It’s a paywall. I subscribed but still couldn’t watch the whole video. Well, that’s not true, I could watch it, but there was no sound. Also no way to unsubscribe except sending an email. How quaint.
Well, maybe. Let’s agree that when he perceives something there must be "something" there (although hallucinations do exist-visual, auditory, tactile, etc). But does he perceive what that something really is? He might identify what we call a "boulder" with his hand, feeling it as being "large", "heavy", "warm", and having a "smooth polished" surface that’s pleasant to touch. But if a giant alien having another type of body, comes upon that same thing it could feel it to be "tiny", "light", "cold" and having a nasty unpleasant surface. There are creatures that live around hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean where the water is 100 degrees C, you can bet that a Pompei worm isn’t feeling that water scolding hot as a human would-having evolved in that environment it should feel scolding hot water like we feel warm water. Same with the alien, the boulder could appear to have a very different temperature, either hot or cold. The alien could have a rubbery skin that doesn’t run smoothly on polished surfaces, so the surface could appear in a very unpleasant way just rough surfaces appear to us. The alien might find the boulder to be a delicious food, a great source of minerals needed for his unique metabolism. Things have no taste, only conscious creatures hold particular evolved tastes for particular things. When a hyena eats a rotten corpse full of maggots it doesn’t cry in disgust-on the contrary, it feels the corpse as having a delicious taste! An if you try to give the hyena a piece of cake it wouldn’t like how it tastes and wouldn’t eat it. This is because physical things have no taste, it’s creatures that subjectively feel a taste when they interact with various things-taste is in the brain not in the corpse or cake. And the list of aspects that are purely subjective is endless-when you look at your cat you see a loved one, when the hyena looks at it it sees food. *There’s nothing in the world that you can really see. All you see is a creative hallucination that you project onto the world. "Hot", "red", "sweet", "heavy", "smooth", "fast", "huge", "good", "precious", "food", "marriage", "important", "house", are all things you hallucinate to be out there in the world, but they are only your inner subjective take.* All this is fantastic, the world couldn’t be more magical. It’s an ever evolving artistic endeavor. If the world would’ve been absolutely objective then there would be no freedom, no creation and exploration.
@@raresmircea That's why I specified a blind man: To hopefully avert the discussion about whether what he perceives is truly "like" how he perceives it. Of course not, but the thing truly exists.
@@raresmircea "There’s nothing in the world that you can really see." What is meant by "really see" here? How could you ever define it? I don't think it means anything
... The Lakota have the concept of all the relatives. everything is our relative : animals, plants, fungi, water, air, dirt, rocks, streams, Hills, and mountains.... When it comes to perception of reality, humans and other animals can fool us. Maybe plants and fungi can also fool us.
We can't "see" EVERYTHING because of visual adaptations, but we can confirm that things are REALLY THERE (e.g. a 🌳. It can be touched, smelled, deformed, etc. & multiple observers can confirm its qualities)
... The best definition of God, Is the mystery and the energy. Stephen Gaskin said that real morals is taking care of the energy when no one is watching.... Terence McKenna said that God is like a lost continent in people's minds, But it's the only continent where there is Safe Harbor.
"The best definition of God, Is the mystery and the energy", provided you're an idiot; the _real_ definition of God is 'the ground of reality' - simple as that...
... We can see reality fairly accurately.... but we cannot perceive reality completely and comprehensively. we don't have X-ray vision, we can't perceive the alleged dance of electrons, we can't fully comprehend the great mystery, although we can move closer to it.... Oh, and we cannot see infinitely far out into the infinite universe.
There is a podcast i’ve listened having him as a guest where he went deeper and talked about something akin a "hive community of conscious agents" that sits at the lowest causal level of reality according to his theory. But that doesn’t really enlighten anyone. What he thinks, if i got him right, is that consciousness is a basic unexplainable given, a so called "primitive", and what he’s trying to tackle with his theory is the computational aspect-meaning, he tries to explain how these patterns that we experience are arising (atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, stars, cells, tadpoles, etc). Where people like Stephen Wolfram and Joscha Bach believe that the lowest level of causality (from which everything else arrises as a higher order construct) is a system of unconscious bits, Hoffman believes that at this level there is a system of conscious minds that are communicating with each-other and updating themselves. What almost all scientists share tho, including these three, is the belief in indirect realism. So if reality is somehow along the lines of how Hoffman describes it, none of us can ever "exit" (Matrix-style) the inner realm and see the outside reality for what it is. You can’t see how the network of conscious agents looks, all you can ever see is within the inner simulation generated by the network. And if you’re really smart you can infer from within some mathematical principles of the outside reality. Or like Bach says whenever he’s asked about how reality really looks: "Reality isn’t looking like anything. ‘Looking’ is a property of inner models/simulations. ‘Red’ and ‘hot’ and ‘sweet’ are properties of the simulation we make and project over the external reality. Whatever reality is, it doesn’t look like anything. All we can do is devise ever finer approximations, mathematical theories that explain and predict its behavior. When we’ve made a theory that predicts everything that happens, testing it over and over again, we have nothing more to do. Sadly that’s the best we can ever manage."
Quantum mechanics has gotten reality completely wrong, and has confused everyone who has ever used it. It's that theory that's wrong, not our ability to perceive or reason. My video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica", unveils what is actually occurring. It's logical, and it's not confusing. I have 8 videos on TH-cam. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below.
You can watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-survival-paradox?TH-cam&
Check your click-through rate. I bet its terrible. Post the whole vid here or GTFO. You're just creating negative associations with IAI. For what?
The simple fact we question our perception and the judgements that stem from perception bring us closer to understanding objective reality.
Please put the whole video on TH-cam. I clicked to watch the rest and it repeatedly didn’t play due to “server error or unsupported format” 👎🏻😡
lolwut
It’s a paywall. I subscribed but still couldn’t watch the whole video. Well, that’s not true, I could watch it, but there was no sound. Also no way to unsubscribe except sending an email. How quaint.
Reality is just infinitely mysterious
Time Mechanics - solved
A blind man walking with a cane doesn't perceive everything, but everything he does perceive is real, is really there.
Well, maybe. Let’s agree that when he perceives something there must be "something" there (although hallucinations do exist-visual, auditory, tactile, etc). But does he perceive what that something really is? He might identify what we call a "boulder" with his hand, feeling it as being "large", "heavy", "warm", and having a "smooth polished" surface that’s pleasant to touch. But if a giant alien having another type of body, comes upon that same thing it could feel it to be "tiny", "light", "cold" and having a nasty unpleasant surface. There are creatures that live around hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean where the water is 100 degrees C, you can bet that a Pompei worm isn’t feeling that water scolding hot as a human would-having evolved in that environment it should feel scolding hot water like we feel warm water. Same with the alien, the boulder could appear to have a very different temperature, either hot or cold. The alien could have a rubbery skin that doesn’t run smoothly on polished surfaces, so the surface could appear in a very unpleasant way just rough surfaces appear to us. The alien might find the boulder to be a delicious food, a great source of minerals needed for his unique metabolism. Things have no taste, only conscious creatures hold particular evolved tastes for particular things. When a hyena eats a rotten corpse full of maggots it doesn’t cry in disgust-on the contrary, it feels the corpse as having a delicious taste! An if you try to give the hyena a piece of cake it wouldn’t like how it tastes and wouldn’t eat it. This is because physical things have no taste, it’s creatures that subjectively feel a taste when they interact with various things-taste is in the brain not in the corpse or cake. And the list of aspects that are purely subjective is endless-when you look at your cat you see a loved one, when the hyena looks at it it sees food. *There’s nothing in the world that you can really see. All you see is a creative hallucination that you project onto the world. "Hot", "red", "sweet", "heavy", "smooth", "fast", "huge", "good", "precious", "food", "marriage", "important", "house", are all things you hallucinate to be out there in the world, but they are only your inner subjective take.*
All this is fantastic, the world couldn’t be more magical. It’s an ever evolving artistic endeavor. If the world would’ve been absolutely objective then there would be no freedom, no creation and exploration.
@@raresmircea That's why I specified a blind man: To hopefully avert the discussion about whether what he perceives is truly "like" how he perceives it. Of course not, but the thing truly exists.
@@bozo5632 I get what you meant now 👍
@@raresmircea "There’s nothing in the world that you can really see." What is meant by "really see" here? How could you ever define it? I don't think it means anything
The questions Socrates and Buddha raised persist. Long live philosophy.
... The Lakota have the concept of all the relatives. everything is our relative : animals, plants, fungi, water, air, dirt, rocks, streams, Hills, and mountains.... When it comes to perception of reality, humans and other animals can fool us. Maybe plants and fungi can also fool us.
i prefer not to get my relatives involved in my reality ;)
... Haha, I said nothing is for sure, but for sure, My table is still definitely hard.... At this moment, anyway.
We can't "see" EVERYTHING because of visual adaptations, but we can confirm that things are REALLY THERE (e.g. a 🌳. It can be touched, smelled, deformed, etc. & multiple observers can confirm its qualities)
@@apexpredator1018 ... I agree
⁉️ TIMESPACE & Time Mechanics solved the theory of everything. ✔️ uncontested
UN state of war through two state peace process for Security Council globalization and world government
... The best definition of God, Is the mystery and the energy. Stephen Gaskin said that real morals is taking care of the energy when no one is watching.... Terence McKenna said that God is like a lost continent in people's minds, But it's the only continent where there is Safe Harbor.
"The best definition of God, Is the mystery and the energy", provided you're an idiot; the _real_ definition of God is 'the ground of reality' - simple as that...
... We can see reality fairly accurately.... but we cannot perceive reality completely and comprehensively. we don't have X-ray vision, we can't perceive the alleged dance of electrons, we can't fully comprehend the great mystery, although we can move closer to it.... Oh, and we cannot see infinitely far out into the infinite universe.
To the 1st speaker: Objective reality? Decided by who this "objectivity" ?
the 2nd speaker answered ,the 3rd put the nails on the coffin......:)
Donald Hoffman needs to start telling us more about his theory if he wants to be taken seriously. The "blue rectangle" analogy is getting old.
There is a podcast i’ve listened having him as a guest where he went deeper and talked about something akin a "hive community of conscious agents" that sits at the lowest causal level of reality according to his theory. But that doesn’t really enlighten anyone.
What he thinks, if i got him right, is that consciousness is a basic unexplainable given, a so called "primitive", and what he’s trying to tackle with his theory is the computational aspect-meaning, he tries to explain how these patterns that we experience are arising (atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, stars, cells, tadpoles, etc). Where people like Stephen Wolfram and Joscha Bach believe that the lowest level of causality (from which everything else arrises as a higher order construct) is a system of unconscious bits, Hoffman believes that at this level there is a system of conscious minds that are communicating with each-other and updating themselves. What almost all scientists share tho, including these three, is the belief in indirect realism. So if reality is somehow along the lines of how Hoffman describes it, none of us can ever "exit" (Matrix-style) the inner realm and see the outside reality for what it is. You can’t see how the network of conscious agents looks, all you can ever see is within the inner simulation generated by the network. And if you’re really smart you can infer from within some mathematical principles of the outside reality. Or like Bach says whenever he’s asked about how reality really looks:
"Reality isn’t looking like anything. ‘Looking’ is a property of inner models/simulations. ‘Red’ and ‘hot’ and ‘sweet’ are properties of the simulation we make and project over the external reality. Whatever reality is, it doesn’t look like anything. All we can do is devise ever finer approximations, mathematical theories that explain and predict its behavior. When we’ve made a theory that predicts everything that happens, testing it over and over again, we have nothing more to do. Sadly that’s the best we can ever manage."
Quantum mechanics has gotten reality completely wrong, and has confused everyone who has ever used it. It's that theory that's wrong, not our ability to perceive or reason. My video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica", unveils what is actually occurring. It's logical, and it's not confusing. I have 8 videos on TH-cam. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
... There is no such thing as mathematically precise. Everything is an approximation. Everything is an estimate. Nothing is for sure.
"There is no such thing as mathematically precise"... 2+2=4, _precisely_ . So much for that, I guess...