Do you think we can objectively describe reality? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. To watch Hilary Lawson debate post-truth with Homi Bhabha and Rebecca Goldstein, head to iai.tv/video/after-post-truth?TH-cam&
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
It seems like an overstep to understand achieving our wants and desires as an end to the means of refining our closures of reality. Surely our wants and desires are innately connected to and an effect of our existence in reality. To understand reality, to apply closure to openness, would be to understand, and in turn cease, our wants and desires.
The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The Dao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Dao, just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the infinite idea.
There is a solution to the problem of “what is real” Lawson did not mention. In Hinduism it is referred to as Brahman and in Buddhism, as emptiness. In the west it is closely associated with Plotinus’ concept of “Ton” or “the One”. It is the idea that while all phenomena is a matter of perspective, behind this phenomena is, to use Iba Arabi’s term, “the unity of all being”, and that ultimately this is the only thing that is truly “real”.
I see a lot of Nagarjuna's thought in his ideas... In fact the summary of his metaphysics given in the first half almost exactly matches Nagarjuna's emptiness
He says we have go give up on the quest for knowing Reality as it is. Nonsense! The ancient Buddhists and Hindus have developed methods of tapping into and merging with Reality (Pure Consciousness, or what Aristotle called "Being-In-Itself"). The first step is to make "direct contact" in the state of Samadhi/Satori. With more practice, the state becomes continuous in a non-dual state in which the entire universe is appreciated as the seamless ocean of Pure Consciousness, what Shankara called Brahman or Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Ultimate Reality of existence.
3:52 Any measurement of a physical quantity involves some interaction between the measuring device and the object being studied. In this case, not only the object under study affects the device, changing its state (due to which measurement becomes possible), but the device also acts on the object under study, also changing its state to some extent. Thus, in the general case, the observer is actually an evolving (- when measured, his physical and intellectual state changes) researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe. Finally, we can say that after two stages of cognition of reality: the observer's monologue without a physical experiment (natural philosophy) and the observer/nature - physical experiment (science) dialogue; the third stage comes - a physical experiment in the "reception" mode, changing the observer's state (nature's monologue). "Interaction is the ultimate cause of everything that exists, beyond which there are no other more fundamental defining properties." (Engels). Since self-action is the main (primary) interaction, it leads to a new order of observation method: measurement of the physical parameters of the object generated in the process of self-action of the object. This is, apparently, the most pure measurement procedure: to get an answer (information about the object) without asking a question (without affecting the object). That is, thereby eliminating the uncertainty principle from physics, and moreover, preventing the emergence of a new, "ideologically conscious" uncertainty principle.
Good work! I believe the question the interviewer asks around @4:00 is a key point that wasn't completely answered. If I got it right, non-real metaphysics rejects causal determinism. This seems to make all human understanding non-sensical, which is the main reason why I don't agree with this movement.
There's a saying; "can't see the wood from the trees", which I think is what your getting at, in searching for closures, instead of the openness of the forest as a whole, and partial physicists would probably go even further in terms of the ecological system as a whole? Whereas, if I understand you correctly, that the total of all openness would be God? Who according to The Urantia Book used all the known and unknown laws of nature and science to form creation...
Why is he called a post modern philosopher. Immanuel Kant a modern philosopher said we can only know the phenomenal world. We can know something of the world as it is but not in it's entirety. Always through the phenomenal world. Now that modern thought is called postmodern.
Even if we did by chance arrive at the 'perfect' representation, we would never know it since we could never know for sure that some new fact would crop up one day
Art is never contained in the object being exhibited in front of an observer. If an artistic object is hidden from an observer, then all the art domains vanish and what remains is simply an engineering structure . Art is created when a human being stands in front of an object and his own mind illusions causes him to set up an emotion or sentiment, where his own interpretation will be termed as being artistic,. The art in in the observer, and not in the item being exhibited. With engineering it , be the engineering item be seen or hidden the engineering function remains and if the item is a water pump, it remains a water pump whether it is hidden or not, Art is a drug that is projected by an engineered item as much as drug in cannabis or Mariana create illusions in the human mind or perhaps the statement of a language will create an illusion in the human mind but the meaning is not in the statement it is always and illusion or a shadow or image of reality in the human mind,
Ugh. Just because there is an indefinite array of relations, properties, and subsequent functions we can apply upon those relations and properties, this does not mean that we are not interacting with the “Real.” We are immersed in the Real; to separate our causal processes from the environment that birthed us is incredibly naive in my view. Also, Francois Laruelle’s nonphilosophy accomplishes the exact same thing as this guy’s concepts of closures and the otherness of openness only Laruelle doesn’t deny the reality of what we enclose via creative metaphysics. And as far as his critiques of complete knowledge go, who tf is he critiquing? Most contemporary philosophers recognize the inherent incompleteness of any theory of knowledge or truth, that does not mean that these theories are devoid of reality.
Exactly, as I'm listening to I'm just like "..and?", why does there have to be this assumption that we either get to the thing itself as a complete object or not, and if not, we are "not in contact with reality". I like Markus Gabriels spin on this that what Hilary is describing in fact is full positive reality, that to be real is to appear in an indefinite array of domains or senses, and that there isn't anything mysterious beyond this. Hilarys view is also very human centric, but why would humans be the only perspective in the world, everything is limited: to be real is to appear incomplete to something other that is incomplete.
@@garruksson fr you put that nicely. Haven’t heard of Markus Gabriels but I’ll check him out. Although, on the last point you mentioned regarding his stance on the beyond, I personally like the way Laruelle deals with this by making a kind of Kantian distinction between the plane of immanence and the Otherness of the thing that gives rise to it. He’s not claiming something transcendent, only that our conceptualization of Reality limits the Real in some actual way so that we can have no knowledge about what lies outside our presupposed plane of immanence. Therefore, the possibility of the beyond always lurks (even if it turned out that that beyond is actually more of the same).
@@tomhardwick3801 Are you not reffering to a specific use of language? how does that accounts for interaction and intersubjectity, for example, in education?
He says he doesn't believe "reality", and at the same time he says there is neuron. If there is no "reality" there is no causal effect. He is mixing everything up.
Monad = the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. Soul = the totality of a person's quark mass (measured in Megaelectron Volts). Quarks have mass but no size (no spatial extension) and if they aren't here, they're there. Read Leibniz 📚.
Why? Leibniz knew nothing about real science, monads are not existing, his idea that he wasn't able to verify, there is no soul, and he never mentioned quarks. If you think monads are quarks you have read some other Leibnitz. Read proper philosophy, Leibniz is interesting just for people who are writing histories of philosophy.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Leibniz mentioned quanta. Quarks have mass but no size. Zero-dimensional stuff. Subatomic. 1. No spatial extension 2. Zero size 3. Exact location only 4. 6000 trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity. Pretty unique. Took a LHC to find.
@@ready1fire1aim1 Quanta is not the same as quarks, and all of that you wrote has nothing to do with Leibniz. As you said LHC discovered it. And if you don't think monads are quarks, why do we have to read Leibniz? I was reading Leibniz 20 years ago, and I bet nothing is changed, the same gobbledegook. Sure, he was intelligent for his time, and he co-discovered calculus, but I see no reason for anyone except writers of histories of philosophy to read Leibniz.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 I said "Monad = the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force". You said that I said monads are quarks. It's fine idc.
Reality cannot be comprehended by an assumed observer with a proper Noun name. The attempt to fit reality as-it-is into this limited self-narrative as an object of its knowledge is the impossibility.
@@greggary7217 Philosophy is full of cosmologists? No, he is talking about things that are not new, those same variations on a theme are present since German classical idealism... that is not cosmology, that is the use of language in an unprecise manner, and is confusing as hell. That is why contemporary philosophy is oriented toward the analytical school, logic, and things that are closer to science, no matter that philosophy is not science per see and can't be because of its nature.
Do you think we can objectively describe reality? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
To watch Hilary Lawson debate post-truth with Homi Bhabha and Rebecca Goldstein, head to iai.tv/video/after-post-truth?TH-cam&
Its simply data compression through experience
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
It seems like an overstep to understand achieving our wants and desires as an end to the means of refining our closures of reality. Surely our wants and desires are innately connected to and an effect of our existence in reality. To understand reality, to apply closure to openness, would be to understand, and in turn cease, our wants and desires.
I'm trying to understand such subject by reading "Process and reality" by North Whitehead.
The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao.
The Dao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Dao, just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the infinite idea.
There is a solution to the problem of “what is real” Lawson did not mention. In Hinduism it is referred to as Brahman and in Buddhism, as emptiness. In the west it is closely associated with Plotinus’ concept of “Ton” or “the One”. It is the idea that while all phenomena is a matter of perspective, behind this phenomena is, to use Iba Arabi’s term, “the unity of all being”, and that ultimately this is the only thing that is truly “real”.
Soooo there are only questions?
I see a lot of Nagarjuna's thought in his ideas... In fact the summary of his metaphysics given in the first half almost exactly matches Nagarjuna's emptiness
Definitely see that parallel in Taoist thought too.
Yes, it has only been recently that western philosophy has achieved the profundity of Nagajuna.
He says we have go give up on the quest for knowing Reality as it is. Nonsense! The ancient Buddhists and Hindus have developed methods of tapping into and merging with Reality (Pure Consciousness, or what Aristotle called "Being-In-Itself"). The first step is to make "direct contact" in the state of Samadhi/Satori. With more practice, the state becomes continuous in a non-dual state in which the entire universe is appreciated as the seamless ocean of Pure Consciousness, what Shankara called Brahman or Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Ultimate Reality of existence.
He isn't really next to that river, is he?
3:52 Any measurement of a physical quantity involves some interaction between the measuring device and the object being studied. In this case, not only the object under study affects the device, changing its state (due to which measurement becomes possible), but the device also acts on the object under study, also changing its state to some extent.
Thus, in the general case, the observer is actually an evolving (- when measured, his physical and intellectual state changes) researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe.
Finally, we can say that after two stages of cognition of reality: the observer's monologue without a physical experiment (natural philosophy) and the observer/nature - physical experiment (science) dialogue; the third stage comes - a physical experiment in the "reception" mode, changing the observer's state (nature's monologue).
"Interaction is the ultimate cause of everything that exists, beyond which there are no other more fundamental defining properties." (Engels).
Since self-action is the main (primary) interaction, it leads to a new order of observation method: measurement of the physical parameters of the object generated in the process of self-action of the object.
This is, apparently, the most pure measurement procedure: to get an answer (information about the object) without asking a question (without affecting the object). That is, thereby eliminating the uncertainty principle from physics, and moreover, preventing the emergence of a new, "ideologically conscious" uncertainty principle.
Good work! I believe the question the interviewer asks around @4:00 is a key point that wasn't completely answered. If I got it right, non-real metaphysics rejects causal determinism. This seems to make all human understanding non-sensical, which is the main reason why I don't agree with this movement.
Anyone else reminded of Bergson?
I'm quite receptive to new ideas but this one had me perplexed and wondering what exactly he was trying to say... 🤔
There's a saying; "can't see the wood from the trees", which I think is what your getting at, in searching for closures, instead of the openness of the forest as a whole, and partial physicists would probably go even further in terms of the ecological system as a whole? Whereas, if I understand you correctly, that the total of all openness would be God? Who according to The Urantia Book used all the known and unknown laws of nature and science to form creation...
Why is he called a post modern philosopher. Immanuel Kant a modern philosopher said we can only know the phenomenal world. We can know something of the world as it is but not in it's entirety. Always through the phenomenal world. Now that modern thought is called postmodern.
Even if we did by chance arrive at the 'perfect' representation, we would never know it since we could never know for sure that some new fact would crop up one day
Art is never contained in the object being exhibited in front of an observer. If an artistic object is hidden from an observer, then all the art domains vanish and what remains is simply an engineering structure .
Art is created when a human being stands in front of an object and his own mind illusions causes him to set up an emotion or sentiment, where his own interpretation will be termed as being artistic,. The art in in the observer, and not in the item being exhibited.
With engineering it , be the engineering item be seen or hidden the engineering function remains and if the item is a water pump, it remains a water pump whether it is hidden or not, Art is a drug that is projected by an engineered item as much as drug in cannabis or Mariana create illusions in the human mind or perhaps the statement of a language will create an illusion in the human mind but the meaning is not in the statement it is always and illusion or a shadow or image of reality in the human mind,
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Pretty much this.
Isn't this the same as saying that there is only One Unnamable, Unknowable, Unchangeable Essence?
No.
They really need to bring on Dr. Anthony Rizzi to contend with some of the flaws here
Yup, if you want to understand the making of reality, the best person to ask is a Post-Postmodern Non-realist philosopher.
The ammount of contradictions in your sentence... bravo!
Ugh. Just because there is an indefinite array of relations, properties, and subsequent functions we can apply upon those relations and properties, this does not mean that we are not interacting with the “Real.” We are immersed in the Real; to separate our causal processes from the environment that birthed us is incredibly naive in my view. Also, Francois Laruelle’s nonphilosophy accomplishes the exact same thing as this guy’s concepts of closures and the otherness of openness only Laruelle doesn’t deny the reality of what we enclose via creative metaphysics.
And as far as his critiques of complete knowledge go, who tf is he critiquing? Most contemporary philosophers recognize the inherent incompleteness of any theory of knowledge or truth, that does not mean that these theories are devoid of reality.
Exactly, as I'm listening to I'm just like "..and?", why does there have to be this assumption that we either get to the thing itself as a complete object or not, and if not, we are "not in contact with reality".
I like Markus Gabriels spin on this that what Hilary is describing in fact is full positive reality, that to be real is to appear in an indefinite array of domains or senses, and that there isn't anything mysterious beyond this.
Hilarys view is also very human centric, but why would humans be the only perspective in the world, everything is limited: to be real is to appear incomplete to something other that is incomplete.
@@garruksson fr you put that nicely. Haven’t heard of Markus Gabriels but I’ll check him out.
Although, on the last point you mentioned regarding his stance on the beyond, I personally like the way Laruelle deals with this by making a kind of Kantian distinction between the plane of immanence and the Otherness of the thing that gives rise to it. He’s not claiming something transcendent, only that our conceptualization of Reality limits the Real in some actual way so that we can have no knowledge about what lies outside our presupposed plane of immanence. Therefore, the possibility of the beyond always lurks (even if it turned out that that beyond is actually more of the same).
Suddenly everyone is an experiential generative cosmologist. I wonder why that is?
Can someone let him know he’s pretty much describing Hinduism? Closure in his words sounds exactly like collapsing the wave function.
No, he is not describing Hinduism, you are listening to what you want to hear. Hinduism is a religion, and it has nothing to do with real philosophy.
Platos Forms?
could fundamental reality be communicated to humanity through language or some other means?
No because language is a process of closure and categorisation. The truth cannot be said
@@tomhardwick3801 Are you not reffering to a specific use of language? how does that accounts for interaction and intersubjectity, for example, in education?
I don't see how this adds anything to the concept of noumenon, or "thing in itself ".
17:30 - This man is clearly out of his depth and swimming against the current.
Haha
What makes you say that? Maybe the more accurately describes you.
He says he doesn't believe "reality", and at the same time he says there is neuron. If there is no "reality" there is no causal effect. He is mixing everything up.
Both neurons and causality are just closures themselves.
every few thousand videos you come across someone who actually knows what time it is 🙂
Monad = the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force.
Soul = the totality of a person's quark mass (measured in Megaelectron Volts).
Quarks have mass but no size (no spatial extension) and if they aren't here, they're there.
Read Leibniz 📚.
Why? Leibniz knew nothing about real science, monads are not existing, his idea that he wasn't able to verify, there is no soul, and he never mentioned quarks. If you think monads are quarks you have read some other Leibnitz.
Read proper philosophy, Leibniz is interesting just for people who are writing histories of philosophy.
@@ozymandiasultor9480
Leibniz mentioned quanta. Quarks have mass but no size. Zero-dimensional stuff. Subatomic.
1. No spatial extension
2. Zero size
3. Exact location only
4. 6000 trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity.
Pretty unique. Took a LHC to find.
@@ozymandiasultor9480
I never typed that monads are quarks. You typed that.
@@ready1fire1aim1 Quanta is not the same as quarks, and all of that you wrote has nothing to do with Leibniz. As you said LHC discovered it. And if you don't think monads are quarks, why do we have to read Leibniz? I was reading Leibniz 20 years ago, and I bet nothing is changed, the same gobbledegook. Sure, he was intelligent for his time, and he co-discovered calculus, but I see no reason for anyone except writers of histories of philosophy to read Leibniz.
@@ozymandiasultor9480
I said "Monad = the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force".
You said that I said monads are quarks. It's fine idc.
cool.
Reality cannot be comprehended by an assumed observer with a proper Noun name. The attempt to fit reality as-it-is into this limited self-narrative as an object of its knowledge is the impossibility.
needlessly complicating things...when saying 'there are no facts only interpretation'
Bravo. A road map out of Wittgenstein's cul de sac.
What a bunch of nonsensical claims... This guy reminded me why metaphysics is not appreciated in philosophy anymore.
I suspect the real reason is that it’s full of Cosmologists.
@@greggary7217 Philosophy is full of cosmologists? No, he is talking about things that are not new, those same variations on a theme are present since German classical idealism... that is not cosmology, that is the use of language in an unprecise manner, and is confusing as hell. That is why contemporary philosophy is oriented toward the analytical school, logic, and things that are closer to science, no matter that philosophy is not science per see and can't be because of its nature.
God is dead,
Philosophy is dead,
Now reality is dead.
Haha
Rubbish. If he has a cogent concept, he is not communicating it at all here.
In this Talk is no Idea.
This is word salad. No real meaning. What really is openness. Its nonsense.
Cynicism is a potent self defence against new ideas
seems pretty easy to grasp...his description of openness in the context of poetry makes it quite easy to understand
@Charles Hultquist lol no, it doesn't
@@1l14cu5 and what idea would that be?
I think you not understanding is on you, not him lol
almost as woolly as his hair