will follow the only pattern we know. This is not a proof, it is not deductively true, but it is reasonable. It is also the position supported by the majority of both neuroscientists AND philosophers. There is simply no need to invoke a non material something to explain mind, and exceedingly strong correlation between physical changes and mental manifestation.
@@sovietsandvich8443 I respect that view. Certainly, there are things outside the realm of science. But doesn't what you've said beg the question? You don't know that the mind is immaterial, OR that it's not discoverable by science. And again, science has made novel predictions based on a physical model of the mind and brain. Those predictions in many cases have been confirmed through later testing. The non material view of the mind does not have that kind of support. Philosophers (and again, fringe philosophers) have come up with ideas, but philosophy is not particularly relevant to new discoveries... the data always wins.
@@sovietsandvich8443 Colloquially, I would agree that ideas are not material. That is insofar as the content of the idea does not have physical existence. However, thoughts and ideas can actually be mapped as brain states. Recent research found that through this mapping, researchers were able to recreate (within margin, they can't plug in like the matrix) images that the subject was imagining using just the brain states. These brain states are physical - the arrangement and activation of brain cells. So even at that level, our ideas can be described as physical (and predicted/confirmed to align with that model). Ignoring that, though, there is a problematic claim in that last response. Philosophically, words like "can't" are dangerous. Saying physical arrangements of particles "can't" produce immaterial things is almost definitionally an argument from ignorance. We can say that we don't currently have a mechanism for certain phenomenon, but that's as far as we can go without an actual contradiction. I imagine you were speaking more in terms of the latter, which is understandable. But I think we both agreed that not knowing how something happens can't tell us one way or the other about it.
@@sovietsandvich8443 Again, there is a point of agreement. Both the material and non material model of mind/brain can be consistent with the data we have. I'd go so far as to say almost every philosophical model can be consistent with data. There are essentially infinite ways to explain anything. But this goes back to my earlier point. A physical model isn't just consistent with the data, it predicts it. I don't think that is true of the non material model (at least without layering in a lot of extra assumptions). We should prefer models that do this. The material model predicts data before it's discovered, the non material model doesn't. The material model explains the data with fewer assumptions. The material model is supported by experts in relevant fields (including philosophy), the non material model is not. Also, I've really enjoyed discussing this with you. I don't expect we will change each other's mind in this format, but I'd like you to have the last word since I started.
Note that David Chalmers doesnt actually agree with the "Mary's Room" thought experiment anymore! (insofar that it seems to present qualia as a property which cannot be reduced to purely physical terms). If I recall correctly (and I might not be), I think in the past couple of years he's gone down a more "unique" route, exploring ideas of panpsychism, and the like. He actually spent a good deal of time going around guest lectures trying to revise the thought experiment and re-establish a new way of looking at Mary's Room (some of which I was personally privy to)- however, it seems like the qualia argument and Mary are pretty firmly solidified in the philosophy of mind canon, much to Chalmers' dismay, haha
Now aint that the truth. Once an idea is presented as truth, others will take it as an assumption when building their own theories. Even if this first order theory is debunked, the second order theorists will not accept that their presumptions were built on bad data. This is why people still believe in wormholes and time travel even though Stephan Hawking has retracted his theories on black hole singularities.
This Marty guy was a dumpster fire of jargon and abstractions. Every time Destiny had him pinned down on the logic, he would introduce some new term or distracting abstraction in order to obfuscate that he couldn't clearly defend his position.
Marty did good, hes been using these terms as theyre commonly used and typical arguments (the myth of thr givenchempells dilemma etc...), destiny and you guys are just confused.
All sense data does not support the conclusion that materialism is true. On the contrary, it confirms the immaterial, if anything. Simply defining materialism as anything that we sense is unorthodox to say the least.
Are you denying that light particles and sound waves and the stimulation of nerve endings are purely material? Sense perception is entirely material. A boulder may not be able to sense an explosion but it will be destroyed none-the-less.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 No. I am saying the mind is not material. To say otherwise is just butchering the English language. I am also saying you don't always need photons to see or sound waves to hear. (Not sure about the nerve endings though, might need those).The only way anyone has ever argued that you do (in conversation with me) is by simply defining seeing and hearing as such.
EyeAm Roger E. Bissell on Brian and mind: “A mental process and the physical brain process correlated with it are one and the same brain process, as viewed from different cognitive perspectives. Thus the brain has two distinct, irreducible aspects: a mental aspect and a physical aspect. And mental processes are actually mental physical brain processes distinguishable from all other physical brain processes by virtue of their introspectable, mental aspect. The Dual-Aspect theory holds that mental processes are actually certain physical brain processes as we are aware of them introspectively, i.e., that “mental” refers to the fully real, introspectable aspects of those particular physical brain processes. Our awareness of them is the form in which we are aware of certain brain processes introspectively, just as our awareness of the physical aspects is the form in which we are aware of those brain processes extrospectively.” www.rogerbissell.com/id11aaa.html
@@bingbong3643 Well i like the analogy of seei g and feeling length, but "...mental physical brain processes..." sounds like an oxymoron to me. My point was that empricism isnt wedded to materialism as many seem to take for granted. You can see with your mind's eye, so to speak( in a dream for example).
To the people claiming the use of purposefully obscure language Philosophy, like any especilization develops it's own language to develop shortcuts for complicated concepts. If I hear 2 physicists talking about quantum theory or something, I will literally understand nothing but I won't have the assumption that they are using esoteric language to spite me. We are much more distrustful of philosophy I think, even more so than other social sciences (this could just be a persecution complex as a philosophy student though) I think we believe that these really fundemental questions are able to be understood without studying them greatly. As a philosophy student myself (tiptip), who struggled with the 'terms', I definetely think philosophy should try do bridge the gap. (I honestly thought people were being intentionally obscure at first too, and seeing how absolutely opposite my view is now, and I understand the use of naming stuff, and of using expressive language to exhaust the meaning of what you mean, I don't blame anyone for having the same position I did.) Teaching is definetely it's own skill, because I've found my professors to be fantastic and really open. I honestely think that as you get deeper into philosophy you start getting too caught up you start speaking like the other person has also studied philosophy, you forget the things that confused in the begginning.
Keep it up! I do think good philosophers can discuss complex topics without the need for jargon, however. That's the mark of a truly good professor! This is one of the main reasons I dislike destiny's discussions- toooooo much jargon; what about the poor viewer? How will they keep up?
That's interesting, I feel like it's the other way around. Fresh students (engineering student speaking) will often struggle to communicate the ideas they've learned to outsiders, whereas someone with a deeper understanding knows how to "dumb it down" properly. I don't think Marty is being purposefully obscure, but I do think his inability to adapt his rhetoric to his audience betrays a lack of deeper understanding on his part.
Destiny talked to the inventor of Chmess (which is slightly different than Chess, and that no one plays) for over two hours about his strange hobby in this debate.
Soviet Plays Games Our subjective experience would not exist without sense data. Our brains are effectively built in-tandem with sense data. To me at least, it'd be like arguing a statistical model can exist without the data that it is run on -- it doesn't make much sense.
@@sovietsandvich8443 It was actually discussed in one of my intro classes at the university I attended. Idk what school you went to but it's quite common here due to the faculty being heavily centered on metaphysics. Granted we have many different intro classes to choose from like intro to ethics, intro to ancient phil, intro to metaphysics etc. While we didnt go super in depth into this topic in the intro course, it still provided a good background so if students were interested in this topic they could take an upper div class on the same topic
Is this just a long roundabout way of trying to justify a deity or w/e? Cause it feels like that guy just really wants to believe in having a soul with a free will and doesn't like the idea of a universe absent any inherent meaning and purpose. He's talking about what sounds like inherent intention just by virtue of existence. I'm not a philosophy student, I'm a blue collar b0i, barely even an internet #skeptic but it seems to me a lot more logical to assume minds are just what we call consciousness, the phenomena emerging from brains and their resulting electrochemical reactions derived through evolution by natural selection. I always presumed the idea of a mind without a brain came from superstition and creative thinking, and that we have no reason to believe minds are anything more, wish as much as one might. I don't fully get this normative states thing, but I guess that's just one more thing to google now.
That's ok my dude. It's a lot of jargon - like with physics and computer science - the concepts are not that complicated, you just have to learn the language. And these things (such as qualia) are hard to explain, which makes the discussion unnecessarily difficult.
I feel like a lot of so called immaterial things can just be called patterns. Like a song for example. It isn't one thing somewhere in the world. It is the sequence of particular actions by particular objects at particular times that "create" the song. I know that intuitively the mind seems more special than that, but I think the mind could just be that. A pattern. An arrangement. A complex sequence of actions. Now back to the tree. The tree is essentially also an arrangement of things. These things do actions that by themselves might not seem directly meaningful to themselves, but are in fact meaningful to themselves through a long chain of interdependencies with the other things of that arrangement called tree.
average NPC I think this is true. A type of machine learning, called Neural Networks, vaguely mimics the human brain in much the same way as you described. It takes in a bunch of data and creates various layers of abstraction. In certain simple examples of this, like in recognizing digits from handwriting or certain aspects of the face, it will create abstracted concepts from the many examples (data) it received. It's effectively pattern matching for abstracted objects.
It almost feels like Marty often takes advantage of the fact Destiny doesn't have the complete wherewithal to contest him, so he gets away with obfuscating his arguments that don't seem correct.
Most of this argument was just cutting garbage words out of what should be simple sentences until the statement was usable anywhere outside of a philosophy classroom. No wonder this sort of thinking never gets any mainstream traction. Thank god Destiny at least held him to that standard for the entire discussion.
something can be logically sound but built on a false premise... the zombie human from Chalmers IS logically sound if you accept his definition of a zombie human. Philosophically, Marty is correct, but he is literally built his logic on an imaginary concept. but im a dumbass.... dont listen to me. lol
Emotion isn't propositional. That's what I think Qualia is. How does x make you feel. Still a property of the material brain. People who argue for immaterialism seem to be on the same level as people who argue for heaven or platonism.
I think the point Steven was trying to make is that if you combine all the parts of a hand then that composite is a hand and you cannot say something like: "Let's assume two objects that are both made of the parts that make up a hand in the exact same way a hand is constructed from these parts, but one of them is not a hand". To Steven this seems like an obvious contradiction. But somehow for this concept of the mind we have a word for that. So let's say there is an object that has all the parts of a hand arranged in the way that makes up a hand but it isn't a hand and we call it something else, for example we call it "Plauzz". And then the p-zombie version of the hand would be something like: Imagine a Plauzz that isn't a hand. Welllllll, it seems that a Plauzz is a hand considering what we mean by hand, and you adding to the definition that it isn't a hand doesn't help but create a contradiction. U kno wot I meen?
Dude Marty is on such a different level that he feels simultaneously like a Burning man regular and the reincarnation of all philosophers at the same time
You guys got hung up on the philosophical zombie thing so much which was sad to see you couldn't move past it. I always thought that thought experiment was used to illustrate that consciousness can be independent of a human brain. In my humble opinion a better thought experiment for our times is to imagine having enough computing power to give rise to consciousness through something like AI. Anyone can see something like this happening, we see programs getting more and more complex in our time we can imagine them getting better and better to the point of real consciousness. If that is the case then you'd have to say that consciousness and the human brain are independent but does that mean that consciousness is immaterial? No because in my opinion even if you can conceive of consciousness as a separate from a brain it would still have to be tied to something producing it. Like software, windows exe. can exist in a disc form but its just polycarbonate aluminum and plastic. When you put the disc inside a medium like a computer it suddenly has the properties we come to refer to as windows.exe. Its the same thing with consciousness it requires a medium like a computer or a brain to produce the qualities we refer to it as and just because it can be separate from a human brain doesn't mean it isn't material.
God damn Destiny, your stream video quality went to shit. Real-time CPU video encoding is a thing of the past. That 18 core Intel CPU was a total waste. Put a 2080 in your streaming rig, get StreamLabs OBS, and use the "new nvenc" encoder. You'll be able to stream at 1080p60 and locally record at 1440p60. Also, use RTX voice to kill any background noise from your mic, which is very apparent.
I don't think Marty pressed Destiny on what Apriori means. A priori is deductive and known through reasoning. The brain states are measured a post, so it'd be inductive which only leads to probability rather than necessary.
Half of this conversation was the philosophy dude saying what boils down to "I can't explain why your wrong because your so wrong". Can you really call yourself a philosopher if you hold that a claim is wrong and can't explain why?
I'm glad Destiny brought up the post humanist perspective with animals plants etc. Maybe I'm not getting it but is there some kind of superiority and ascedence that Marty assumes of the human mind? Interesting convo. It seems to be accepted among some academic circles that physicalism is true with current empirical evidence but certain counter evidence is possible. Havent read it all but this seems to be an okay perspective: Is physicalism "really" true?: an empirical argument against the universal construal of physicalism - Paul Smith
We should all give Mark some respect though, he was not only knowledgeable (I learned quite a bit) but he was very patient, humble, and respectful the entire conversation. He was happy to explain many concepts Destiny didn’t understand and was never condescending.
This sounds like a botched way to get to Kant’s ontology of a Noumenal and Phenomenal realm. Adding the brain as a categorizer may have simplified this for Destiny and maybe even allowed him to join in the Kantian Kool-Aid.
At 1:09. Marty seems to use a priori as a basis for statements on our universe. This is very silly, as destiny was saying; the emergence of hands comes from an a posteori (I think thats how you spell that) argument from causation
Wow I always watch destiny's vids when I play league and I can almost always follow along. I legit didn't even realize I was listening to this, completely tuned it out. That guy has the most boring voice to me.
51:50 I think most neurosurgeons are materialists. If a doodad or a thingamajig in a persons brain is removed they act/sense differently. 52:47 Has he ever been drunk or did his mind conceive drunkenness after intuiting the identity of alcohol. 56:56 he’s never been drunk.
I once heard a cool way of describing reality that rings true for me. Everything is a probabilistic model that we individually create in our heads. We share our probabilistic models with other entities and we call that knowledge. The scientific method understands that these probabilistic models can be wrong, and they try to falsify them and replace incorrect ones with correct ones. At every level of analysis we consciously or unconsciously accept that there is a degree of error to our models but if sense data matches closely enough we accept it to be true.
Sounds like the belief that "Science is consensus." As long as (mostly) everyone believes something to be true, it is. This is how religions will continue to win throughout the ages.
Im sorry, but debates like this are super boring. Because no matter who is "right", it has ZERO effect on anything and doesnt lead to anything... Its mental masturbation.
9:00 where do you think concepts come from- if not from sense data? Perceptual content needs no epistemic justification- it's just a given. In fact, perception _is_ that which all epistemic justification relies on. If you don't see the connection between your sensory experiences in the world and your ability to form concepts then you are just hopelessly lost in trying to understand questions raised in philosophy of mind.
A bit further in; the problem of induction applies to establishing identity but not to the identity I give to a posteori definitions. This is not a good argument
Can someone get a link to 'Closer to Truth' in front of Destiny? I feel like he has yet to take a true, deep existential dive, and that may be the perfect place to start.
Gunnplay I'm absolutely fascinated by what's being spoken about. I'm a psychology student but find philosophy incredibly interesting. Where do I even begin? This conversation was too difficult for me to follow. Should I watch the 'Closer to Truth' thing you spoke about?
I would like for someone competent in philosophy to answer my question. It seems that Marty and Destiny went into the debate assuming the burden of proof lied with materialism, but is that true. Isn't the burden of proof supposed to lie on the person who makes the most assumtions? Destiny's stance was that we should only bother about things that can be described / everything is physical, correct? It seems like the burden should lie on the person that advocates for magical phenomenons. Like how religeous people have to prove that gods exist before you would adopt that idea. I would like to know if I've gotten that wrong.
I had the same question, but I have very little formal education in philosophy so could be wrong. I'm pretty sure that we have to simply accept the material world exists since we witness it. Anything beyond that requires more assumptions and so should have the burden of proof.
It is an assumption to say that there is a distinction between anything you experience. Nondual philosophy will tell you all is one. And that corresponds with the fact that epistemic positions cannot be justified, so no position is any more likely.
Timestamps for our brave mobile memesters:
1:14 - (Debate start) Materialism / Physicalism
4:11 - Destiny's Physicalism definition
6:16 - Marty's issues with ^
10:00 - Marty defines propositional content
17:37 - On naturalism in relation to physicalism
29:48 - On Dialetheism
36:55 - What's the difference between the material and immaterial?
41:19 - Mind without the brain
49:08 - Brief summary
55:14 - On Mary's room
59:40 - On David Chalmers's zombie experiment
1:20:39 - Normativity of the mind
1:31:52 - Title
1:35:45 - Wrap up / summary
Destiny. Thank you being less about ego whin this particular convo. I seriously hwve been working through thes3 words thatcreated discussion. I watchhow otherstakepositionsand 2hethernot they wre show8ng ego or uncertainty or jus5 7nfamiliaritu .
Arrggg...
I hate text.
Hope thtougj rereading itll be coherent6
If word porn exists this is it.
Freaking awrsome. So rare
It says in the description that this was streamed in 2019, is that true?
Simp
@@an_Anon HE MISTYPED OMEGALUL
destiny is going into his philosophy arc to be able to defeat the raid boss falsifying the christian god.
He's gonna need one hell of a defeater.
The god question is the Afghanistan of philosophy
Destiny debates Pope Francis
I think destiny should acknowledge when he is out of his field and invite real philosophers like Trainwrecks to deal with continental philosophy instead of talking like he knows what's up....
What do we do if the arguments for a moral ontology/epistemology is being pushed on us to force life decisions into a certain direction even though we are not philosophers?
@@spacedoohicky Learn at least basic of philosophical principles and arguements.
@@OriginLinear What if we do, and there's still someone saying we shouldn't be involved in the conversation? Like I guess, who's the arbiter of who's qualified? And when we find them what might be the qualifications they would use to exclude certain people from the conversation? And what if someone has to work, and take care of family so even though they have stakes in the conversation they don't have the time to search, judge relevance among the sources, and memorize philosophy?
I'm not just trying to be obstinate. From my view these are serious questions that I don't know the answer to. I have asked these before, but haven't really gotten a good answer, or an insufficient answer like "If someone (don't want to know)/(can't know) then their F'd".
@@spacedoohicky I understood some of the words.
@@spacedoohicky i like turtles
The splitting hairs at 1:04:00 was so dumb. Marty defines a mind as being separate from the brain and everything material. Of course he can conceive of a p-zombie. That's tautological. Why does he think that proves anything? There's no logical contradiction because Marty has presupposed it. If I presupposed that a square could have any number of sides, of course there's no logical contradiction with conceiving of a square with five corners. That's what Marty is doing. He only disagrees when Destiny accuses him of this because there's a universally understood definition of a square, and he's acting like they have a universally understood definition of a mind, and that definition presupposes it's immaterial.
Destiny made a mistake by saying he defines a mind as being an emergent property of a "brain" because then they both are making the same tautological mistake. Destiny should have said that he sees no reason to presuppose that the mind is immaterial, because he has all empirical observations of minds backing up this argument. We should assign a very high credence to the belief that minds are an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex computational system like the brain because we've never observed a mind without a brain, but we have observed minds be destroyed or significantly altered as a direct result of physical changes to the brain. Marty has to do the legwork in explaining why, despite never observing this in human history, that a mind can exist without a brain. Or that the existence of the mind is independent of the physical configuration of the brain. If Marty is right, then a brain should be able to have any arbitrary physical configuration without destroying the mind. Clearly that's ridiculous. And if he disagrees, then he'd have to explain why the physical nature of the brain influences the expression or existence of the immaterial mind. Then we run into the same debates that have happened for hundreds of years.
We don't have a complete understanding of the brain, so of course we can't explain logically why the mind is emergent. But that doesn't mean it's NOT emergent, and Marty has given nobody any reason to believe that it's immaterial.
I agree with everything, except the arbitrary part. that doesnt sound like a necessity. you could have them being related
Haha very nice! Maybe the better topic to talk about are the (possibly problematic) consequences of taking the mind to be emergent in the first place?
When did the mind suddenly arise out of nowhere? One moment we were apes with unsophisticated brains without mind and then along the way it just suddenly arises while the brain becomes more complex?
@@flamingo1912 you've nailed it, that's the big question. Is there just a sudden point in a brain's development when SNAP, suddenly theres consciousness? Theories of emergence cant seem to really get around this little idea, that it seems vastly problematic to point at two brains with similar levels of development, and say "this one has conciousness, and is allowed all the privileges and rights self-aware beings deserve", and "this one doesnt". Not only is it unintuitive, this kind of idea also comes with all sorts of moral and ethical issues. Huge roadblock for team emergent consciousness!
@@flamingo1912 Nothing in biology happens 'suddenly'. Apes themselves are very intelligent and most would argue they also have minds of their own. We humans developed slowly over the course of hundred of tousands of years. We do not know exacly when was the point that the mind 'emerges' but It's because he have yet a lot to understand about minds. To the best of our knowledge mind seems to emerge at some point in the evolutionary proces. We don't know when and why, but all available evidence so far suggest that it does.
If you think this things happen suddenly and out of nowhere then I have a question for you: When was the exact moment when a Latin speaking parents gave birth to a Italian speaking child? The answer to this question is the answer to your inquiry about the mind,
Why are all philosophy majors so bad at explaing concepts?
AGREE!
@Xavier E hahahahahah that's great
It's obvious to me that he just didn't want to explain anything. He just wanted to sound right. Which also seems to be a philosophy student thing too.
I think teaching simply isn't a very common skill regardless of the field you're in. I agree with the sentiment though. As someone who's studied philosophy for about 20 years and specifically the philosophy of consciousness over the last quarter of that time, it's really frustrating knowing exactly what Marty is attempting to point out while seeing him fail so badly at explaining it. It's admittedly a difficult concept to explain and even a great teacher would likely be unable to make it understandable to the average layperson, but Marty is doing an especially poor job imo.
@@Reienroute wow 20 years! What university do you work at? An American one, or elsewhere?
Sometimes I feel like a lot of philosophy students are really just history of philosophy students. I feel many keep trying to box any topic into things that other philosophers have already said. There seems to be this kneejerk force to assign a certain already existing philosophical theory to any conversation partner, so all the old counter-arguments can be applied.
This
That's the big problem with philosophy when you're a student and not starting your own thing.
Most of the course work boils down to reciting other philosopher's works, and therefore subscribing to whichever one lines up with your personal world view.
After my 3rd semester of doing philosophy, this fear of only being able to regurgitate ideas without providing any new ideas of my own sort of overwhelmed me. I'm now on my 6th semester and doing much more of my own reading as well as frequently engaging in debates has definitely helped. I think Phi students definitely need to be put on the spot to argue more often.
@@jacerox very cool. Keep it up. I appreciate your attitude.
I think this is more to do with the fact that humans have been tackling the philosophical questions for thousands of years and there is no point re-inventing the wheel if that line of thought has already been addressed and potentially discredited. Takes a long ass time to cover the bases.
the other comments haven't watched this debate yet in this debate
You must accept that you're begging the question here
I had no idea what was being talked about in this debate, but I'm sure Destiny got destroyed in it.
^ In a nutshell how most Destiny haters think and feel.
Summary of this conversation:
Destiny: "X makes sense to me. Why not?"
Other guy: "I don't see it."
well it's like saying 'it's not possible for a swan to be black because I can't imigine a black swan', destiny just didn't give any arguments
You should chat with Alex Malpass. He has a very charitable, lucid, and patient way of explaining philosophical arguments.
Destiny doesn't handel his youtube
that talk would go WAYYY over destiny's head. Malpass is a supergiant
destiny said "You MUST accept that you're begging the question..." in this debate
I can’t tell u why but I knew that quote was coming
naser ishaq it was from your sense data
Marty is good if you want a live encyclopedia, but useless if you want to discuss new ideas. Morty just ignored any questions he didn't have an answer from a book he has read. No opinion ever.
Marty did good, hes using these termas as theyre commonly used in philosophy, destiny and his viewers are just confused
@@OrcintheBasement the video would then have to be around 12 hours
@@OrcintheBasement sounds more like the average person shouldn't talk about or take stands on stuff he doesn't understand
this is your brain on 5 dollars
5 dollars is 2 dollars less then my fucking Netflix scrip. And I get endless big budget content for that. Not just a talking head and sub par gaming lol jk
It feels like this person is glossing over pattern recognition which can convert sense data into a concept of "likeness". An infant won't form concepts around 'a' tree, but once it sees multiple trees, it will begin to form a conception of a tree through perceived commonalities.
Reienroute
You should read up on Neural Networks and how they operate on a technical level. I think it's very interesting from an epistemological standpoint, as they effectively can create abstracted concepts and use them to perform incredible things in the modern age.
I think Destiny addressed this and was accused for denying a priori normativity.
The other guy was arguing that we are connected to the concept of a tree immaterially, wether we ever come into contact with a material tree in our lives or not.
He demonstrated this with his Maria thought experiment where a women knows everything about the color red but has never seen it. One day she sees the color red and understands red without any new knowledge (since Marty doesnt believe in sense perception or induction, he does not count seeing red as information).
One must assume at some point that Marty is disingenuous or a solips
@fluoxy L. why not?
I will not challenge Martys knowledge and expertiese is the field of Philosophy but i have to say that he is trully TERRIBLE at explaining anything regarding this field. This whole conversation sounded like Marty demanding Destiny to justify his materialism, but when challenged he himself just justifies immaterial things as "Well it just seems like it is immaterial".
I would say it would do much more good for Marty to learn a little bit more about rhetoric and use some time to put his ideas into simpler, better understood forms because it just looks like phylosophy major lost to a music school dropout in this debate.
Just because you have a philosophy degree doesn't mean you are right. If this was true, philosophers would have to agree with each other. This is also true for fields like Physics, whenever there is room for interpretation and the human mind is required to make sense of something you will get a huge amount of conceptually coherent but simply untrue theories.
The difference between a field like Physics and Philosophy is that atleast Physics has a solid process of verification, where progress is possible due to the clear ability to predict outcomes. Philosophy however runs on ideas that came people 2000 years ago, who because they were the founders of western philosophy are hailed like gods. Imagine if you had physicists today who would be still operating under the assumptions of scientists 2000 years ago, or infact 200 years ago?
In philosophy, you pick your favourite philosopher and indoctrinate yourself into his particular viewpoint. Then you proceed to tell everyone how convincing you find that viewpoint and how unconvincing you find everyone elses viewpoint. There is no process of selection, most of it is unverfiable, assuming that the human capacity for reason is the ultimate tool to attain Truth.
This has been my exact exp listening to all Destiny's philosophy debates.
@@EpFiDude People don't really hold to the views of 2000 year old philosophers all that strongly. At least not in a broad sense. You're not going to find many modern philosophers hailing Plato's hatred of democracy.
@@EpFiDude People don't hail ancient philosophy of 2000 years ago, at least no more than modern or contemporary philosophers.
Aristotelians and neoplatonists exist, but this is just one position, and in philosophy there's a huge range of positions, like you yourself pointed out.
If you're just making a general point about how philosophy doesn't progress like science, and thinkers 2000 years old are still taught, then I agree. It just doesn't have that type of linear progression, and broader insights are more likely to survive the test of time than something that can be proven empirically false.
About picking a philosopher and sticking with him, this is just not how philosophy is taught. Yes, professors and yourself can specialize in certain authors, but that will be a deliberate conclusion you've arrived at after learning the most standard currents and schools of thought. A professor that is extensively read has stuck with a certain position because it is to him the most correct.
I hope this didn't come off too strong, it's not tha big of a deal, but I just want to see that myself and my classmates, at this initial stage at least, are precisely afraid of getting "bought into" any one philosophy right now.
and its not even because of jargon. a lot of it self explanatory, but his explanations are either to vague or too bad. not sure if he does that on purpose or not
Hempel's Dilemma is literally just a formally proposed, "Science is a liar sometimes" argument. Physicallism is based on our understanding of physics and the material world, but since that will change in the future, and there is no way to know what it will change to beforehand, that you can't base any sound conclusions on our current understanding, the alternative is to base our understanding on completely immeasurable, unobservable ideas which are known to never change, it's not like there are multiple fields of study constantly changing our understanding of the metaphysical like philosophy, ethics, theology, etc... seriously, it is pure mental gymnastics built upon a self-contradictory premise.
What annoys me about these types of conversations is that it can be reduced to 2 sides of "we don't know enough".
One side says we don't know enough to claim material *is* all that exists. One side says we don't know enough to claim material *isn't* all that exists. Which in turn just leaves us with what a person wants to believe. Which is infuriating because belief is fluid, belief can change on a dime. I walk into a restaurant thinking the food will be trash to have my mind changed in an instant once trying to food.
I believe we have a material world with nothing beyond that. Guess the fuck what. That belief can change in an instant the moment someone shows me something to convince me otherwise. Low level philosophy is just a ton of word games and it is obnoxious.
But the objective of the conversation isnt to solidify a conclusion. It's the sharing of self-conceptual ideas and trying to come together on concepts. Getting everyone to believe and accept the world as it is - the understanding that it can change so quickly like you have described is a perspective that has be learned. So while these kinds of chats may be obnoxious or redundant, I think they serve a good purpose to steer people in the right paths
Walking in to the restaurant and having your mind changed; did it change because of revelation, perception, or deduction?
When Destiny and Marty argue whether it was perception or deduction, they are leaving the door open for theists to walk right in.
no destiny claimed bodies can't exist possibly without brains a priori while only giving a posteriori arguments
I’m 20 minutes in and I still dont know wtf they’re talking about
"That zombie you are thinking of was me"- Kamala Haris
This philosophy bro fundamentally misunderstands the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle.
Conceptual content seems to be things we value in what we perceive. A tree cannot be a tree without someone to name it so. It doesn't change any of the physical properties of the tree, but other creatures that value different aspects of trees could come up with their own categories of conceptual content about a tree and perceive that set of content as existing regardless of what views the tree, which would be false.
@fluoxy L. no , they are both correct. those properties just have different value to each other creature. You could value a tree's lifespan in one creature's view or the value of its trunk for building material. Neither is wrong in their assessment of the tree, but the conceptual info is different and lost when the creature is gone.
Trees to me as just large weeds and weeds are tiny trees. Check mate Atheists.
@fluoxy L. The notion that any set of conceptual information being intrinsic regardless of what creature views the tree. While the information might still exist for another creature to understand or value, it doesn't mean that creature would. The builder might never value the trees lifespan or note it. It still lives a amount, but it's false to say that one creatures concepts are more important or more real than another's. Those concepts can die when those creatures die (and all their recorded history) but the tree remains.
The guest speaker is terrible at explaining things, he can't change his language to accommodate a less sophisticated audience... There is a lot of definitions that you need to keep straight in your head to engage with his line of dialogue that puts anyone who is not in his field of study at a distinct disadvantage in being able to understand his ideas. If you can't communicate an idea to people outside your field what good is it to talk about it?
Googoo gaga
This is my argument against all philosophy. Terminology almost seems to be used to obfuscate disagreement between anyone not on that level of philosophy. A lot of it also just looks like thought exercises, from the outside, so nobody, myself included, actually cares about what they are arguing.
Its so hard to follow what's being said when they are saying "epistemic justification for the value of truth" or whatever shit until someone grounds what they mean with a real world example, or even an analogy.
@@piedpiper6425 it almost feels like this is a big ironic joke to this guy, because he spent like 10 minutes saying that an idea that isn't grounded in something that is tangible or exists is mostly worthless.
@@zwoope I feel that. Whenever Destiny speaks to either Rem or Marty it always seems like the objection to his moral anti-realism or moral nihilism is a foundational thing that goes way way way deeper into philosophy than is really necessary.
An example of what I mean is like the idea of free will.
Destiny might say something like "Causality means that when event 1 happens, event 100 is determined to happen in a fixed way because the categorical end of the universe is predictable maths"
And Marty will say "the problem with believing that is that you don't even know you exist. You could have came into existence 10 minutes ago with pre-installed memories, and the maths you're relying on appear consistent through time, but you haven't justified why they would be"
And it's like...well okay yes I understand that, but it's not really an answer to what I'm saying.
Marty's position is a cautionary tale about what happens when you ONLY ground your philosophical positions in philosophy. Marty explaining the physical world solely with philosophy is like a STEM lord explaining the metaphysical in terms of mathematics.
What else would you use lol? Philosophy is more foundational
anything you could point to as a ground for philosophical positions could be accounted for by a philosopher. Marty is not just ignoring possibile grounds for his positions.
@@porteal8986 I have no doubt that a skilled philosopher, purely using philosophy, could account for just about anything, and then other equally skilled philosophers could argue against it until the end of time
Scrap being the CEO. I'm the KING of don't know what their talking about
Concepts exist in the mind.
If minds exist in a world, then concepts exist in the world by existing in minds that exist in said world.
Seems tidy enough without having to resort to silly stuff like platonic forms or concepts "existing" in the same sense as physical things.
Nobody cuts up a computer wondering why they can't find movies or music inbetween the circuits. Nor do we posit that music and movies must exist in some spooky way separate from the circuitry.
@fluoxy L.
Let's try again once we've mastered basic English grammar and syntax, shall we?
Your reply here is as ugly as it is impossible to parse.
Interesting perspective, and I would agree.
Though that necessarily limits perceptions of concepts to the individual, as we can't share "subjective" experiences between minds like we can copy the binary data of a movie between hard drives unfortunately. We have to rely on common understanding of our perceptions.
It also suggests that concepts are not elevated to the metaphysical in a self justifying stort of way, like the way Marty seems to want them to exist.
@@SirLied
That might be the case currently, but I don't think that's a hard problem as much as just of soft problem of current tech.
If experience is just electrical signals firing in the brain, then mapping those signals out and then reproducing them in a different brain would reproduce the experience.
I think we already have good reason to believe this is possible.
For example, there is now current tech that allows blind people to see via an electronic lense wired to a person's optical nerves. This seems to indicate that there is some universality to the experience of sight that reduces to physical data.
If we had no clue what it was like to "see as a human", we could not determine whether such a device was indeed successfully reproducing sight or not.
This suggest that visual data can be reproduced and transmitted as well.
Obviously, the problem of solipsism precludes us from metaphysically knowing that the data projected into another mind is experienced exactly as it was in the original mind, but honestly, that's not a substantive issue warranting much consideration imo.
I mean, I don't know that you observe the color red as I do, or experience pain as I do.
However, that does not preclude the experience of red or pain as being physical phenomenon with commonality between sentient beings. It's just the old problem of solipsism rearing its ugly head as always.
Ultimately, there's a distinction between the veil of ignorance as a product of hyperskepticism and hurdles of tech in practical reality.
By confusing the two, you might as well say that you cannot know for certain that the songs you transfer from your PC to your phone aren't somehow different as well because perfect knowledge of everything isn't available to us.
Everytime Destiny asks Marty to explain something Marty acts so hesitant and despondent as if he were about to convince himself out of his own position by giving an explanation. Lol
44:34 I'm surprised Destiny didn't bring up his shroom trip as an example here. A drug completely removed his sense of self by chemically changing the brain.
Comment section: I can't understand what this guy is talking about, so i think he's just obfuscating and Destiny won the debate!
If you understand a concept well, you can explain it to a lay-person. You can use examples, you can use metaphors, you can avoid words you know a lay-person cannot be familiar with.
Several times, Destiny asked him to explain things and he used even more obscure words than before. Unless this person has never talked to anyone without a doctorate in philosophy, he must know how to be understood.
Destiny even asked him to explain it "as if he was a twelve-year old" and he used the word "dialetheist" in his explanation, for fuck's sake. That smells of bad faith to me. Nobody is unaware that they shouldn't be using that language if they want to be understood.
marty's really smart and interesting but he constantly uses this weird attack where he claims someone is begging the question by appealing to a definition of a concept or object, or just making a basic observation. "oh, you're saying that a circle is round, but there are no circles that are not round? heh, kind of begging the question there bro"
also comparing scientific progress to shamanism, wtf lmao
His issue is that he has learned quite a lot and can recite a lot of theories and names, but he hasn't thought about all the ideas deeply to actually have his own opinion and ideas. All his answers seem to come out as just quotes from books. This is why he has such hard time explaining stuff in simple terms or answer questions he hasn't directly read about before. I don't think he ever gives his own opinion on anything.
@@maxintos1 This is the feeling I get too. You see this all the time with fresh students in science as well.
Jeez. I feel so fucking lost. How do I even begin to learn about this?
The last ~30:00 of this is just Marty taking a "god of the gaps" approach to mind. He agrees that lots of behavior which subjects believe is intentional is, in fact, directly traceable to material causes. He then brackets that off by just saying "Well, we know *those* behaviors have material causes, but we can't conclude *all* behaviors have material causes." Which is true to a limited extent -- if you want to retain a degree of agnosticism here, that's fair game. But that "degree" should be precisely as large as your agnosticism about physical causality in general: after all, I can't conclusively demonstrate that every rock that ever fell was responding to gravity (as opposed to, say, magic or free will), but I have enough evidence of the general pattern that it's not really worth considering the alternative until/unless I'm presented with compelling evidence to the contrary.
True! What makes the mind so special?
who asked
Destiny acquired sensory information in this debate
I thought destiny was suppose to be the final boss? External: perception is a physical response to an environment by sense organs. Internal: perception is experience of discriminated objects and their structures and relationships. Hierarchical: perception integrates sensational forms of awareness, yet perceptions are integrated into concepts. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts.
Have you even grounded your axioms, bro?
my head hurts. I need to watch this a couple times. Some statements were too big brain for me.
did you ever understand? lol
Too many big words for me
Now cause I don't understand them, I'm gonna take them as disrespect.
Much as I enjoy philosophy, this seems like the problem in choosing philosophy over science. No one in neuroscience (besides cranks) takes this seriously. The mind is the product of the brain. Nothing else is required, and nothing else has predictive power. Philosophy of mind is fun, but it doesn't move us forward... neuroscience does.
@@sovietsandvich8443 To be clear, not knowing an answer doesn't support anything. I agree with that. However, induction is on the side of a mind being the product of a brain. Throughout human history, everything initially attributed to something non material, and then actually tested, was discovered to have a material cause. Everything discovered about the brain so far has been based on a material model.
We are justified in predicting that existing unknowns will follow the only pattern we know. This is not a proof, it is not deductively true, but it is reasonable. It is also the position supported by the majority of both neuroscientists AND philosophers. There is simply no need to invoke a non material something to explain mind, and exceedingly strong correlation between physical changes and mental manifestation.
@@sovietsandvich8443 I respect that view. Certainly, there are things outside the realm of science. But doesn't what you've said beg the question? You don't know that the mind is immaterial, OR that it's not discoverable by science. And again, science has made novel predictions based on a physical model of the mind and brain. Those predictions in many cases have been confirmed through later testing. The non material view of the mind does not have that kind of support. Philosophers (and again, fringe philosophers) have come up with ideas, but philosophy is not particularly relevant to new discoveries... the data always wins.
@@sovietsandvich8443 Colloquially, I would agree that ideas are not material. That is insofar as the content of the idea does not have physical existence. However, thoughts and ideas can actually be mapped as brain states. Recent research found that through this mapping, researchers were able to recreate (within margin, they can't plug in like the matrix) images that the subject was imagining using just the brain states. These brain states are physical - the arrangement and activation of brain cells. So even at that level, our ideas can be described as physical (and predicted/confirmed to align with that model).
Ignoring that, though, there is a problematic claim in that last response. Philosophically, words like "can't" are dangerous. Saying physical arrangements of particles "can't" produce immaterial things is almost definitionally an argument from ignorance. We can say that we don't currently have a mechanism for certain phenomenon, but that's as far as we can go without an actual contradiction. I imagine you were speaking more in terms of the latter, which is understandable. But I think we both agreed that not knowing how something happens can't tell us one way or the other about it.
@@sovietsandvich8443 Again, there is a point of agreement. Both the material and non material model of mind/brain can be consistent with the data we have. I'd go so far as to say almost every philosophical model can be consistent with data. There are essentially infinite ways to explain anything. But this goes back to my earlier point. A physical model isn't just consistent with the data, it predicts it. I don't think that is true of the non material model (at least without layering in a lot of extra assumptions).
We should prefer models that do this. The material model predicts data before it's discovered, the non material model doesn't. The material model explains the data with fewer assumptions. The material model is supported by experts in relevant fields (including philosophy), the non material model is not.
Also, I've really enjoyed discussing this with you. I don't expect we will change each other's mind in this format, but I'd like you to have the last word since I started.
@@sovietsandvich8443 what do you mean by confirm?
Note that David Chalmers doesnt actually agree with the "Mary's Room" thought experiment anymore! (insofar that it seems to present qualia as a property which cannot be reduced to purely physical terms). If I recall correctly (and I might not be), I think in the past couple of years he's gone down a more "unique" route, exploring ideas of panpsychism, and the like. He actually spent a good deal of time going around guest lectures trying to revise the thought experiment and re-establish a new way of looking at Mary's Room (some of which I was personally privy to)- however, it seems like the qualia argument and Mary are pretty firmly solidified in the philosophy of mind canon, much to Chalmers' dismay, haha
Now aint that the truth. Once an idea is presented as truth, others will take it as an assumption when building their own theories. Even if this first order theory is debunked, the second order theorists will not accept that their presumptions were built on bad data.
This is why people still believe in wormholes and time travel even though Stephan Hawking has retracted his theories on black hole singularities.
@fluoxy L. ah yes it might have been a while ago, it's been a long time since I was a student hahaha
This Marty guy was a dumpster fire of jargon and abstractions. Every time Destiny had him pinned down on the logic, he would introduce some new term or distracting abstraction in order to obfuscate that he couldn't clearly defend his position.
lol you're clearly not following the discussion
Marty did good, hes been using these terms as theyre commonly used and typical arguments (the myth of thr givenchempells dilemma etc...), destiny and you guys are just confused.
All sense data does not support the conclusion that materialism is true. On the contrary, it confirms the immaterial, if anything. Simply defining materialism as anything that we sense is unorthodox to say the least.
Are you denying that light particles and sound waves and the stimulation of nerve endings are purely material?
Sense perception is entirely material. A boulder may not be able to sense an explosion but it will be destroyed none-the-less.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 No. I am saying the mind is not material. To say otherwise is just butchering the English language.
I am also saying you don't always need photons to see or sound waves to hear. (Not sure about the nerve endings though, might need those).The only way anyone has ever argued that you do (in conversation with me) is by simply defining seeing and hearing as such.
EyeAm Roger E. Bissell on Brian and mind: “A mental process and the physical brain process correlated with it are one and the same brain process, as viewed from different cognitive perspectives. Thus the brain has two distinct, irreducible aspects: a mental aspect and a physical aspect. And mental processes are actually mental physical brain processes distinguishable from all other physical brain processes by virtue of their introspectable, mental aspect. The Dual-Aspect theory holds that mental processes are actually certain physical brain processes as we are aware of them introspectively, i.e., that “mental” refers to the fully real, introspectable aspects of those particular physical brain processes. Our awareness of them is the form in which we are aware of certain brain processes introspectively, just as our awareness of the physical aspects is the form in which we are aware of those brain processes extrospectively.” www.rogerbissell.com/id11aaa.html
@@bingbong3643 Well i like the analogy of seei g and feeling length, but "...mental physical brain processes..." sounds like an oxymoron to me.
My point was that empricism isnt wedded to materialism as many seem to take for granted. You can see with your mind's eye, so to speak( in a dream for example).
Philosophers like this guy would probably fail public speaking 101.
Exactly
The stream after this Destiny said he may have changed his mind slightly, or in other words, destiny got destroyed in this debate
You’re implying debates are merely to argue and not an opportunity to see other perspectives/information
Cohen you’re implying that’s not how Destiny treats them
Dylan Will imagine thinking a debate on deep levels of philosophy is the same as debating some dumbass tanky
@@hecetewest5411 it was more of a discussion than a debate. Destiny arleady knew he was probably wrong.
dude weed lmao
I would like to hear a discussion about theories of truth and their justifications.
To the people claiming the use of purposefully obscure language
Philosophy, like any especilization develops it's own language to develop shortcuts for complicated concepts. If I hear 2 physicists talking about quantum theory or something, I will literally understand nothing but I won't have the assumption that they are using esoteric language to spite me. We are much more distrustful of philosophy I think, even more so than other social sciences (this could just be a persecution complex as a philosophy student though)
I think we believe that these really fundemental questions are able to be understood without studying them greatly.
As a philosophy student myself (tiptip), who struggled with the 'terms', I definetely think philosophy should try do bridge the gap. (I honestly thought people were being intentionally obscure at first too, and seeing how absolutely opposite my view is now, and I understand the use of naming stuff, and of using expressive language to exhaust the meaning of what you mean, I don't blame anyone for having the same position I did.)
Teaching is definetely it's own skill, because I've found my professors to be fantastic and really open. I honestely think that as you get deeper into philosophy you start getting too caught up you start speaking like the other person has also studied philosophy, you forget the things that confused in the begginning.
Keep it up! I do think good philosophers can discuss complex topics without the need for jargon, however. That's the mark of a truly good professor! This is one of the main reasons I dislike destiny's discussions- toooooo much jargon; what about the poor viewer? How will they keep up?
@@Aname550 It depends on the philosophy being discussed, but generally I agree!
That's interesting, I feel like it's the other way around. Fresh students (engineering student speaking) will often struggle to communicate the ideas they've learned to outsiders, whereas someone with a deeper understanding knows how to "dumb it down" properly.
I don't think Marty is being purposefully obscure, but I do think his inability to adapt his rhetoric to his audience betrays a lack of deeper understanding on his part.
Destiny begged the question in this debate
Destiny talked to the inventor of Chmess (which is slightly different than Chess, and that no one plays) for over two hours about his strange hobby in this debate.
If an individual never received any sense data, would they be able to form a concept?
no and he wouldnt be an individual
Soviet Plays Games
Can you justify that assertion?
Soviet Plays Games
Our subjective experience would not exist without sense data. Our brains are effectively built in-tandem with sense data.
To me at least, it'd be like arguing a statistical model can exist without the data that it is run on -- it doesn't make much sense.
Thanks for playing
If your answer was yes (or just vaguely implied “yes”), then please explain how that might occur
I always love the Marty discussions
@Adam soucie ok
Adam soucie OK??
@Adam soucie okay.
I got really bored in this debate.
Destiny: "I can't even fathom of a mind greater than mine."
Rhys Tucker Could you though? How would it be to be a person who was 200 iq?
I remember my first Philosophy class...
I think Destiny is a good gateway to people who haven't been quite exposed to the field yet
You're right, I just remember my first takes being as bad lol I do enjoy philosophy being more widely discussed.
@@sovietsandvich8443 It was actually discussed in one of my intro classes at the university I attended. Idk what school you went to but it's quite common here due to the faculty being heavily centered on metaphysics. Granted we have many different intro classes to choose from like intro to ethics, intro to ancient phil, intro to metaphysics etc. While we didnt go super in depth into this topic in the intro course, it still provided a good background so if students were interested in this topic they could take an upper div class on the same topic
@@sovietsandvich8443 it is quite "philosophy of mind 101"
Is this just a long roundabout way of trying to justify a deity or w/e? Cause it feels like that guy just really wants to believe in having a soul with a free will and doesn't like the idea of a universe absent any inherent meaning and purpose. He's talking about what sounds like inherent intention just by virtue of existence. I'm not a philosophy student, I'm a blue collar b0i, barely even an internet #skeptic but it seems to me a lot more logical to assume minds are just what we call consciousness, the phenomena emerging from brains and their resulting electrochemical reactions derived through evolution by natural selection. I always presumed the idea of a mind without a brain came from superstition and creative thinking, and that we have no reason to believe minds are anything more, wish as much as one might. I don't fully get this normative states thing, but I guess that's just one more thing to google now.
Best course of action when someone talks about P-zombies is to just start treating them like one. After all, you're not being inconsistent.
Honestly both of these dudes need to meditate for a few years and come back to this conversation
cereal 'i understand 17% of this debate' famine feels really smart watching this debate.
i consider myself somewhat smart, but this went over my head
Nomnom Nomnom
I can’t tell if he’s really smart or a Deepak Chopra type word salad aficionado
That's ok my dude. It's a lot of jargon - like with physics and computer science - the concepts are not that complicated, you just have to learn the language. And these things (such as qualia) are hard to explain, which makes the discussion unnecessarily difficult.
Honestly you'd just need an intro to philosophy textbook to understand most of what's being said. As someone else said above, it's lots of jargon.
@@sovietsandvich8443 kk thats a good explanation thanks you :D
I feel like a lot of so called immaterial things can just be called patterns. Like a song for example. It isn't one thing somewhere in the world. It is the sequence of particular actions by particular objects at particular times that "create" the song. I know that intuitively the mind seems more special than that, but I think the mind could just be that. A pattern. An arrangement. A complex sequence of actions. Now back to the tree. The tree is essentially also an arrangement of things. These things do actions that by themselves might not seem directly meaningful to themselves, but are in fact meaningful to themselves through a long chain of interdependencies with the other things of that arrangement called tree.
average NPC
I think this is true. A type of machine learning, called Neural Networks, vaguely mimics the human brain in much the same way as you described. It takes in a bunch of data and creates various layers of abstraction. In certain simple examples of this, like in recognizing digits from handwriting or certain aspects of the face, it will create abstracted concepts from the many examples (data) it received. It's effectively pattern matching for abstracted objects.
"We tie it all together. It's called integration."
Can't philosophers speak in words that aren't so convoluted?
It almost feels like Marty often takes advantage of the fact Destiny doesn't have the complete wherewithal to contest him, so he gets away with obfuscating his arguments that don't seem correct.
Most of this argument was just cutting garbage words out of what should be simple sentences until the statement was usable anywhere outside of a philosophy classroom. No wonder this sort of thinking never gets any mainstream traction. Thank god Destiny at least held him to that standard for the entire discussion.
something can be logically sound but built on a false premise... the zombie human from Chalmers IS logically sound if you accept his definition of a zombie human. Philosophically, Marty is correct, but he is literally built his logic on an imaginary concept. but im a dumbass.... dont listen to me. lol
*A "logically sound" argument is a valid argument with true premises, sound arguments cant have false premises.*
Emotion isn't propositional. That's what I think Qualia is. How does x make you feel. Still a property of the material brain.
People who argue for immaterialism seem to be on the same level as people who argue for heaven or platonism.
Destiny didn't beg the question in this debate
How is a hand an emergent property of the physical parts of a hand? It is definitionally a hand, not emergent.
I think the point Steven was trying to make is that if you combine all the parts of a hand then that composite is a hand and you cannot say something like: "Let's assume two objects that are both made of the parts that make up a hand in the exact same way a hand is constructed from these parts, but one of them is not a hand". To Steven this seems like an obvious contradiction. But somehow for this concept of the mind we have a word for that. So let's say there is an object that has all the parts of a hand arranged in the way that makes up a hand but it isn't a hand and we call it something else, for example we call it "Plauzz". And then the p-zombie version of the hand would be something like: Imagine a Plauzz that isn't a hand.
Welllllll, it seems that a Plauzz is a hand considering what we mean by hand, and you adding to the definition that it isn't a hand doesn't help but create a contradiction.
U kno wot I meen?
Dude Marty is on such a different level that he feels simultaneously like a Burning man regular and the reincarnation of all philosophers at the same time
You guys got hung up on the philosophical zombie thing so much which was sad to see you couldn't move past it. I always thought that thought experiment was used to illustrate that consciousness can be independent of a human brain. In my humble opinion a better thought experiment for our times is to imagine having enough computing power to give rise to consciousness through something like AI. Anyone can see something like this happening, we see programs getting more and more complex in our time we can imagine them getting better and better to the point of real consciousness. If that is the case then you'd have to say that consciousness and the human brain are independent but does that mean that consciousness is immaterial? No because in my opinion even if you can conceive of consciousness as a separate from a brain it would still have to be tied to something producing it. Like software, windows exe. can exist in a disc form but its just polycarbonate aluminum and plastic. When you put the disc inside a medium like a computer it suddenly has the properties we come to refer to as windows.exe. Its the same thing with consciousness it requires a medium like a computer or a brain to produce the qualities we refer to it as and just because it can be separate from a human brain doesn't mean it isn't material.
God damn Destiny, your stream video quality went to shit.
Real-time CPU video encoding is a thing of the past. That 18 core Intel CPU was a total waste.
Put a 2080 in your streaming rig, get StreamLabs OBS, and use the "new nvenc" encoder. You'll be able to stream at 1080p60 and locally record at 1440p60.
Also, use RTX voice to kill any background noise from your mic, which is very apparent.
I don't think Marty pressed Destiny on what Apriori means. A priori is deductive and known through reasoning. The brain states are measured a post, so it'd be inductive which only leads to probability rather than necessary.
destiny existed independent of the mind in this debate
1:35:18 that’s funnier then when Rick turned himself into a pickle.
Respiration is a physical thing. Awareness isn't.
I can imagine a psychoactive drug that does nothing, that doesn't make it logical to conclude does it?
Half of this conversation was the philosophy dude saying what boils down to "I can't explain why your wrong because your so wrong". Can you really call yourself a philosopher if you hold that a claim is wrong and can't explain why?
I'm glad Destiny brought up the post humanist perspective with animals plants etc. Maybe I'm not getting it but is there some kind of superiority and ascedence that Marty assumes of the human mind? Interesting convo. It seems to be accepted among some academic circles that physicalism is true with current empirical evidence but certain counter evidence is possible. Havent read it all but this seems to be an okay perspective: Is physicalism "really" true?: an empirical argument against the universal construal of physicalism - Paul Smith
We should all give Mark some respect though, he was not only knowledgeable (I learned quite a bit) but he was very patient, humble, and respectful the entire conversation. He was happy to explain many concepts Destiny didn’t understand and was never condescending.
His naturalism in relation to phyiscalism argument reminds me a LOT of presuppositionalism.
apologist vibes
What is the end goal of this conversation?
46:01 Destiny goes full big brain
This sounds like a botched way to get to Kant’s ontology of a Noumenal and Phenomenal realm. Adding the brain as a categorizer may have simplified this for Destiny and maybe even allowed him to join in the Kantian Kool-Aid.
Let's keep phenomenology out of this!
@@Aname550 Qualia?
At 1:09. Marty seems to use a priori as a basis for statements on our universe. This is very silly, as destiny was saying; the emergence of hands comes from an a posteori (I think thats how you spell that) argument from causation
necropost but a posteriori
Wow I always watch destiny's vids when I play league and I can almost always follow along. I legit didn't even realize I was listening to this, completely tuned it out. That guy has the most boring voice to me.
51:50 I think most neurosurgeons are materialists. If a doodad or a thingamajig in a persons brain is removed they act/sense differently.
52:47 Has he ever been drunk or did his mind conceive drunkenness after intuiting the identity of alcohol.
56:56 he’s never been drunk.
Interestingly, a lot of prominent neuroscientists have endorsed some sort of panpsychism. Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi being two examples.
I once heard a cool way of describing reality that rings true for me. Everything is a probabilistic model that we individually create in our heads. We share our probabilistic models with other entities and we call that knowledge. The scientific method understands that these probabilistic models can be wrong, and they try to falsify them and replace incorrect ones with correct ones. At every level of analysis we consciously or unconsciously accept that there is a degree of error to our models but if sense data matches closely enough we accept it to be true.
Sounds like the belief that "Science is consensus."
As long as (mostly) everyone believes something to be true, it is. This is how religions will continue to win throughout the ages.
I completely understand all of this.
ty for the philosophy content, I prefer it even to politics (although thats good as well) :)
Marty needs to brush up on the current state of consciousness research, Destiny did a good job bringing up the split brain patients
@fluoxy L. lol obviously you need to provide a source for that claim
I see. Well you both tripped over yourselves from what I understand, but the answer was in sight. Close call guys, maybe next time.
Contradictions can't exist? Well great my whole world view has been flipped over again
Im sorry, but debates like this are super boring. Because no matter who is "right", it has ZERO effect on anything and doesnt lead to anything... Its mental masturbation.
9:00 where do you think concepts come from- if not from sense data? Perceptual content needs no epistemic justification- it's just a given. In fact, perception _is_ that which all epistemic justification relies on. If you don't see the connection between your sensory experiences in the world and your ability to form concepts then you are just hopelessly lost in trying to understand questions raised in philosophy of mind.
Immaterial concept that we can KNOW exists.
The knowledge, "I AM".
How can you know this?
A bit further in; the problem of induction applies to establishing identity but not to the identity I give to a posteori definitions. This is not a good argument
It took me about a half hour before I could follow the conversation properly lol.
I had no idea what was being said in this debate
Can someone get a link to 'Closer to Truth' in front of Destiny? I feel like he has yet to take a true, deep existential dive, and that may be the perfect place to start.
Gunnplay I'm absolutely fascinated by what's being spoken about. I'm a psychology student but find philosophy incredibly interesting. Where do I even begin? This conversation was too difficult for me to follow.
Should I watch the 'Closer to Truth' thing you spoke about?
I would like for someone competent in philosophy to answer my question.
It seems that Marty and Destiny went into the debate assuming the burden of proof lied with materialism, but is that true. Isn't the burden of proof supposed to lie on the person who makes the most assumtions? Destiny's stance was that we should only bother about things that can be described / everything is physical, correct? It seems like the burden should lie on the person that advocates for magical phenomenons. Like how religeous people have to prove that gods exist before you would adopt that idea.
I would like to know if I've gotten that wrong.
I had the same question, but I have very little formal education in philosophy so could be wrong. I'm pretty sure that we have to simply accept the material world exists since we witness it. Anything beyond that requires more assumptions and so should have the burden of proof.
Your right the burden of proof lies on the person who is making an extraordinary claim
It is an assumption to say that there is a distinction between anything you experience. Nondual philosophy will tell you all is one. And that corresponds with the fact that epistemic positions cannot be justified, so no position is any more likely.
My brain hurts in this debate
Good :) like a workout
Destiny is so calming to listen to