Oooooh! What a lovely Saturday morning breakfast! Currently reading loads of the older neurophenomenology stuff. Evan, you’re so awesome! John, thanks as usual for awesomeness. 🙏🏽❤️
Excellent conversation! I know this isn't the place to say this, but I'm yearning to hear Dr. Vervaeke speak with David Bentley Hart about DBH's book on the nature of mind: All Things Are Full of Gods.
I thought the same thing. They would agree on some parts - that life and mind were similar phenomena - but not on others (idealism, the mind to which all minds orient and seek).
I remember hearing this was meant to take place but David declined eventually because of John's association with Jordan Peterson. And I understand David well, I cannot wrap my head around how John can take an absolute hack and an intellectual shipwreck of a man like Peterson seriously.
@@tuomasansio that’s a sad conclusion by DBH, if true. John’s friendship with and ability to find resonance with Peterson is something I find admirable, whatever JP’s faults. It would be easier for him to cut him off, branding wise, but he doesn’t, because they have a relationship. I don’t know why that isn’t good?
Wonderful. I can’t find Part 1, but then I read the original Blind Spot essay on Aeon in 2019, and have been listening to the audio version of the book. Great material, really world-changing in its impact.
John, I would love to hear your perspective on forms of radical Buddhism online these days in non dual circles that talk about losing absolutely all sense of self, all sense of I, all sense of agency and thus entering into the “true natural state of things” - in these circles (which are growing bigger and bigger) thoughts and meaning structures as considered an “overlay” on top of direct experience, the goal is to drop or see through these conscripts and abide in the senses, unfiltered. I was a Buddhist for four years under these types of teachings and it lead to severe depersonalisation (which I came back from) but was considered progress in said circles. Everything was a thought overlay, a mere convention, my life was simply “relative, conventional life” and the “real unfiltered world” was just abiding in the senses unfiltered
This was excellent, truly wonderful. I sort of have a little doubt about the conversation at the end about “realness” experiences (taking that broadly from a moment in nature to an experience of pure awareness in meditating, etc). You need to be careful but surely part of the balancing act is judging that yes, this moment feels most real/right/insightful? You may not even know why but its meaning is overpowering. Like why would you not appropriately value that? And I don’t know if I’ve had too many experiences where I’ve felt the ground of things with certainty (brushes with it, which are enough, I guess), but the orienting power of moments of transcendence seem to be me the best guides we have (noting there is a ton of bullshit out there about people having those experiences and weird grandiosity can be a massive problem).
I am surprised Thompson does not want to make transcendental solipsism be about consciousness. What else can it possibly be? Should elaborate much more on this. And does this mean he is a first-person realist?
What do psi phenomena suggests about primacy of embodiment? (What is psi phenomena in Vervaeke's worldview?) Could there be a spectrum between the poles of awareness and embodiment? Could there be processes that exist predominantly in the dimension of awareness and others predominantly in the dimension of embodiment - if that makes any sense?
at 1hr18 with presence and this is why rule of law is valuable and perhaps LLM type degradation of meaning affects this easy to break presence alternative. Great show! edit: it seems the LLM and justice system have similarities in the social arena shared which LLM could usurp while not offering higher principle of freedoms, being not part of church or state and part of culture, and accessible to individuals. They even have the same kind of knowledge pool access now which is probably the break point for whoever owns the AI. The class system re-asserted gets kind of dreary.
@Footnotes2Plato this one is for you, with a need to come to the defence (in a playful way) for pansychism and the experience of God, I very humbly suggest :)
Appreciate the detailed breakdown! I have a quick question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
In experientialists's ethics, they say "not being to heroic life, it is enough to support his daily life" is very often misappreciated by some people, it means another burden of life to boy who had to live heroic life, it exhaust the boy, so we need to focus on "support his daily life", in philosophical sense of absoluteness practice, many of them attribute experientialism as scientifically indulgence, and it misled people to be motivated to act on "against science". The metaphoric sense of it is to support people like living the boy, and when unity of principle, metaphoric sense of anything is justified, so is problematic to advance to "the trolley problem" and anything goes by it. This is prevalent in any areas of human commitment and the logical battles take place to make the commitment tilted to some people's ethical decisions, even when allowed the boy to learn things explanation about it, it is inversed by some other people's demand and participation so when this is said bravely, it looks like against community, but who is so?
For life to be able to go beyond physics means physics-as-we-know-it is currently incomplete. What we need is a NEW physics which is also inspired by living beings, rather than be exclusively inspired by dead beings i.e. mechanisms.
Bohm and Whitehead weren't afraid of metaphysics, while you gentlemen seem to be. When you devise a new description of the obvious (closure to efficient causation in living systems) I don't consider that an explanation of anything - it's just restating the obvious in fancy language of phase spaces, constraints, closures etc. all of which are fairly well-defined concepts that mathematicians have been using for decades. What's also not helpful in this conversation, is the pervading lack of distinction between model and reality (even though I can imagine you'd reject that accusation, which I would counter by pointing out all the places it crept in). On that note, I recommend the work of theoretical biologist and mathematician Robert Rosen. Rosen is the first serious thinker I've read who actually keeps the distinction explicit at all times (the so-called Modelling Relation is the core of his argument), he's also able to define what a machine actually is in a precise mathematical terms. Rosen's conclusion isn't really surprising to anybody I imagine, he didn't do metaphysics either, but at least he brings in much needed clarity. Do you consider metaphysics an integral part of science? I certainly do, and so does any scientist worth my time, but the trouble is The Science™ does not.
What has changed in the living to its non living state vs an election in a rock? Wolfram claims that a rock is computationally equivalent to a human brain. If that is true then there is something different, more significant, than the computational value of living vs non living things. But that difference is lost or altered in things that were living vs when they were living. So then it seems that structure is computationally equivalent ( I can see that as mostly true). But what does that mean if structure is function and function is what is selected for in natural selection models? Perhaps beyond computation is action based on conditional flowing. A rocks flow state has become fixed which is( as described in the video) opposite of motion in living things. Again I ask, why is the caterpillar transformation to a butterfly a power function change in structure? Yet the butterfly has memory of conditional functions of use to a caterpillar but not to a butterfly! I am curious if anyone has figured out the Edgar Allen Poe poem” For Annie”, yet? If we cannot understand earthly things…
perhaps the intelligibility is already there with awareness and is like a flood of ink over raised letters with the action a wipe that reveals: material, sleep and attention span the same in different places...the mechanism is transferred not the emotion. Sharing with Annie the sameness of material etc which could be a buffer that allows switch bounce to manifest then subside instead of distorting. Rock allows the same, plus it is not dead just "resting" :) dreaming as the fire it holds in form.
16:20 frame or formulate certain kinds of generalizations that are you know counterfactual supporting 16:26 generalizations um that have to do with um the function of the system versus you 16:32 know something functional in the system versus something dysfunctional or something normal versus something 16:37 pathological so those Concepts those generalizations you get at a level of biological intelligibility you don't get 16:44 it at a level of you know pure physical or chemical intelligibility and so the 16:50 reductionist uh argument that well life is really just a physical chemical machine demands that you able that you 16:58 be able to capture all of the phenomena uh descriptively and explanatorily in 17:03 that language which is just you know manifestly uh not not the case yeah right right I think so that's excellent 17:10 I want to make I want to bring that point because uh David chamers has made the argument that the only thing for 17:15 which there is no argument against reduction is something like uh Consciousness and um and we'll get to 17:22 the hard problem when we get to it but I I I I I want to make it clear that uh 17:27 this is a much broader argument and you don't need to go all the way to the very controversial issue of Consciousness we 17:33 can concentrate on something like life for which there is an existing Natural Science namely biology so I think that's 17:40 an important point to make first yeah exactly yeah no I just just to jump in there and emphasize and emphasize what 17:46 you just said I would I would say or we would say that that computational 17:51 functionalism already fails in the case of Life yes let alone issues about 17:56 Consciousness so it's not the case here I disagree with Dave it's not the case that oh computational functionalism 18:02 works fine for life so there's no problem for life and there's a special problem for Consciousness no it doesn't 18:09 work for life and when you see that you actually gain insight into what might 18:15 work for Consciousness which it wouldn't be computational functionalism but would be something that would you know grow 18:21 out of the approach to life yeah and I want to I want we'll come back on that because the explanatory Gap is usually 18:26 framed in terms of computational function fun ISM and I want to point out that not only does the argument work for 18:32 computational functionalism doesn't account for life we're going to see it doesn't account for cognition and then that really opens up the Spectrum in a 18:39 very powerful way now I want to do something that you don't tackle in the book although you allude to it because you quot you quote Stuart Kaufman saying 18:46 you know life is based on physics but it goes beyond physics part of the title of his book which is you know and uh the
I am your sister from Yemen, and by Allah I only spoke out of hunger and distress. My mother, my brothers, and I lessons and tears. We are in a situation that only God knows about. God is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs for those who broughtOh people, we are your sisters, by God 😭😭😭 We do not even find a loaf of bread inside the house that would satisfy you, oh nation of Muhammad. People are brothers. Oh God, make your righteous servants subservient to us. Oh God, make your righteous servants subservient to us. My appeal to every Muslim, oh Lord, if he sees this message, may He prolong his life, make him happy, and cover him. May God reward him. God is sufficient for me, and He is the best disposer of affairs. There is no power or strength except with God. Oh people, oh nation of Muhammad, oh people of goodness, oh people of mercy. We are your sisters and your children. By God, we do not even find a loaf of bread inside the house that would satisfy you. Oh nation of Muhammad, I only spoke out of extreme hunger and distress. My mother, sisters, and I are displaced from our homes because of the war. We are in a state that no one knows about except God. God is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs, against those who brought us to this state 💔💔 By God Almighty, I only wrote this appeal out of extreme poverty and poverty, oh people. I beg you by God Almighty, Lord of the Mighty Throne, that I do not have food at home. By God, my brothers and sisters have been sitting around for two days. Without food, by God our situation is very difficult, we are 4 people in the house and my father passed away and there is no one to support us and we live in a rented house and we cannot pay the rest of the rent. I am not lying to you nor deceiving you nor cheating you. I am a Yemeni girl displaced because of the war between me and my family over a rent dispute and the owner of the house. By God, my brother comes every day and humiliates us and talks about us and wants us to go out to the street because we are unable to pay him the rent. The neighbors saw us crying and talked to the neighbors again and gave us a deadline until the end of the week and we swore to God to let us out of the street now we are in arrears of 60 thousand Yemeni riyals for 3 months rent may God have mercy on us our country is suffering because of this war and we do not find our daily sustenance and we live my mother and sisters our father passed away may God have mercy on him and we do not have anyone in the world to come to us in these harsh circumstances my little sisters went out to the street and saw the neighbors eating and stood at their door giving them even a piece of bread and by God in whose hand is the heavens and the earth they closed the door and kicked them out and they came back crying dying of hunger no one has mercy on them and now the holiday has come back to me if no one of us helps us with a kilo of flour by God we will die of hunger brother I seek refuge in God and then in you and I want your help for the sake of God I ask you by God you love goodness and help me even if it is about the rent of the house send me a WhatsApp message on this number 00967716649494 and ask for my card name and send it and do not delay may God compensate you with all good My little sisters, look at their situation and help us and save us before they throw us out into the street and humiliate us or my family and I die of hunger. We ask you by God, if you are able to help us, do not delay on us, and may God reward you with good.'~~_«%•&»_~~≈≈_~&:»'////;&&;😢🎉😢😢🎉&;&;;&•~•~•(･|.}]◤)~♡~♡~;Π،..،،،.،،.،-,..&;;&&;&;&;😭
Whitehead um but but without going you know fully 27:28 down down into the depths of that I would say that um for me there are certain thinkers let's say within the 27:35 20th century there are certain thinkers who saw who who deeply 27:41 understood that the the classical 27:46 dichotomies between matter and life and mind no longer worked or made sense in 27:52 light actually of scientific advancement itself and so they searched 27:58 for for different conceptual systems or or or or metaphysical systems for 28:07 articulating the being of nature in a in a new vocabulary that was not uh framed 28:14 by those by those dichotomies and that also took let's say 28:20 process rather than rather than substance and property took took process 28:26 as the important uh ontological notion so Whitehead of 28:32 course stands out as you know the The Thinker who who probably you know more 28:38 than any other really pursued that Avenue I think also David bom in his work in physics very much was working 28:45 with the same idea that that physics itself had advanced in such a way that 28:51 it didn't really the the oppositions between you know matter and meaning and 28:56 matter and Consciousness and matter in life those just really didn't work and we we needed new we needed new 29:03 conceptual tools and new ontologies um there's been a movement you know you mentioned the book everything flows so 29:09 there is a movement within um some circles in philosophy of biology to really bring uh Whitehead and philosophy 29:15 of biology more closely together around a kind of process ontology for life so I see all of that as very much in the
would such a being 13:32 would such an intellect uh be able to individuate the systems that are the 13:38 living systems and and Jonas's argument is is no without without an experience 13:46 of your own being as an embodied being with your own feelings of of need and 13:56 striving and um you know metabolic uh 14:01 metabolic demands you wouldn't simply in reading the laws of physics and chemistry the 14:08 mathematical laws and the and the physical physical chemical behavior you wouldn't you wouldn't be able to individuate the systems that actually 14:14 constitute the organism so the way that we sort of Riff on that in the blind spot is how we start the chapter on life 14:19 we say you know imagine an AI yeah system that just read the world as it were or saw the world uh in terms of 14:26 physics and chemistry would it be able to individuate the systems that are that are the self-producing self-maintaining 14:32 ones would it be able to inate phenomena that have to do with function versus dysfunction or normality versus 14:38 pathological and behavior and I mean the answer is is no there's no reason to think that such a system would be able 14:44 to do that because you need to participate in life in order to be able to form so this would be a kind of epep 14:52 epistemic argument epistemological argument you need to be able to participate in life in order to be able 14:57 to form the relevant concept ceps for individuating the phenomena of life and 15:04 if you if you don't have that kind of embodied existence then you're not going to be able to do that15:11 note I think that points towards something I've been talking about quite a bit about participatory knowing you know you have you know it by 15:17 participating in the phenomena there's no other way of knowing it but although it's an epistemic argument I think I 15:24 mean it sounds to me like it has ontological implication going something like this if I can't indiv uate things I 15:30 can't measure them I can't count them I can't do all of that sort of thing and 15:35 also given what you've just said my my physics uh explanations and my chemical 15:42 explanations will not generalize and so I I can either do measurement nor generalization but measurement and 15:48 generalization are the two engines of reductive strategies right they say well look you know we can measure and we can 15:53 generalize from these measurable things and that hence there's nothing but the the this slev and it seems to me right 16:01 now even before we get deeper into this argument you're undercutting some of the central moves that are required for a 16:07 reductionist ontology yeah exactly no that that's that's exactly right
Watch Part 1 of this conversation here: th-cam.com/video/8FEYm8ehaTE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2prptTDmI0u3DWCS
I have always respect and honor for Dr.Vervaeke and his fellows, they are doing it is good thing for community and everywhere people feel uncertainty.
17:20 Glad to hear Chalmers’ claim that life has been mechanically explained challenged
Oooooh! What a lovely Saturday morning breakfast!
Currently reading loads of the older neurophenomenology stuff. Evan, you’re so awesome!
John, thanks as usual for awesomeness. 🙏🏽❤️
Excellent conversation! I know this isn't the place to say this, but I'm yearning to hear Dr. Vervaeke speak with David Bentley Hart about DBH's book on the nature of mind: All Things Are Full of Gods.
That would be insanely good. David is an intellectual powerhouse
I thought the same thing. They would agree on some parts - that life and mind were similar phenomena - but not on others (idealism, the mind to which all minds orient and seek).
I remember hearing this was meant to take place but David declined eventually because of John's association with Jordan Peterson. And I understand David well, I cannot wrap my head around how John can take an absolute hack and an intellectual shipwreck of a man like Peterson seriously.
@@tuomasansio that’s a sad conclusion by DBH, if true. John’s friendship with and ability to find resonance with Peterson is something I find admirable, whatever JP’s faults. It would be easier for him to cut him off, branding wise, but he doesn’t, because they have a relationship. I don’t know why that isn’t good?
@@tuomasansioIf true, that is quite shallow of David.
Where is the part 1 video?
th-cam.com/video/8FEYm8ehaTE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_TO-5GwwSF0a-tWz
th-cam.com/video/8FEYm8ehaTE/w-d-xo.html
Hi John, do you have a reading list of the books you’re currently reading, or a list of the books on your bookshelf? Cheers 🎉
Wonderful. I can’t find Part 1, but then I read the original Blind Spot essay on Aeon in 2019, and have been listening to the audio version of the book. Great material, really world-changing in its impact.
It's listed in the show notes
th-cam.com/video/8FEYm8ehaTE/w-d-xo.html
John, I would love to hear your perspective on forms of radical Buddhism online these days in non dual circles that talk about losing absolutely all sense of self, all sense of I, all sense of agency and thus entering into the “true natural state of things” - in these circles (which are growing bigger and bigger) thoughts and meaning structures as considered an “overlay” on top of direct experience, the goal is to drop or see through these conscripts and abide in the senses, unfiltered.
I was a Buddhist for four years under these types of teachings and it lead to severe depersonalisation (which I came back from) but was considered progress in said circles.
Everything was a thought overlay, a mere convention, my life was simply “relative, conventional life” and the “real unfiltered world” was just abiding in the senses unfiltered
This was excellent, truly wonderful. I sort of have a little doubt about the conversation at the end about “realness” experiences (taking that broadly from a moment in nature to an experience of pure awareness in meditating, etc). You need to be careful but surely part of the balancing act is judging that yes, this moment feels most real/right/insightful? You may not even know why but its meaning is overpowering. Like why would you not appropriately value that? And I don’t know if I’ve had too many experiences where I’ve felt the ground of things with certainty (brushes with it, which are enough, I guess), but the orienting power of moments of transcendence seem to be me the best guides we have (noting there is a ton of bullshit out there about people having those experiences and weird grandiosity can be a massive problem).
I am surprised Thompson does not want to make transcendental solipsism be about consciousness. What else can it possibly be? Should elaborate much more on this. And does this mean he is a first-person realist?
John thank you!
You give so much!
Can you give something for the Young generation, some think which can benefit them in the present!
John’s After Socrates series is made to be very practical
What do psi phenomena suggests about primacy of embodiment? (What is psi phenomena in Vervaeke's worldview?) Could there be a spectrum between the poles of awareness and embodiment? Could there be processes that exist predominantly in the dimension of awareness and others predominantly in the dimension of embodiment - if that makes any sense?
at 1hr18 with presence and this is why rule of law is valuable and perhaps LLM type degradation of meaning affects this easy to break presence alternative. Great show! edit: it seems the LLM and justice system have similarities in the social arena shared which LLM could usurp while not offering higher principle of freedoms, being not part of church or state and part of culture, and accessible to individuals. They even have the same kind of knowledge pool access now which is probably the break point for whoever owns the AI. The class system re-asserted gets kind of dreary.
@Footnotes2Plato this one is for you, with a need to come to the defence (in a playful way) for pansychism and the experience of God, I very humbly suggest :)
Appreciate the detailed breakdown! I have a quick question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
In experientialists's ethics, they say "not being to heroic life, it is enough to support his daily life" is very often misappreciated by some people, it means another burden of life to boy who had to live heroic life, it exhaust the boy, so we need to focus on "support his daily life", in philosophical sense of absoluteness practice, many of them attribute experientialism as scientifically indulgence, and it misled people to be motivated to act on "against science".
The metaphoric sense of it is to support people like living the boy, and when unity of principle, metaphoric sense of anything is justified, so is problematic to advance to "the trolley problem" and anything goes by it.
This is prevalent in any areas of human commitment and the logical battles take place to make the commitment tilted to some people's ethical decisions, even when allowed the boy to learn things explanation about it, it is inversed by some other people's demand and participation so when this is said bravely, it looks like against community, but who is so?
The material realm.
The psychological realm.
The spiritual realm.
For life to be able to go beyond physics means physics-as-we-know-it is currently incomplete. What we need is a NEW physics which is also inspired by living beings, rather than be exclusively inspired by dead beings i.e. mechanisms.
Bohm and Whitehead weren't afraid of metaphysics, while you gentlemen seem to be. When you devise a new description of the obvious (closure to efficient causation in living systems) I don't consider that an explanation of anything - it's just restating the obvious in fancy language of phase spaces, constraints, closures etc. all of which are fairly well-defined concepts that mathematicians have been using for decades.
What's also not helpful in this conversation, is the pervading lack of distinction between model and reality (even though I can imagine you'd reject that accusation, which I would counter by pointing out all the places it crept in). On that note, I recommend the work of theoretical biologist and mathematician Robert Rosen. Rosen is the first serious thinker I've read who actually keeps the distinction explicit at all times (the so-called Modelling Relation is the core of his argument), he's also able to define what a machine actually is in a precise mathematical terms. Rosen's conclusion isn't really surprising to anybody I imagine, he didn't do metaphysics either, but at least he brings in much needed clarity.
Do you consider metaphysics an integral part of science? I certainly do, and so does any scientist worth my time, but the trouble is The Science™ does not.
In "The Blind Spot" they actually quote Rosen, so I'm pretty sure Thompson and his co-authors are aware of him.
What has changed in the living to its non living state vs an election in a rock?
Wolfram claims that a rock is computationally equivalent to a human brain.
If that is true then there is something different, more significant, than the computational value of living vs non living things. But that difference is lost or altered in things that were living vs when they were living.
So then it seems that structure is computationally equivalent ( I can see that as mostly true). But what does that mean if structure is function and function is what is selected for in natural selection models?
Perhaps beyond computation is action based on conditional flowing. A rocks flow state has become fixed which is( as described in the video) opposite of motion in living things.
Again I ask, why is the caterpillar transformation to a butterfly a power function change in structure? Yet the butterfly has memory of conditional functions of use to a caterpillar but not to a butterfly!
I am curious if anyone has figured out the Edgar Allen Poe poem” For Annie”, yet?
If we cannot understand earthly things…
perhaps the intelligibility is already there with awareness and is like a flood of ink over raised letters with the action a wipe that reveals: material, sleep and attention span the same in different places...the mechanism is transferred not the emotion. Sharing with Annie the sameness of material etc which could be a buffer that allows switch bounce to manifest then subside instead of distorting. Rock allows the same, plus it is not dead just "resting" :) dreaming as the fire it holds in form.
16:20
frame or formulate certain kinds of generalizations that are you know counterfactual supporting
16:26
generalizations um that have to do with um the function of the system versus you
16:32
know something functional in the system versus something dysfunctional or something normal versus something
16:37
pathological so those Concepts those generalizations you get at a level of biological intelligibility you don't get
16:44
it at a level of you know pure physical or chemical intelligibility and so the
16:50
reductionist uh argument that well life is really just a physical chemical machine demands that you able that you
16:58
be able to capture all of the phenomena uh descriptively and explanatorily in
17:03
that language which is just you know manifestly uh not not the case yeah right right I think so that's excellent
17:10
I want to make I want to bring that point because uh David chamers has made the argument that the only thing for
17:15
which there is no argument against reduction is something like uh Consciousness and um and we'll get to
17:22
the hard problem when we get to it but I I I I I want to make it clear that uh
17:27
this is a much broader argument and you don't need to go all the way to the very controversial issue of Consciousness we
17:33
can concentrate on something like life for which there is an existing Natural Science namely biology so I think that's
17:40
an important point to make first yeah exactly yeah no I just just to jump in there and emphasize and emphasize what
17:46
you just said I would I would say or we would say that that computational
17:51
functionalism already fails in the case of Life yes let alone issues about
17:56
Consciousness so it's not the case here I disagree with Dave it's not the case that oh computational functionalism
18:02
works fine for life so there's no problem for life and there's a special problem for Consciousness no it doesn't
18:09
work for life and when you see that you actually gain insight into what might
18:15
work for Consciousness which it wouldn't be computational functionalism but would be something that would you know grow
18:21
out of the approach to life yeah and I want to I want we'll come back on that because the explanatory Gap is usually
18:26
framed in terms of computational function fun ISM and I want to point out that not only does the argument work for
18:32
computational functionalism doesn't account for life we're going to see it doesn't account for cognition and then that really opens up the Spectrum in a
18:39
very powerful way now I want to do something that you don't tackle in the book although you allude to it because you quot you quote Stuart Kaufman saying
18:46
you know life is based on physics but it goes beyond physics part of the title of his book which is you know and uh the
I am your sister from Yemen, and by Allah I only spoke out of hunger and distress. My mother, my brothers, and I lessons and tears. We are in a situation that only God knows about. God is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs for those who broughtOh people, we are your sisters, by God 😭😭😭 We do not even find a loaf of bread inside the house that would satisfy you, oh nation of Muhammad. People are brothers. Oh God, make your righteous servants subservient to us. Oh God, make your righteous servants subservient to us. My appeal to every Muslim, oh Lord, if he sees this message, may He prolong his life, make him happy, and cover him. May God reward him. God is sufficient for me, and He is the best disposer of affairs. There is no power or strength except with God. Oh people, oh nation of Muhammad, oh people of goodness, oh people of mercy. We are your sisters and your children. By God, we do not even find a loaf of bread inside the house that would satisfy you. Oh nation of Muhammad, I only spoke out of extreme hunger and distress. My mother, sisters, and I are displaced from our homes because of the war. We are in a state that no one knows about except God. God is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs, against those who brought us to this state 💔💔 By God Almighty, I only wrote this appeal out of extreme poverty and poverty, oh people. I beg you by God Almighty, Lord of the Mighty Throne, that I do not have food at home. By God, my brothers and sisters have been sitting around for two days. Without food, by God our situation is very difficult, we are 4 people in the house and my father passed away and there is no one to support us and we live in a rented house and we cannot pay the rest of the rent. I am not lying to you nor deceiving you nor cheating you. I am a Yemeni girl displaced because of the war between me and my family over a rent dispute and the owner of the house. By God, my brother comes every day and humiliates us and talks about us and wants us to go out to the street because we are unable to pay him the rent. The neighbors saw us crying and talked to the neighbors again and gave us a deadline until the end of the week and we swore to God to let us out of the street now we are in arrears of 60 thousand Yemeni riyals for 3 months rent may God have mercy on us our country is suffering because of this war and we do not find our daily sustenance and we live my mother and sisters our father passed away may God have mercy on him and we do not have anyone in the world to come to us in these harsh circumstances my little sisters went out to the street and saw the neighbors eating and stood at their door giving them even a piece of bread and by God in whose hand is the heavens and the earth they closed the door and kicked them out and they came back crying dying of hunger no one has mercy on them and now the holiday has come back to me if no one of us helps us with a kilo of flour by God we will die of hunger brother I seek refuge in God and then in you and I want your help for the sake of God I ask you by God you love goodness and help me even if it is about the rent of the house send me a WhatsApp message on this number 00967716649494 and ask for my card name and send it and do not delay may God compensate you with all good My little sisters, look at their situation and help us and save us before they throw us out into the street and humiliate us or my family and I die of hunger. We ask you by God, if you are able to help us, do not delay on us, and may God reward you with good.'~~_«%•&»_~~≈≈_~&:»'////;&&;😢🎉😢😢🎉&;&;;&•~•~•(･|.}]◤)~♡~♡~;Π،..،،،.،،.،-,..&;;&&;&;&;😭
Whitehead um but but without going you know fully
27:28
down down into the depths of that I would say that um for me there are certain thinkers let's say within the
27:35
20th century there are certain thinkers who saw who who deeply
27:41
understood that the the classical
27:46
dichotomies between matter and life and mind no longer worked or made sense in
27:52
light actually of scientific advancement itself and so they searched
27:58
for for different conceptual systems or or or or metaphysical systems for
28:07
articulating the being of nature in a in a new vocabulary that was not uh framed
28:14
by those by those dichotomies and that also took let's say
28:20
process rather than rather than substance and property took took process
28:26
as the important uh ontological notion so Whitehead of
28:32
course stands out as you know the The Thinker who who probably you know more
28:38
than any other really pursued that Avenue I think also David bom in his work in physics very much was working
28:45
with the same idea that that physics itself had advanced in such a way that
28:51
it didn't really the the oppositions between you know matter and meaning and
28:56
matter and Consciousness and matter in life those just really didn't work and we we needed new we needed new
29:03
conceptual tools and new ontologies um there's been a movement you know you mentioned the book everything flows so
29:09
there is a movement within um some circles in philosophy of biology to really bring uh Whitehead and philosophy
29:15
of biology more closely together around a kind of process ontology for life so I see all of that as very much in the
would such a being
13:32
would such an intellect uh be able to individuate the systems that are the
13:38
living systems and and Jonas's argument is is no without without an experience
13:46
of your own being as an embodied being with your own feelings of of need and
13:56
striving and um you know metabolic uh
14:01
metabolic demands you wouldn't simply in reading the laws of physics and chemistry the
14:08
mathematical laws and the and the physical physical chemical behavior you wouldn't you wouldn't be able to individuate the systems that actually
14:14
constitute the organism so the way that we sort of Riff on that in the blind spot is how we start the chapter on life
14:19
we say you know imagine an AI yeah system that just read the world as it were or saw the world uh in terms of
14:26
physics and chemistry would it be able to individuate the systems that are that are the self-producing self-maintaining
14:32
ones would it be able to inate phenomena that have to do with function versus dysfunction or normality versus
14:38
pathological and behavior and I mean the answer is is no there's no reason to think that such a system would be able
14:44
to do that because you need to participate in life in order to be able to form so this would be a kind of epep
14:52
epistemic argument epistemological argument you need to be able to participate in life in order to be able
14:57
to form the relevant concept ceps for individuating the phenomena of life and
15:04
if you if you don't have that kind of embodied existence then you're not going to be able to do that15:11
note I think that points towards something I've been talking about quite a bit about participatory knowing you know you have you know it by
15:17
participating in the phenomena there's no other way of knowing it but although it's an epistemic argument I think I
15:24
mean it sounds to me like it has ontological implication going something like this if I can't indiv uate things I
15:30
can't measure them I can't count them I can't do all of that sort of thing and
15:35
also given what you've just said my my physics uh explanations and my chemical
15:42
explanations will not generalize and so I I can either do measurement nor generalization but measurement and
15:48
generalization are the two engines of reductive strategies right they say well look you know we can measure and we can
15:53
generalize from these measurable things and that hence there's nothing but the the this slev and it seems to me right
16:01
now even before we get deeper into this argument you're undercutting some of the central moves that are required for a
16:07
reductionist ontology yeah exactly no that that's that's exactly right
Another exaggerated, bombastic promise?