J.L. Schellenberg - Realism vs. Anti-realism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2023
- Shop for the holidays while supporting the show with Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
What are anti-realists and why do they deny objective reality? What we know of the world must come through our senses and be processed by our brains. Both can be unreliable; illusions can fool our senses and illness or injury can disrupt our brains. Therefore, can we ever be sure that anything outside ourselves is truly what it seems?
For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Watch more videos on the metaphysics of consciousness: shorturl.at/cgjAR
J.L. (John) Schellenberg is a Canadian philosopher known both for his atheism and for his defense of a broader skepticism compatible with atheism - a form of skepticism which, as it happens, opens a path to a new evolutionary brand of religion.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
If we ever know reality, then there has to be two thing needed. First, the reality has to be exists and second, there has to be someone to know it. So from this sentence we can conclude that reality has to be Existence and conscious. And if you see carefully both existence and consciousness are not two thing, they are same.
I like to think of the problem of realism as being analogous to signal processing.
A signal is being received, and it's being decomposed to extract all order from it. What's left over is noise.
The signal being received is the direct evidence of the universe. It's not that one can precisely know its properties in advance, as the decomposition always yields some leftover noise. But, it does seem overwhelmingly likely that the signal is received rather than internally generated, by its complexity, unpredictability, and verifiability from multiple perspectives.
This is a kind of realism whereby theories of the universe necessarily yield some leftover noise, and the unpredictability it implies is fundamental and universal.
A deterministic universe, from this perspective, is the purest expression of idealism.
Also, it should be noted that there is a social element to realist constructions. In absence of a consistent physical theory of everything, it should be assumed that all assumptions about the true nature of reality are at least a little contingent. The game of realism, then, is to convince others that your fabrications are the most plausible!
The mostly likely answer, however, is that we're all at least a little bit wrong.
We can know ultimate reality because by definition, it must be present everywhere, all the time. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist, because existence is not dependent on whether it is known or not.
Possibly. However there is the theory that things and/or events must be observed by a conscious observer in order to exist...such as the universe itself. Basically the old "if a tree falls in the forest" anecdote. Not saying I necessarily adhere to this philosophy. Actually I am very uncertain because there are good points to both your statement as well as an "observationist" philosophy.
The way I would state the basic realist position: The only(?) axiom I have to believe as TRUE is that there are other minds. If I can hold that one axiom, then I can believe our minds (i.e. me and other) "correlate" to a stable/predictable external reality, allowing us to talk meaningfully about that external reality. I think Wittgenstein might have said this (not sure, cause I don't understand his private-language argument too well). I.E. the beetle in the box (that nobody can see, but the person who "owns" the beetle) is really just the correlation of external reality to that mind. If there are OTHER minds similarly correlated, then those minds can talk about their beetles (without anyone seeing someone elses beetle). So reality is just the "third variable" explaining why different minds are correlated to each other (as witnessed by their understanding the same language). Now I'll say something really important: very much liking that funky 3D audio and hope it stays around.
There is also the issue of proceeding as if my perceptions are accurate enough to get me through a day, but then told that the world isn't at all what it seems to be. Every day, I open doors expecting to find "something" when I open them. Can I be certain that this will always be the case? No. But so far, there hasn't been a hiccup. So, while all I can really "Know" is that "I think, therefor I am" (or as I believe is a more accurate statement, "I think, therefore I think."), for the most part, I live my life as if I know what to do and what will happen next. That said, science has shown that seeing the world more accurately is not necessarily more evolutionarily advantageous, in fact, quite to the contrary. It's all a fascinating series of subjects.
It’s not a great question. Solipsism is another term for anti realism and there are lots of solipsists but it is a psychological term, not a coherent position. Ultimate is a tricky concept… in physics? Ethics? Epistemology? These are all important worlds to understand.
Yes. Dummett threw a bunch of concepts together and called them anti-realism, which traditionally meant that there are no general categories only individual things. So there is a tree, but the category “tree” has no independent reality. Dummett’s redefinition (so to speak) has made the term anti-realism ambiguous
Well placed question 👌👍
Thanks much for this video
Relative magnitudes, and rates of change therein, are expressed , subject to logical constraints, in infinite dimensions. The world of our experience is a part of that in three dimensions.
This evolves as the sum of all possibilities, the path integral formulation.
Reality is relational, dynamical,never absolute.
We can’t know ultimate reality, but our sensory perceptions obviously correlate very well or at least well enough with reality that we are able to adapt and survive in it. And even to develop vaccines and medicines that prolong our lives and to create technologies that allow us to hit a bulls eye on a moving target, Pluto, after a 10 year, 3 billion mile trip.
Good point. The collective use of our conscienceness allows us to solidify what's real.
*"We can’t know ultimate reality, but our sensory perceptions obviously correlate very well or at least well enough with reality that we are able to adapt and survive in it."*
... And I would add that somewhere within that "ultimate reality" is the *motivation* for adaption and survival. We can take everything we need to survive / adapt and swish it around in a test tube, look at it under a microscope, or measure it ... but we can't do the same with "motivation."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >or measure it ... but we can't do the same with "motivation."
We can observe evolutionary processes producing systems with adaptive, goal seeking behaviour. That even goes as far as altruistic behaviour, so I think we will be able to make headway on this. It's early days though.
Science and scientific method is based on the assumption that the Universe exists independently of our minds and that scientific theory should attempt to correspond to reality. A fact is a belief that corresponds to reality.
@@simonhibbs887 *"We can observe evolutionary processes producing systems with adaptive, goal seeking behaviour."*
... We can observe the effects of certain phenomenon without necessarily being able to physically observe the phenomenon, itself. *Examples:* "Motivation" is an unobservable phenomenon, but its effects are clearly observable. In the world of physics, the actual "wave" in a wave function is not physically observable, but its effects are clearly observable. ... This poses a problem for the physicalist and his many test tubes. 🙂
*"That even goes as far as altruistic behaviour, so I think we will be able to make headway on this. It's early days though."*
... Promissory science?
Can you only see it through your own perceptions, or are your perceptions not possibly enhanced enough to a certain requirement to perceive universal, spiritual, supernatural or some ultimate realism.
ja if reality as we perceive it is an illusion the question remains: why does it work, anyway coherently for all of us every moment in time simultaneously consistently? there is reason to...
The best way to refute anti-realism is to point out how anti-realists (and everybody) behave everyday. Every person who claims there is no Reality, or that it can't be known, interacts with others, the law, their bank account, as though there is something real "out there" that will have an impact on what happens "here in my mind." To even tell somebody there is no such thing as reality is to assume there is something real about reality "that it's not real" and that your hearer can hear and understand what it is you actually said for real. In my view it breaks down under its own weight right quick.
Sure, but the realist position isn't expressible nor verifiable if you don't actually have the equations.
So far, the evidence is that all our scientific theories are idealistic, in the sense that they're simplifications, described mathematically, such that theorists can do hypothetical work with the concepts.
Then, the real part of the problem is random, and the ideal part is mathematically determined.
And, a description of the tension between realism and idealism is more enlightening than taking either side.
@@ywtcc While I hear what you're saying on one level, I respectfully think you're also demonstrating my point. The language you are using is making an assumption of realism. When you say "the scientific evidence is..." I assume you mean that the scientific evidence REALLY is ..." and not just that you the sensations in your brain are telling you that .... And even then to assume that the sensations in your brain were telling you something would be to suggest they REALLY were. i.e. we can't even have meaningful conversations about realism without recourse to realism.
Either we have no souls or about 30 trillion souls each.
We are actually a colony of cells, mostly cooperating.
The joint objective of these cells is creating copies.
cheers to being alive in this time !!!!
What is here called metaphysical anti-realism is usually called idealism, and idealistic view of reality is much older than modern science. Idealism was already present in the East in the Upanishads, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, in the West in Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, German idealism, etc. Therefore, Schellenberg's explanation that it is only a reaction to the prestigious status of science in our culture doesn't hold water.
Seems to me all of it (all the Closer To Truth and all other philosophical, religious, and scientific discussions) depends on epistemology. That includes writings about experiment based findings. If epistemology is incorrect . . . then everything communicated is totally unreliable. Hence the belief there is nothing real. Only my own perceptions matter.
Such is the plight of the sociopath...
Both ontological anti-realism ("Independent reality does not exist") and epistemic anti-realism ("Independent reality is unknowable") apply the concept of independent reality and imply that all of our concepts are constructed with perceptions only (which is right). Here, we should see a problem.
Ontological anti-realism asserts that the set of things that are outside of the set of perceptions is empty, i.e., it is nothing. But again, nothing is something. Therefore, ontological anti-realism implies the existence of the outside set (nothing that is being), which it negates, and this is a contradiction.
Epistemic anti-realism asserts that the set of outside things is not empty, but it can not be described. However, "not empty" is already a description, and this is a contradiction, too.
Of course, the challenge to both ontological realism and epistemic realism is the following question: If all of our concepts are constructed with perceptions only, how can we talk about the outside reality? The answer is that independent reality must be described partly in terms of perceptions: perceptions reflect it partly; the outside reality is partly undescribeable; it is not completely similar to the set of perceptions.
He says that „all of our speech and all of our thought presupposes that there is something external to our speech and our thought“ and that's how he discarded idealism, and I was not surprised that Kuhn was convinced by that. But it doesn't confute idealism at all. Think about our speech and thoughts while dreaming - there is nothing external to our consciousness in that case. The representative caracter of our words doesn't prove that they represent anything outside consciousness. And if you think enough you will find that the words are capable to express only those things that are present in consciousness. There is no word for something that is outside consciousness.
They're not discussing idealism, they're discussing metaphysical non-realism.
On dream, is the content of your dreams really not based on any of your experiences or sensations?
@@simonhibbs887 And what's the difference between metaphysical anti-realism and idealism? Schellenberg is expressing his confused understanding of idealism many times in the first half of his talk which he summarized by saying „there is nothing real independently of my perception.“ That's exactly how idealism is understood in the world where analytical approach to philosophy is predominant. But that's not what idealism really claims. Nothing is real independently of all comprehensive mind - that would be better to say.
Is the content of your dreams really not based on any of your experiences or sensations?
That's exactly what people naturally suppose, but it's nothing more than that: just a hypothesis taken for granted. To discover the ungrounded and naive character of that hypothesis you cannot use empirical science, because it cannot think outside its own working framework.
Notice that we experience seeing external things even without external stimulation: our sense organs do not receive stimuli from the outside during sleep, so our consciousness should be empty or even nonexistent in sleep, but it's not. It turns out to be very creative: there is nothing in the world that mind cannot create as a dream, including eyes that see and ears that listen, the whole body with its sense organs. Now you can say, but all the content of the dream is made of images that has entered the mind via the senses, that is our bodily receptors. But the problem is that you would say the same thing in your dream: first I see something with my eyes and then I can represent the same thing in my mind using the same image. But what's the difference between the thing and the image of the thing? So, if I think in my dream, if there was no reality outside my mind how could I have all that images that represent reality, then I'm just deluding myself making that supposition. I would think in that way only because of the strong identification of my consciousness with my body. And I could be proud of my great sense for reality, but we really cannot decide on that ground what comes first, mind or objective phenomena. Scientists naturally feel forced to opt for the objective side of existence, because that's all what they want to explain, only philosophers and philosophical scientists (Bohr and Heisenberg for example) are open for both options looking what is more logical. What I find pretty obvious is that mind is a creative and wise thing by its nature. How he creates our sense organs and coresponding perceptions I don't know, but that's something I expect from him.
@@kitstamat9356 >”And what's the difference between metaphysical anti-realism and idealism?”
Idealism says that the world we experience is real as far as it is perceived, that what is real depends on conscious perception, which makes it real or sustain it. That’s people like Kastrup who say the nature of reality is mental. Antirealism is significantly more extreme than that. No wonder we’re not getting anywhere, you’re defending a position you don’t understand. Maybe do some research?
>”Nothing is real independently of all comprehensive mind - that would be better to say. “
That’s Idealism, sure, but antirealism denies any reality. There is only conscious awareness.
>”Notice that we experience seeing external things even without external stimulation: our sense organs do not receive stimuli from the outside during sleep, so our consciousness should be empty or even nonexistent in sleep, but it's not. “
You’re forgetting memories. We can reconstruct, or assemble sensory experiences from those. I’m doing it right now.
>”there is nothing in the world that mind cannot create as a dream”
Exactly, nothing in the world, things we have previously experienced. Dreams play an important role in memory formation precisely because they are a mechanism for replaying and recomposing memories. I know you address this point, but the fact is waking experiences come first and dreams of those experiences later. The latter depend on the former, and so it’s reasonable to conclude that they are a consequence of them So dreams cannot be used as an explanation of waking experiences which precede them.
@@simonhibbs887 I was referring to metaphysical anti-realism as it is meant by Schellenberg, not by you. In his own words metaphysical anti-realism claims that: „there really isn't anything independent of our own perceptions“ (1:00), „there is no reality external to our own perceptions“ (1:16), „all there is is my perspective of things“ (1:25), „there is nothing real independently of my perception“, and so on. And, as I said: „That's exactly how idealism is understood in the world where analytical approach to philosophy is predominant. But that's not what idealism really claims. Nothing is real independently of all comprehensive mind - that would be better to say.“ Now, you agree that this is an idealist claim, but you think that anti-realism is somehow „more extreme than that“, and that this „more“ consists in the statement: „There is only conscious awareness.“ But if nothing is real independently of all comprehensive mind, then we can also say: there is only conscious awareness, and: the nature of reality is mental, not physical, etc. So it's not clear how do you distinguish between idealism and anti-realism. What is this „more“ in the statement „there is only conscious awareness“? Because that awareness must belong to the universal mind, not to our particular conciousness which is just a fleeting fragment in the awareness of the all comprehensive mind. The only possible way to be more extreme than that is to claim: nothing exists, not even consciousness. But that's nihilism, not anti-realism (traditionaly called acosmism).
In the second part you offer memories as an explanation of the phenomenon of dreaming. Then, how do you explain the fact that fetuses spend most of the time sleeping and that during this resting phase they have rapid eye movements (REM) indicating they are dreaming? What kind of images could have been stored in their memory to stimulate such a large amount of rapid eye movements?
@@kitstamat9356 He’s not giving an hour long lecture on it, he’s just giving a very quick summary. These interviews are brief introductions to topics. If you want to understand the distinction between idealism and metaphysical antirealism just look it up, it’s not hard. Thats what I did.
"Feelings aren't facts," at least in the sense that just because I feel something, doesn't mean that there exists an external reality that causes it. For example, I may feel hurt by something my spouse said, and believe that she was cruel on purpose, intentionally. However, just because I feel that way and believe it, doesn't mean that my spouse hurt my feelings on purpose. Along the same lines, just because I can't perceive it, it doesn't exist?! That is an incredibly arrogant stance, as if the world revolves around you. Of course, it may seem that way, but that isn't proof that this is the case. It is usually advisable to attempt to remain humble when it comes to one's experiences and beliefs. We can easily get into trouble when we aren't.
"Feelings aren't facts"
Yep, we have been telling leftists this exact thing for years but they just don't seem to listen. Instead they double down and make laws based on feelings.
You cant know ultimate reality simply because we live in a relative spacetime field where a unified perspective is physically impossible and infinite individualized perspectives are the rule of law, its as simple as that.
You can only know what it takes to walk for 12 hours by day, only when you have EXPERIENCED it. When babies experience movement, it becomes an adventure, and they conquered it. When you have the fund, paid a professional to show the ways of a software developer for example you were showed how to use "while loop" in 6 different unique ways, they have just made your job easier. There was no rushing or racing involved, and you always have someone to support your progress so you can be successful in mind body heart and spirit. This professional service provider has just made a flawless vibrational frequency amongst your entire being just by starting you on the right path, plus you also remained on the path to completion.
When you think you dont really have a why. When you reasonably think, purpose engulfs you to the point of death or completion.
Whats no assumption? applied limits!? If you can t disect and extrapolate, than you re assuming absurdification leading to abstraction. Or everythings relavante in the end of all
The guest summed it up nicely "futile"... It is amusing however to watch Kuhn "pushing the bolder up the hill".
(Paraphrasing)
"If we take a second to think about thoughts and ideas, they pre-suppose the physical..."
Language is shared in the physical... Spoken through sounds, or written with symbols. ↑↑↑↑ This alone is what makes logic based agreement so important...
Ideas can only ever be shared between two people, if they both inherently understand the same language...
Logic based agreement is the foundation of philosophy, philosophy is the root of the scientific revolution, science has given us a new language to be in agreement with...
It says nothing of what is inside of our interpretation. But you can't use language to deny materialisms own existence........ That is silly.
Because language is physical and material, to be certain of our ability to understand each other, we must stay within the bounds of language that means something material...
That doesn't mean there is no meaningful insights, into humanity, to be gleaned from the exercise of self reflection!
It just means that to truly share those ideas, that are not physical, YOU, the speaker, must insure that you have physically meaningful analogs to relate them to... Otherwise, what does it mean?
Subjectivity is still an objective thing, it filters through our perception of language....
Just thinking in language means that... even if realism doesn't exist, we still have to formulate our society on it. It honestly does not matter. We can only be certain of what we can "see." We can agree on things we see together. And that is what matters.
What the language ultimately looks like, or what feelings you have about things, does not influence the way that ideas get shared...
And since every single person is somewhere different, in relation to this material language that is constantly being built, constant use and refinement are necessary to keep the actual meanings of things relevant and alive.
Ideas can die, even good ones... That's why dogmatism is scary... It ruins our ability to agree on definitions...
But what is it to know ultimate reality in the biblical sense _?_
You need to be careful asking about knowing 'in the biblical sense'. It might be taken the wrong way 🙂
@@simonhibbs887Really _?_ 😇
@@longcastle4863 But what is it to know ultimate reality in the Marvel Universe?
@@tomjackson7755 That depends on the screenwriters ; _)_
@@longcastle4863 I guess you answered your own question then.
Thr science is the sense that avoid the sense limitations
Metaphysical antirealism would be self defeating. It assumes the existence of an " I " beyond external reality. An essence that perceives itself. Basically souls+solipsism.
It is self defeating because that I and that perception would be something in the world under their own paradigm.
But let's say that thing and that process do not need explanation nor justification of their existence as if it was sui generis, then you're one assumption further from physicalism which assumes the existence of reality as sui generis but can explain perceptions and the sense of an I from that initial assumption since it does not relies on souls/essences.
You can even explain the process of people denying the physical reality in their paradigms.
Two more things, one is that solipsism/metaphysical antirealism have no explanatory power and second, people who believe in it are just playing devil's advocate because they don't actually live their lives that way.
I was a little disappointed by this discussion. Firstly, Mr Kuhn clearly stated the question as being about 'ultimate reality' which I would describe as not simply a useful model of reality but THE actual corresponce truth of reality. Therein is a big difference. I don't think anyone denies that we can achieve useful 'models' of reality. As a species we have many models of fire, each model being usfule enough in its day to continue to use it. Even the weakly defined perception based anti-realists have a model of reality that they can make use of.
While I can't see anyone denying our ability to have useful models of reality, I can't imagine anyone thinking that we can ever access 'ultimate' reality. In this kind of epistomological anti-realism I am very much a Pyrrhonia Skeptic. It seems apparent to me that despite the numerous nuerons in our brains and the even more vastly numerous connections between nuerons, our brains/minds are still finit. Even tho we can't see ultra-violet, we can invent machines that do...but how to do we invent machines to think thoughts that our brains can not think? Even if we inventent a machine to think those thoughts for us....they could never share them with us because by definition we could not think them.
Just as the speed of light defines the limits of our observable universe, our biology is a hard limit our our understanding. We can only ever understand things as a human can. While I can not be sure, I can suspect that 'ultimate' reality is not constrained to the human knowable.
I just knew he wouid sneek in some atheistic assertion to suggest belief in a Creator is Anti realism
I don't follow the guest's claim at 4:39 that you can quickly lead a "metaphysical anti-realist" to an inconsistency. When s/he admits that s/he has a belief about reality, that does NOT conflict with metaphysical anti-realism if the belief about reality is "there is no external reality, only mind."
That's not the example he gave, which was about the nature of true statements. Of course it's somewhat contrived because it's an example, but he's just showing that it's not easy to discuss this point of view without getting tied up in linguistic knots.
@@simonhibbs887 : What linguistic knot? How is it self-contradictory for an anti-realist to believe there's no external world?
@@simonhibbs887: I listened yet again to the argument at 4:39, and it does not appear to focus on the "nature of true statements." It's about having a belief about reality.
@@brothermine2292 I didn't say it is, and I've not used his argument or through it through before so it's worth exploring. Let's treat it as a challenge, what's your answer to that. What does it mean to say that a statement is true?
@@simonhibbs887 : Not enough spare time for an open-ended vague game. And your replies have been very unclear. At what timestamp does the guest make his argument about "the nature of true statements" leading to a contradiction or to a "linguistic knot?"
The problem is that the only way to know anything is to first breakdown “reality” into subjects and objects. But doing that begs the question. The subject object distinction is a conceptual construction that is so embedded and embodied that it willy nilly is taken for granted. When that is done, it is as if one’s first step out of the gate is a misstep. And the utterly absurd and disturbing consequence of that recognition is that “reality” does not make sense. Full stop!
The subject/object distinction doesn't bother me so much. They're just different ontological categories, like substances, properties, states of affairs, categories, events, etc. They're all just different views into, or ways of thinking about the same reality. If a substance can also have properties, and also participate in events, why can't an object also be a subject, or participate in subjectivity? Ontological categories aren't like oil and water, repelling each other and irreconcilable, they are superimposed on each other, intersecting and informing us about the nature of each other.
@@simonhibbs887 for me your “ontological categories” are presumptions about reality, and that is the topic of the discussion, so again, begging the question. I would say that every category you list are different ideas, concepts, constructs ABOUT a supposed reality. I would say none of those exist. There are no objects that your substances, properties, states of affairs refer to beyond the idea that they exist independently of your cognition of them.
@@KingJorman >for me your “ontological categories” are presumptions about reality
They'e not mine, they're fundamental philosophical and metaphysical concepts.
>"I would say that every category you list are different ideas, concepts, constructs ABOUT a supposed reality."
I think they're types of experiences that we have. We can infer a reality from them, but we don't have to.
>"I would say none of those exist."
Do you agree that we have experiences, and that they seem to fall into consistent categories?
>"There are no objects that your substances, properties, states of affairs refer to beyond the idea that they exist independently of your cognition of them."
That's fine, let's not make any statements about what the nature of reality is, if there is a reality, let's just focus on our experiences. Let's call one group of experiences the physical, and another group the informational, and another group processes, etc. But let's not make any assumptions about anything behind them separate from our experience of them. Oh look, we'd invented empiricism.
@@simonhibbs887 the having of an experience is an experience. there is no having of experiences, essentially there are just appearances, that can appear to fall into those seemingly consistent categories you mentioned. And the belief that there is a some real someone that it's all happening to is the the fundamental misconstrual.
@@KingJorman Ok so there is just experience and we can categorise it. So you disagree with Descartes, that we can be certain that we exist as observers?
*Realism vs Antirealism.* ... Yah, we can take any ideology, split it in half, and then gravitate to one extreme or the other. Ideologies are like "If/then" statements in a programming language. Whatever core ideology one holds determines whatever subsequent ideologies are allowed to join in the mix.
The good side of having a core ideology is that one ends up with a cohesive "manner of thinking," but the bad side emerges should one's core ideology end up being overly restrictive or structurally flawed. The ripple effect is that you end up losing the intellectual cohesiveness you sought to gain.
... A good way to protect oneself from getting trapped within one's own intellectuality is to *not subscribe* to any ideology that ends up "exclusive" (or "inescapable") to whatever its counter-ideology represents.
To me reality is the here and now where we are stuck in individually. If you want some real objective view of this reality you need to be detached to a rather high degree from yourself which is to be considered to be enlightment or split personality depending how you look at it. Knowing intellectually all sort of stuff that is just not enough.
I agree with you. It would take an objective-observer with a wider viewpoint to formulate an accurate answer. Therefore, it's a waste of time dwelling on this topic.
Intellectual discussion are the first step towards understanding that they are just not enough.
When "mathematics" concludes "ends time" then they developed "perspectivisme" to skip it...
1:01 ... isn't anything independent of our own perceptions uh so the quest you say we're all on some people aren't on that quest because or maybe it's because the first stage of the quest has canel the continuing stages um they say that um there is no reality external to our own perceptions in fact this is becoming more and more popular uh in non-intellectual quarters as well to say that all there is my perspective of things okay sometimes this view is even called perspectivism um I think it's a very badly confused view I think even in the stating of the view you find people uh denying it so that's metaphysical anti-realism which says that there is nothing real independently of my perception of what is real okay. 1:46 ... 1:58 ... let me tell you the way I would say it I would say it I want to know ultimate reality (mhm) I want to know it and um uh I'm told that maybe I can't know it and maybe I can't know it because I'm only seeing it through my own perceptions (yeah) but if I can't know it it can be either one I have no idea whether there's a metaphysical reality or not because I can only see it through my own perceptions in the first explanation where some woludl say there's no metaphysical reality it's only the construct that I have you know I'd have no way to deny that (mhm) 2:30 JLS: ... ( ❤ at least I don't know how I can make progress ) 2:38 my response to that this is mathematical stage or prephysical stage, we could denote an ultimate form of reality by a natural number in which ONE (Deut 6.4) is a set of prime, P: {1,3,5,7, ... ΦΠ,ΧΠ, ... ΘΠ (or P∞)} , 2:46 ... 3:54 ... talk to me about the metaphysical uh anti-realism uh whether or not we can know it what would that entails JLS: anti metaphsical anti-realism well it's a confused view. ...
It is only when you walk to work with endurance and self-steering to the point of exhaustion that it happens gradually for starting from one end of the natural elements to taking an unseen amount of natural element. Your conscousness needs to work for the subconscious to achieve a super consciousness or that which weds conscious and subconscious. The uniqueness of the natural must work in tamden when it sees consciousness donits part with the part it sees and part it feels. This is the same as Facebook not making any profit in the first seven years, but after that, it became notoriously profitable. The same happens with seeds. The first 6 produce are not used, but the seventh will become luxurious item.
The mind that dont like to wait is just like the one that dont want to read to understand but want the best grade from the best universities, especially with all the free resources available.
If i want to eat seasoned meat 🍖, i must be prepared to leave that meat with the best spices and herbs 🌿 soaked in its juices for at least 72 hours - the amount of time most seeds take to find a source of water deeper in the soil and also breakout of the soil to receive breath like you and I exceptionally. Your patience, which is also your endurance and self-control, work with vibrational frequency. Like a while loop in programming, it accumulates accordingly how much you are willing to go. For those that add to the intensity of what walking can do like the SAS or elite force of the armed forces go through the stronger and resilient you become. The real deal in this whole scenario or ordeal is your capability to be consistent and persistent. The one thing that can cancel your progress is the mind and severe words of dirty vibration. To keep it clean, you must avoid any form of meal so your body can counter the effect of the up and down, inconsistent vibration from earlier.
Animals can speak, but they will rather die than speak, knowing how sweat life or consciousness is
The mind is a low frequency just going along for the ride because it has control over the body Nervous system weak point like the outside nerves and not the internal nerves to all the main organs deeper within the body because all the brain waves are highly concentrated in those areas making it impossible for the mind to penetrate regardless on how hard it meditate. The mind is a miracle embedded inside gravitons and gravitons are embedded inside wave particles and when a lot of particles come together they over power the gravitons communication because gravitons are the weakest energy field because they rely on spooky action at a distance unlike wave particles that have a physical connection and Superior when working together but when they work separately or with an on and off mechanism the gravitons can communicate between those time periods for example; sometimes being able to control your body temperature; waking up from rest or going to sleep and sometimes having the ability to slow down your heart rate and controlling your breathing. These are all activities that have a on and off mechanism and they all are consists of gravitons which makes up your digital hologram of self control. This is the hidden maze.
Mythology is very powerful in the human psyche the human species developed coping mechanisms to cope with the harsh realities and struggles of everyday life and also to cope with one's own personal mortality a denial of fatalism because something would be nice don't make it so
If by mythology you mean religion, I would have to disagree. Of course mythology and religion are two entirely different things but that's a discussion for another time. Whether it turns out to be that religion is correct and there is a higher power and existence beyond our current state, or not, the whole point of religion is not just for "feel goods" and "coping". Because not every outcome in most major religious beliefs is a good or positive one. Most believe in a negative outcome where you are cast into some sort of eternal damnation if you fail the test of life by being a bad or sinful person. It's not all lollipops and roses.
As a person who is more or less sitting the fence on religion, I don't really have a horse in the race and can form a pretty unbiased opinion. Religion as a whole exists as a way to civilise ourselves, to basically set forth a set of ultimate rules for your actions and treatment of others. It's what separates is from animals. Have individuals and/or cults abused this and used it for evil purposes? Absolutely. But overall, religion as an institution is meant to be a set of moral laws and norms. Your individual personal beliefs and spirituality, in my opinion, are separate from the institution of religion. Your inner voice and beliefs are what tell you that harming others is wrong, and religion is essentially the policeman.
@@digitalfootballer9032 The theist is out to prove the atheist is out to disprove I'm neither out to prove nor disprove whatever is is whatever is not is not true In don't believe in the Judaeo Christian Islam God nor any of the other Gods throughout human history but Manmade Theological Mythologies are totally separate from the Cosmology field which many people confuse the Intelligent Design Hypothesis for the cosmos is a possibility among a multitude of possibilities Random Natural Processes is another possibility pre existing universes multi universes infinite space eternal so much we still don't know
Ask him what quantum mechanics has taught us and he won’t be able to tell you anything at all. His philosophy is a pre-quantum philosophy.
Guys believes the reality is absolutetly isnt independente of out perceptions. He mistakes is keep out though philosophy proceendings he own perceptions isnt independent. Why he shows up How figuret out he own perceptions? Observer perceptions though unpredictable conscieusness pictures reality is nill. Guys his opinion isnt philosophy but only fallacies rethoric.
0 is necessary and 1 is not-necessary.
Sorry Newton and Einstein :(
Pythagoras: 0 is placeholder, 1 is principle.
Lover of God
في حقيقة الأمر تطور الصين في العلوم و مجال الابتكار جاء عبر علماء واقعيين و تجربيين خصوصا التجربة العلمية و البحث العلمي مما يولد قفزة في الابتكار علماء واقعيين اما اغلب بلدان عالم يطغى طابع الفلسفي للعلوم و سطحي غير تجريبي و نظري فقط غير مطبق و لا فائدة منه مثلا في أوروبا و أمريكا و روسيا و دول متقدمة أصبحت ظاهرة العلوم مزيفة فلسفية بدون أدنى إثبات تجريبي متفاعل مع الواقعية ليثم الاستفادة منه في الواقع و الابتكار العالم كله اصبح فيه هذه ظاهرة المدمرة و هي علوم مزيفة نظريات فرضت ععبتا و دخلت منظومة علمية الحقيقي و تدمر هذه النظريات و الفرضيات المزيفة التي أصبحت في هيكل الرياضيات و الفيزياء و الكيمياء و العلوم عامة.
الأمر أن الغير واقعي يستدل فقط بأشياء غير مفيدة للعلوم تبقى فقط كلام غصبا عن المجتمع العلمي ان يقبلها لأن العالم الذي قال النظرية او الفرضية ذو مكانة علمية مما يخلف أثر على العلم عموما لا يتوافق مع واقعنا لكي يصبح من الابتكارات و التقدم إلى الأمام العلوم و العلماء الغير واقعيين كارثة تدمر العلم بدون وعي
The next breakthrough in physics will be a contradictory statement. Let that sink in...
@SamoaVsEverybody814 because in the quantum realm pure complexity exists.
All just too complicated. Nobody knows or can know. Just go with the flow- or, if that doesn't work, then flow with the go. Allan Watts said, "this is it"- the title of one of his early books. If you know that "this is it" you don't need to know much more, metaphysically. What RLK really wants any of his guests to tell him is that he can survive death. Maybe, maybe not- nobody knows. But, why not assume it won't happen. So what? Is that so bad? Why not build a philosophy around assuming it won't happen- such that you conclude that it's OK, since..... drum roll.... "this is it". If this is it, you need no more. If there is an afterlife, then terrific. If there isn't- you aren't going to know- so you win either way. 😄
He is totally misrepresenting metaphysical anti-realism. A collective-based reality is much more real than what he imagines that it would be like. You can surely make truth statements in an anti-realist world.
If philosophy is for humans, what good is it if 99.9% of the global population couldn't possibly understand this and and all other CTT philosophy interviews.
I really don't understand the value of most philosophy 'theories'.
Read a history of philosophy book. Russell has a fine one.
The idea that there is something other than reality is fantasy.
In fact, that is the very definition of fantasy.
The soul is a product of the imagination.
But there can be multiple and/or alternate realities beyond our grasp or perception, which doesn't necessarily make them fantasy, just unattainable by our current level of understanding. The bit about a soul being the product of an imagination has zero to do with this topic. Bigfoot came to my house last night and had tea with me. See, I can include irrelevant rubbish in my comments as well.
'What would that "literally" mean' ?
The literal cannot be liberated. The conditioned is not liberation. Literalizing the liberated or path to, is antithesis and is avidya or agnosis.
True liberation is from such a condition or 'literal' context. You can not bring the liberated down to make it literal. This is antithesis. One does pt translate hieroglyphs or icronagraphy, althought it may give intimation, but the experience or recollection is transcendent.
Liberation is demodulation - disobjectification; from opinion, mode, belief, bhava, desires, thoughts, notions. When you don't try to literalize it; such is known as a condition - not liberation.
This is what i've learned, from the giants, wiseman and greats. And it's true.
This is what you have made up from your schizophrenic mind and that is true.
Purposeful obscurity ended with Derrida.
...sry: no! no reason!
There is no such thing as anti-real or unreal. Thats a silly notion.
This Physical Universe with our physical existence are all REAL but a TEMPORARY REALITY designed by the Holy Spirit to give us (lost souls) a chance to return Home through regaining our faith in God that we lost which is the reason why we all fell from Heaven - our Original Real Home...
..in other words, depending whether you have faith in God or not, your soul could return to Heaven or hell which is the GENUINE REALITY - a permanent one...
Maybe Christians should work on ridding their religion of bigotry and racism before preaching to the world.
RE - A - LIE - TY /\ S - EX - IS - 10 -TEN - CE
Dark matter is the whole void which gives rise to the quantum internal field of all graviton.
Graviton is the permanent heart of all electrons and the creator of mass this includes everything from the galactic level to the microscopic level. Obvious examples
The planet is sitting inside a graviton.
The solar system is sitting inside a graviton.
The universe is sitting inside a graviton.
Everything on a cellular level is sitting inside a graviton.
Gravitons are invisible waves frequencies shared in-between particles undetected as wimps and buried inside electrical wave particles like blood flowing through a main artery. These individual gravitons are the base root to mind and body to make connection basically for knitting together thoughts with emanating images through the nerves system and brain electrical wave particles coming from the brain neurons input output mechanism while going totally undetected.
These lower and weak frequencies explain why gravitons waves don't have a strong connection to all the main organs inside the body exactly the same way the brain and nervous system wave particles do ; example because the brain works non stop basically block all graviton waves basically by limiting and shutting off their ability to connect and control any main organs in the body and brain instead they shut off like wimps. The problem for graviton frequencies is getting past too many heavy flows of particles this happens when the brain is totally focusing on the most important organs inside the brain and body and closes off other interference including graviton waves which will be the first to be rejected from trying to enter any signal to unlock the doors to these organs.
There are a few organs in the body that are not deeply under a greater amount of brain wave activities and can be activated through thoughts depending on the strength of wimps inside the mind and the laws of nature through meditation and repetition for example. Controlling your body temperature.
Making your hair and nails grow;
Walking; Talking; Practicing slowing down the heart rate or meditating on temporarily turning off one of the five senses input output mechanism for whatever reason .
You choose your future. You choose your destiny with your decisions. You choose your eternal existence. You choose your life. You choose to understand or not this loving poem. To understand Jesus doesn't exist you have to understand why Jesus only "cures" addictions and nothing else. Jesus doesn't cure amputations, tumours, headaches, ulcers or anything else. I am not asking you to agree with me but to discover the truth for yourself thinking for yourself. I am a psychologist and poet that writes prose to be understood better and I need to be understood because potentially infinite lives would be saved with my knowledge. To end all the wars in the world and atheism and religion only the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Am I asking much or too much? The greatest knowledge, that grants the greatest power, is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. An atheist is an organ asking for evidence that the body exists. You choose to be a hero and change the world for the better sharing this loving poem. I hope for God's sake to be understood.
Maybe Christians should work on ridding their religion of bigotry and racism before preaching to the world.
Remember you aren't a psychologist but under the care of one.
@@longcastle4863 Before you hit the "spam" button and destroy this loving poem i want you to read all I have to say. Am i asking much or too much? Atheist platforms are lying to you because I am suffering the most severe and devastating censorship in history in a social media era for many years trying to prove God exists fulfilling humanity's dream ending the war saving lives. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry, and I need to be understood because potentially infinite lives would be saved with my knowledge. I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that atheists don't understand. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist logical fallacy would test your intelligence and honesty and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. The proof that atheism is a logical fallacy is that atheists consider debunking the religious idea of God, or what they call "sky daddy", proof that God doesn’t exist. Atheists think "sky daddy doesn't exist therefore god doesn’t exist", and they are wrong because God is not sky daddy. "Sky daddy" is a particular idea of how God is. God is the creator of the universe and the question "does God exist?" means "was the universe created?". The proof that God exists is the kalam cosmological argument, but again, no atheist understands the argument. If I told you that I am doing everything I can with what I got to end religion with a new concept of God and atheists don't let me would you believe me? I am talking about reality that is happening in front of your eyes. When atheists don't support me they expose themselves as a cult. Is not the end of religion what atheists say they want?. God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Atheism is the belief inmune to arguments that all reality is created and nothing uncreated exists. An atheist is an organ asking for evidence that the body exists. To highlight how much atheists are interested in evidence i say atheists would not be able to prove their own existence to themselves if the logical conclusion is that God exists and lose their children believing without questions asked that gambling causes a brain disease, and when they are told they don't care. I hope for God's sake to be understood.
@@tomjackson7755 Before you hit the "spam" button and destroy this loving poem i want you to read all I have to say. Am i asking much or too much? Atheist platforms are lying to you because I am suffering the most severe and devastating censorship in history in a social media era for many years trying to prove God exists fulfilling humanity's dream ending the war saving lives. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry, and I need to be understood because potentially infinite lives would be saved with my knowledge. I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that atheists don't understand. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist logical fallacy would test your intelligence and honesty and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. The proof that atheism is a logical fallacy is that atheists consider debunking the religious idea of God, or what they call "sky daddy", proof that God doesn’t exist. Atheists think "sky daddy doesn't exist therefore god doesn’t exist", and they are wrong because God is not sky daddy. "Sky daddy" is a particular idea of how God is. God is the creator of the universe and the question "does God exist?" means "was the universe created?". The proof that God exists is the kalam cosmological argument, but again, no atheist understands the argument. If I told you that I am doing everything I can with what I got to end religion with a new concept of God and atheists don't let me would you believe me? I am talking about reality that is happening in front of your eyes. When atheists don't support me they expose themselves as a cult. Is not the end of religion what atheists say they want?. God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Atheism is the belief inmune to arguments that all reality is created and nothing uncreated exists. An atheist is an organ asking for evidence that the body exists. To highlight how much atheists are interested in evidence i say atheists would not be able to prove their own existence to themselves if the logical conclusion is that God exists and lose their children believing without questions asked that gambling causes a brain disease, and when they are told they don't care. I hope for God's sake to be understood.
@@longcastle4863Hey look, cut and paste bot/troll at it again! And account number two chiming in as well 😂😂😂
Jesus has turned my pain into purpose. It’s been a tough three years. But I got so much closer to the Lord. As a single mother I’m struggling. Struggling to buy groceries struggling to pay rent every month is a battle. My health is also fading since having a heart attack Jesus heal me. But I trust your plan Lord. Lord please protect and provide for my boys. Both of my sons are autistic so they are challenging at times. Thanks to God my children have made so much progress now that I’m homeschooling them but my hours to work are limited. I will keep faith in you Lord Jesus no matter my struggles.❤
Maybe Christians should work on ridding their religion of bigotry and racism before trying to preach to the world.
Why do you keep cut and pasting this scam on this channel?
sorry, I'm australian - I can smell bullshit from a mile away.
piss off and stop clogging the comments
@@longcastle4863Please do elaborate upon how a religion that includes people from all walks of life is somehow "full of racism and bigotry". Sounds more like you are just a weak and ignorant person who can't cope, and just likes to toss out ad hominem attacks on something they don't like as a coping mechanism. And I say this as an individual who does not practice any religion.
@@digitalfootballer9032 Do you not know the history of christianity? It is nearly 2000 years of racism and bigotry.
i farded