Dear Mr. Simon, I've been and still am looking around to find a good philosophy material in the format of this video , to educate myself . I am very glad I found you. You explain philosophical ideas not only with enough depth, but also at the same time very clear. Glad that I found you on TH-cam. You are one the best in this field.
the material you are looking for can be found on Jeffrey Kaplan's channel. he has a certain gift with communicating difficult to grasp philosophical concepts in a down to earth, relatable manner, not to mention a similar visual format as well.
The only reason this argument works is becuase Moore defines hands as existing externally a-priori. If one defines an object or being as existing externally then obviously the external exists. Therefore the argument seems circular and dull for good reason. However, the matterial is presented wonderfully. Thank you.
@24:00 I guess this Contextualism has merits, but also probability theory is not half bad. You can know the book contains words with high degree of belief - and that's true whether you're a Frequentist or Bayesian who has opened a few books.
@20:00 no he is not. He is not really saying, "I know this," because no analytic philosophy can possibly be complete (Gödel) unless it is trivial. What Moore is saying (and my guess is he was not aware this is what he was truly saying) is that, "I have *_faith_* that my hands (etc) exist and are real object external to my mind." Which is recapitulating Descartes, who was no slouch. All analytic philosophy is nonsense (words ending in words) without faith. Take it from a hard core mathematics geek --- you either have faith in the axioms or something near them, or your work is a beautiful joke.
It never occurs to people that if we saw with our eyes in the classical fashion (light enters eye, brain turns it into an image) we’d see an image inside our head like a security guard’s CCTV. What we actually see is a seeming 3d world projected out despite nothing projecting out. We don’t see with our eyes any more than a dreamed character sees with theirs. When I go to bed in Toronto and dream of a Hawaiian beach, I see sand, sea, waves, people, and hear surf and Hawaiian music, all through the character’s eyes/ears in the dream. But nothing the character saw was with the eyes. All of it took place in the mind of the one sleeping in Toronto. That’s basically what’s happening here, bumped up a couple levels.
Weird assumption that our internal sistem should work exactly like a camera. I think the fact that we see the same objects on a screen as we see in reality is a further proof that our eyes work correctly. And about dreams, when i see mine its more like thinking of an images, like imagining. Very different then waking state.
@@tennoio1392 The camera comparison is apt. When you open your eyes, ‘objects’ are seemingly created or appear at a distance, unlike a camera, which creates a copy of the image at itself. The common way of thinking about vision is that you open your eyes, take in light, and the brain creates an image at itself. How would your brain put ‘objects’ at a distance? How would your eyes and brain create the moon 300,000 km away? Where is what you’re seeing appear, and how?
The mechanics of how it happens do not matter i think. The reality of what we see can be proved by using different senses. What you're claiming is that the brain creates fake reality. Which can't be prooven because the concept of proof depends on the senses. If you deny the validity of senses, you can't take a step in reality and your words are fake and meaningless - you learned them by senses. This theory is disconnected from reality and is useless.
I was expecting to hear the limerick There once was a man who said, 'God Must find it exceedingly odd To see that this tree Somehow ceases to be When there's no one about on the quad." Rather than redefining "know" to bring the discourse back toward common sense, I'm inclined to redefine "hands". Maybe we all live in something like the Matrix, and these things I'm typing with are Matrix-hands instead of ultimately-real-hands. I knows that I have hands. I don't know which kind they are, but I'm comfortable not knowing that, because doesn't make any difference. As for an infinite regress of proofs, it ends with definitions. If you're talking about Euclidean lines, then the definition of "Euclidean line" is basically that it's something that satisfies the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just accept the definition and poof, you've got all the axioms.
Brute facts are cool. I don’t like the time wasting thoughts turned into sentences like “how do we know we exist?”. There isn’t anything besides everyday life, in a skull or a vat.
this is great, thank you
Dear Mr. Simon,
I've been and still am looking around to find a good philosophy material in the format of this video , to educate myself .
I am very glad I found you. You explain philosophical ideas not only with enough depth, but also at the same time very clear.
Glad that I found you on TH-cam. You are one the best in this field.
the material you are looking for can be found on Jeffrey Kaplan's channel. he has a certain gift with communicating difficult to grasp philosophical concepts in a down to earth, relatable manner, not to mention a similar visual format as well.
Jeffrey Kaplan ❤
The only reason this argument works is becuase Moore defines hands as existing externally a-priori. If one defines an object or being as existing externally then obviously the external exists. Therefore the argument seems circular and dull for good reason. However, the matterial is presented wonderfully. Thank you.
@24:00 I guess this Contextualism has merits, but also probability theory is not half bad. You can know the book contains words with high degree of belief - and that's true whether you're a Frequentist or Bayesian who has opened a few books.
@20:00 no he is not. He is not really saying, "I know this," because no analytic philosophy can possibly be complete (Gödel) unless it is trivial. What Moore is saying (and my guess is he was not aware this is what he was truly saying) is that, "I have *_faith_* that my hands (etc) exist and are real object external to my mind." Which is recapitulating Descartes, who was no slouch. All analytic philosophy is nonsense (words ending in words) without faith. Take it from a hard core mathematics geek --- you either have faith in the axioms or something near them, or your work is a beautiful joke.
I see with my eyes - this is the proof of an external world. If senses arn't valid the concept "proof" has no meaning.
It never occurs to people that if we saw with our eyes in the classical fashion (light enters eye, brain turns it into an image) we’d see an image inside our head like a security guard’s CCTV. What we actually see is a seeming 3d world projected out despite nothing projecting out.
We don’t see with our eyes any more than a dreamed character sees with theirs.
When I go to bed in Toronto and dream of a Hawaiian beach, I see sand, sea, waves, people, and hear surf and Hawaiian music, all through the character’s eyes/ears in the dream. But nothing the character saw was with the eyes. All of it took place in the mind of the one sleeping in Toronto.
That’s basically what’s happening here, bumped up a couple levels.
Weird assumption that our internal sistem should work exactly like a camera. I think the fact that we see the same objects on a screen as we see in reality is a further proof that our eyes work correctly.
And about dreams, when i see mine its more like thinking of an images, like imagining. Very different then waking state.
@@tennoio1392 The camera comparison is apt. When you open your eyes, ‘objects’ are seemingly created or appear at a distance, unlike a camera, which creates a copy of the image at itself. The common way of thinking about vision is that you open your eyes, take in light, and the brain creates an image at itself. How would your brain put ‘objects’ at a distance? How would your eyes and brain create the moon 300,000 km away? Where is what you’re seeing appear, and how?
The mechanics of how it happens do not matter i think. The reality of what we see can be proved by using different senses. What you're claiming is that the brain creates fake reality. Which can't be prooven because the concept of proof depends on the senses. If you deny the validity of senses, you can't take a step in reality and your words are fake and meaningless - you learned them by senses. This theory is disconnected from reality and is useless.
God is just begging the question.
I was expecting to hear the limerick
There once was a man who said, 'God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To see that this tree
Somehow ceases to be
When there's no one about on the quad."
Rather than redefining "know" to bring the discourse back toward common sense, I'm inclined to redefine "hands". Maybe we all live in something like the Matrix, and these things I'm typing with are Matrix-hands instead of ultimately-real-hands. I knows that I have hands. I don't know which kind they are, but I'm comfortable not knowing that, because doesn't make any difference.
As for an infinite regress of proofs, it ends with definitions. If you're talking about Euclidean lines, then the definition of "Euclidean line" is basically that it's something that satisfies the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just accept the definition and poof, you've got all the axioms.
Save that for a talk on Berkeley
Brute facts are cool. I don’t like the time wasting thoughts turned into sentences like “how do we know we exist?”. There isn’t anything besides everyday life, in a skull or a vat.