40 years ago, In math classroom, we were in grade 7. I remember like it was yesterday those words from my friend who sits beside me after the teacher gave us some work, he started like this, "We are using number one in additions, divisions multiplcations... all day long but we never asked him if he is ok with that," I lauhged so much that day but never realised might be a serious pilosophical subject 40 years later.
I noticed! The technical difficulties associated with this video! I see a thousand obstacles that were overcome! Indeed I noticed! The sound, the back drop, the angle! I know everything you had to do to pull this off! Job well done!
The problems discussed in this video are based on David Chalmers philosophical paper "Ontological anti-realism" (2009), which also appears on his book "Metaphysics, new essays on the foundation of ontology" (2009). The epistemic stance in Karen Bennett's chapter "Composition, colocation and metaontology" is more persuasive tho.
Don't numbers only exist because something or somethings else exists? Aren't they descriptive? I can't see numbers existing by themselves. I can't see the number 3 existing before three things existed.
*"before three things existed"* it goes even deeper: those three things must first be assigned to a set before 3 can exist, and sets only exist as a product of the mind. sets exist arbitrarily, subjectively, conditionally and contingently, and so, too, do their descriptions exist. KEvron
First you must define consciousness which even our greatest minds have not managed to do. Secondly you must prove this same consciousness existed prior to this universe to provide a prima facie condition that lends credence to your wild & fantastic conjecture. You can do neither & the probability that humans will ever know these answers is infinitely naught plus one. Simply making this statement of yours proves you have no clue to the nature of reality.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 The act of measurement by humans changes the results of experiments as the double slit have shown,so how is it possible to proof ultimate reality.Our senses fool us as Donald Hoffman have shown .
Why would you ask, " does the conversion really exist " if you are engaged in the action of conversing with someone.? To question if the conversation exist would also be questioning if the person you are conversing with if they actually exist. or do you exist.
@@kipponi we do not live in the universe, we are part of it, we never were outside of it, and nothing from outside of it put us here, like cells in a body don’t reside in the body but are a part of the body
@@theliamofella Of course we cant get out of here... but that was not my point. We are atoms, molecules...which are stuff in the Universe is made of. And maybe life is just coincidence. No reason.
ja like the famous horse: it is just a name given in any language different and the horse will never know it is any of them, but the creapy part is it is not a horse at all...
What the mind does is dissect everything, it wants to break things apart and catergorize them. We need to understand that our mind is a tool, but it is NOT who we are, we are the ones that use IT. But what has happened is that our mind has become to the forefront, it is at the steering wheel, where we should be steering. To understand the mind we have to become away from it, watch it, see how it works. The heart however wants to unify everything, wants to feel whole, complete. What do we want to be driven by, something that forever has questions? Within the heart are all the answers. We need to just simply practice being with the heart, because there is stillness there, and we need to be still. The mind wants to OWN, and the heart just wants to simply BE. Two very strong forces, but light is real and darkness is the abscense of light, it is not real. To make darkness disappear all we need to do is turn round and look at the light. The only real thing there is, is light. Light that shines without a flame, infinite, was here, is here and will always be here. All the atoms in this universe are spinning because of that light, pure infinite conciousness.
Look around you, sir. That is what exists. All of it. How it is done is irrelevant. Do you need to know of the individual pixels to enjoy a good TV show?
Anurag M / Godel's Theorems have consequences only in the human theoretical domain of logic. Real life gets over these kind of consequences very easily by creating fast extra causes. Godel's logic doesn't impede or restrict the dynamic of the real material life at all.
Does heavy realist say number 2 helps form reality, light realist says number 2 is part of reality, non-realist says number 2 used to describe reality?
It is ignorance. Absolute Knowledge need not ask questions. Questions indicate enquiry, indication of seeking knowledge, so it from the stand point of ignorance. The very stuff of a question is an ignorance, so seeking knowledge for fulfillment. This is why God is onicisent and omnipotent. God needs nothing so to be fulfilled.
do you know concept of Maya? OR illusion? IT is sanskrit term and one of the meanings is : To measure. So ultimately reality is not measurable by our means, but the fact we are trying to do, we are limiting it. We collapsing it to something less that it is, but that is not possible to do, therefore it is just dreamlike illusion.
Some philosophers do indeed enjoy playing that trivial game! Others would prefer to do real metaphysics and they would take the mountains as a given relevant fact..
What difference does a definition make as long as we all agree on its color, red (blue, green, et al) even though we can not define it. Bottom line: a rose by any other name is still a rose.
@@chaotickreg7024 Google ref says: People also ask What does it mean a rose by any other name is still a rose? Meaning of A Rose by Any Other Name Simply, it means the names of things cannot affect what they actually are. This line is, in fact, very profound, suggesting that a name is just a label to distinguish one thing from another.
@@deanodebo if we convene on definition, then yes. if we don't exist, then no valuation and no convention, thus no two. btw: what does it mean to say something exists? how would the value of two, absent valuation, meet your definition? KEvron
@@KEvronista Wait. One thing at a time. “Valuation” presupposes value. So we must both appeal to something objective to understand what we mean by any particular value. So does your 2 = my 2 or not? To evaluate it, I suppose we have to appeal to 1. Do you think circularity will get you anywhere?
@@deanodebo *"One thing at a time."* "existence" is the topic. if you contend that 2 exists, what do you mean by "exist?" *"'Valuation' presupposes value."* no, it creates it. nothing in the universe bears any value unless we assign it value. *"does your 2 = my 2"* it may, by convention. see "anumeric cultures." KEvron
Since we do not know what anything is, we can not say what exists. Look at it this way. The universe we are aware of may be like the desktop of a computer - and all we can see is this desktop. We see icons and move them around with a mouse. But what really exists? The computer hardware, software, circuits, electricity all lie behind the desktop and are completely out of sight of those who can only see the desktop. They ask what exists, but for them there is only the desktop, nothing else is visible.
Given that all we perceive is a subject of consciousness, it's very easy to see how one could be fooled into believing that nothing else exists. The idealist argument is fairly simple, we can't prove that things exists outside of consciousness there for idealism must be true. It's a vacuous argument from ignorance, much like the theist's 'You can't prove God does not exist therefore he must exist'
Wrong. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove ... the Universe & Life are Functions, composed entirely of Function were made by an Intelligence with an Unnatural Mind(soul/spirit). There are only two realities/existence: 1. Natural -- space, time, laws of Nature, matter & energy 2. Unnatural -- the realm of the Mind of an Intelligence. Man is a NATURAL Intelligence with a body & Mind. But a Chimps has a body & Mind and shares 99% of Man's DNA but can not think or do 1% of what Man's body & mind can do. Because a Chimp is not an Intelligence and does not have the Mind of an Intelligence. The Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural (soul/spirit). The Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). And the body of Man is a complex physical Function composed entirely of Functions. The facts & Sciences prove God created Man with a body & soul. There is no evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago... or ... today. All Functions are made by an Intelligence. Again. There are only two existences/realities: Natural & Unnatural. Thoughts, beliefs, logic, reasoning, cognition, information, knowledge, laws, design, mathematics, scientific method are all UNNATURAL or abstract constructs from the Mind of an Intelligence. And the Mind of Man is both natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
To exist is to be loved. The universe was customized for us so that all sensations were pleasant good and acceptable. But since we're fallen, not every sensation is pleasant or good or acceptable and so we begin to doubt our existence and the existence of all other things e.g. the number "2" .
becouse love that we experience is just perverted reflection of the love of God. We really want that relationship, but if that is based on our own misconception of what is good and wrong, it becomes just onesided egoistical thing. Lust not love. But God is all-loving.
(1:20) *DC: **_"Is the conversation really part of the fabric of the universe or is it just part of a way of speaking?"_* ... Hijacking a popular casino phrase, _"What happens in Existence stays in Existence."_ The instant anything enters the existential arena, no matter its duration, it's still *information,* and this information is permanently recorded within the database of Existence. That includes conversations, mathematics, daydreams, prayers, ideas, hopes, lies, truths, idle thoughts, etc. All of these abstract constructs are equally elements of Existence as what we call _concrete structure._ We just like to categorize everything we observe and pass along our judgments on what should count as Existence ... and what shouldn't. The best way to determine if something "exists" is to test if it can be _mentally removed_ from existence. If it can ... _then it exists!_
I finished your book. Just to clear one thing up. You say Existence is embodied in all humans, but the voice in the book which you wrote, is that a literary device of some kind, or is it autobiographical?
@@johnyharris *"I finished your book. Just to clear one thing up. You say Existence is embodied in all humans, but the voice in the book which you wrote, is that a literary device of some kind, or is it autobiographical?"* ... When following the evolution of Existence as chronicled in the book, you learn that Existence has evolved to the point that it now has a "voice" (just like you and I do). Because Existence assimilates all available information and logically moves to the highest forms of information, then "we" provided Existence with that voice. During the first 10 billion years of the universe, Existence had no "voice" other than whatever information could be extracted via inanimate matter. And for the previous 4 billion years (life) and prior to modern humans, the voice of Existence was limited to the non-self-aware experiences of biological life. So, to directly answer your question, the book is authored by "Existence" (that which IS) and I am merely the _ghost writer_ that wrote it all down. I'm guessing everything from the 5th recursion on was probably not what you were expecting? 🙂
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You're right I didn't expect, nor agree with it. It was hard reading but I'm the type who finishes a book even if they don't like it (for my sins). The voice of 'Existence', and why you capitalise 'Existence' is perplexing, it implies to me a kind panentheism, a spirit permeating everything. You have commented previously that you side more with theists than atheists, is this perhaps the reason?
@@johnyharris I capitalize "Existence" to signify the permanence of the underlying stuff that can't be created or destroyed. It's not the Bible God, nor would I call it a spirit. Science talks about particles, but that might not be the final answer either. To me, Existence with a capital "E" says it all. That which is permanent and eternal -- whatever that turns out to be...
I've found that disagreements c usually boil down to a difference in fundamental assumptions and beliefs. BTW I'm idealist, metaphysically speaking. Totally antirealist. Just my belief system, based on life experience gut feeling
to say that because something is not part of the structure of the universe, therefore is doubtfull that it exists, is silly. The question was never, in good terms, if such a thing like a conversation really exist, since that is a universal doubt, that also question if we exist (those who have the conversation) since philosophers are just that, and not necesarilly psychologists, what they are really asking is if this conversation is taking place just due to the mechanisms we see, and not, for instance, the subconscious, where actually we can be having an incomplete notion or perception of the chat, and therefore, as a whole it does not exist. But may be a part of something else, that must exist, otherwise we doubt whimsically having actually no basis to doubt being true that nothing exist. Because or we refer to a part as maybe non existent, or we put that question to the whole of existence. We are saying that our perception of the conversation maybe illusory, but the sound the tonge etc is real as it is, and if its not part of the fundamental part of the universe means nothing, since that puts things just outside the scope of that kind of study, but actually deprived those things of their own realm of studies.
Without knowledge nothing truly exists with out peace knowledge would not be able have anything to grow on or in( peace love)= unity ( wisdom knowledge )= truth knowledge brings existence to all
Is communication transactional like eating? Is there always a quid pro quo, a trade off of for continued survival or meaning? Meaning being defined by a sacrificial/beneficial "dasein". Is the "being of being" a becoming? In other words: is the taxonomical, inventory of the world we're living in (objects in objective reality) dependent on a sacrificial/beneficial aka ignorance/ knowledge, dualistic, bargain? If it is then the question of ontology rests on which bargain gives the most ontological meaning. Which morality makes certain objects objective: real. Are the objects in the world like Aladdin's magic lamp? There are some wishes it cannot grant directly. For those wishes the hero can be aided, but, ultimately, the attainment of those wishes/objects requires quasi heroic/quasi shifty effort. A shifting of the self, a shifting of the "dasein" of the self. How does the carpenter hammering nails become the architect building houses?
To compliment the question of 'what exists' one might want to ask: what allows for what exists, to exist? Or, from where is allotted this essence, life, soul, so something may be made manifest so to exist. And then you realize something substantial. One may see smoke from far away, but they cannot see the fire, they ignorantly assume that smoke alone exists because that's all they can see. Truly the fire alone exists, and smoke does not. Somebody may say that both fire and smoke exists. Without the fire, not smoke would be seen. So what really exists?
Shared reality as we know it is an interpretation of oscillating wavelengths that are within the constraints of the Electromagnetic spectrum garnering intrinsic properties depending on the frequency of the wave. Our brain is the interface that filters what can be perceived as ‘real’ and creates a subjective experience. Going a step deeper; at the base of it all we are a complex physical manifestation of quantum energy propagated by the universe, that is experiencing itself in human form through the perceived passage of time. Therefore the universe seems to be ‘one’ entity which gave us our collective consciousness and explains the saying ‘within or without you’. Energy is the true mystery though. Energy cannot be removed or destroyed, and somewhere within that notion consciousness of a perceived reality can be derived. So it seems E = Mc2 is the answer, being that Energy is the progenitor of ‘everything’. Why this is I have no idea but it’s a good derivative logic base to build up from.
Plato is right about the objective reality of the forms. We just don't or can't know what they are. But we still make and stubbornly believe our guesses.
we can indirectly infere them from perception. And also you forgot one possibility. That objective reality can reveal itself, becouse one of its characteristic is cognizance.
who thinks that we will be able to equate certain truth with our designation of it? Something that did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future is just a superficial manifestation, but the name we put to that does not imply we take it as a fundamental truth, all little things are forms of the same whole, and the ilusion is not in there, but in us. Who needs to question the practicallity of the following statement: The whole of the universal background, the last expresión of it, is like a planet where things live and develop. if you get stuck in words, you miss the point, since am not saying like what planet, am just saying its similar in the way that planets host the development of further phenomena and period. So words and meanings are not the same. And if I start from my set of words or discipline to say things, no discipline is speaking and no words are the only ones, its just what i mean. What phisics mean when talk about the universe, from where it departs its not words, but generally a pursue or a search for confirmation of what I initially suspect. As Stephen Hawkings said: "our work is mainly theoreticall, we spect or wait for an intuition to move forward" If you just take it as a hipothesis neutraly, its still in line with what has meaning for you. But that meaning is everywhere but nobody really has found yet nothing. So we can use many different words, as in the case of Edgar allan poe, his was not a phisicist but Eureka was latter confirmed as Truth before scientific method was applied. So philosophy is a quality of our discrimination and posibility, not just a carrer one studies.
@@kimsahl8555 Everything is part of everything. Which is saying precisely nothing. My initial response pointed out the problem of semantics. As does the above.
This is like seeing the color red. Its there but it doesn't really matter until it shows up as a feeling of anger "seeing red" triggering survival mechanisms.
Actually two questions: "What exists?" and, "What Exists?" The first applies to temporal things that come and go. The second applies to that which is eternal.
@@HyzersGR It's pretty evident there is a duality to "existence." Even universes come and go, but there also appears to be an underlying permanence behind everything. That may be the ultimate brute fact.
There are only two realities: 1. Natural - space, time, laws of Nature, matter, energy 2. Unnatural - realm of the Mind of an intelligence. These two realities answers everything ... that Man can ... THINK of.
You are an idea 💡. You was not born a baby no no…. You was born as an idea 💡 remember you said 🧸 “MY toy” “MINE”!! That’s YOU. YOU are just an 💡 you spawned into existence as an idea and you claimed ownership over an impersonal experience. :)
@@KEvronista what exist can only be define what are receptors endows us. Which is inadequate perceive the world and cosmos simply universe is more than meets the eye.
has something just one only state so we can call it with one name? and when interacts causing something else, lets say highs boson, and its mass giving property, are we going to entangle mixing what it is with what it does? Because, if (as said here) particles are for real, but "philosophers" question about mountain's reality, aren't mountains done by particles? So if fundamental truth is really real, all things made by it are real. But if that has the capacity to act as illusory, is due to having produced a real thing that for real is in ilusion. It does not act illusory, acts for real, and we are illusioned. So Where is illusion, nowhere until and unless we take it for another things with a superposition of a wrong opinion. Otherwise we could be just seeing the surroundings knowing we know nothing and thats ignorance not ilusion. And ignorance is true and is real. In the end all we see is nothing but the manifestation of one reality in different forms, so why speak about illusion, is because one is not fixed in the understanding that all interpretation must include a relation of things with the supreme thing that we should be craving for. How this unknown but certain last truth makes us being not in ilusion? Only when we do not waste time talking about what exist and what doesn't. All exist, and all is real, but if we want to separate the part as if is something separated from the supreme, we are in ignorance, and later we confuse the superficial aspect as being fundamentally ilusory, but fundamentaly is another things and no part at all, just more of the only truth wich is like the water in a planet, that host all and fathers all.
When philosophers divorce percerpts from concepts, they end up not knowing what they're talking about, like the two here. They could just as well be wasting each other's time (and ours as well) by discussing the question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Realism or fealism are both manifestations of the same dichotomy they are reveling in. Each quickly would learn of the necessity of discarding the split and respecting the union of the two, if they had to work for a living. .
No, the number, '1,' does not exist. Go ahead and get angry, but it's entirely a construct of the human imagination. Doubt this? Try to give one physical example of an integer. One marble? It's made of many, many particles. One inch? Precisely where is the ruler's edge? One second? According to which clock? In each case, a standard is required. Some arbitrary comparison must be established in order to define the one. Oh, you meant to tell me that there's an _ideal_ 1 out there instead, as per Plato's Forms? Well then, Mr. Dualist, I'd ask you to provide some evidence for this claim, but I already know that you have none, because the argument is unfalsifiable. But I will ask you to then consider the mathematics of it: Have you realized yet that our '1' construct can be entirely supplanted by a √2 for all mathematical operations? 1 has been designated as a basis arbitrarily, and thus √2 is only 'irrational' insofar as it does not easily divide by 1. In terms of its geometry, √2 is just as substantive a fixed distance/quantity as any whole number. If a square has side lengths measured in units of √2, then its diagonals will be considered 'irrational.' Make no mistake, mathematics is an outcrop of conscious deliberation; any suggestion that mathematical descriptions are intrinsic to the universe (such that they are not actually descriptive but properties themselves) is a biased, anthro-centric overestimation. Mathematical concepts are, necessarily, just that. No, '1' doesn't exist-but one 1" marble that's one second away from rolling over an edge sure does.
I'm guessing the purpose of this video was to show that there is no objectively ontological justification for this conversation. Let's call this one "Two Mountains Eclipsed by Two Clowns Discussing the Number Two."
Since humans discovered thoughts and imaginations, nothing is the same. The peaceful time of just accepting reality how it is, is gone forever. Now everyone has his own interpretation of reality aside influenced information. Life is so clear, and our place in the universe is a given opportunity to live and enjoy the limited time we've got, and pass experiences to the next generation not knowing where it will take us. The day I can walk through walls, I'll doubt reality.
Pauli exclusion principle seperates things, seperations are sets, sets are numbers. So numbers exist because of quantum mechanics. Did I go wrong somewhere? 🤣
Why does David speak about metaphysics in that manner? Metaphysics, physics, theology, science, scriptures are all One, as in a mountain, it is the individuals point of view that see's differing facets, and when one achieves the level of convergence atop, there's only Oneness. One pointedness. The beauty of metaphysics, being Reason, logical, dialectic, negation, a conglomeratiom of all what's true from other branches of study, is that it applies everything for fact checking. If science doesn't align with scripture, or psychology with consciousness and biochemtry, or physics with theology, than your Metaphysics isn't good, because there's only Oneness, ignorance see's multiplicity and duality. Metaphysics is the greatest endeavor a Philosopher, yogi, sage, seer can exercise. Because it's non dual, and the truth is non dual.
so according to your philoshopy you have oneness and ignorance of oneness. That is duality. IN fact oneness and duality are simultaneously present. That is ultimate message of scripture. If everything would be one, what would be use of scripture? or any exercise ?
The supreme personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna only exists because all other demigods are exist in trime frame , God Sri Krishna is absolute concious being both material world and spiritual world emarge from Him, but material world his inferior energy ,spiritual world is His superior energy.
@@andreasplosky8516 Remembering Him through devtion and Yoga creates ecstasy in our mind , we experience bliss in our heart thus we can prove His existence.
There are only two existences: 1. Natural (physical) -- where everything is composed of matter & energy and within the confines of a space with time & laws of nature. 2. Unnatural (nonphysical) -- where everything is NOT composed of matter & energy and NOT within the confines of a space with NO time & NO laws of nature. Free will, nature & consciousness ... are functions of the MIND of an Entity. Animals & Man are NATURAL entities .... with a NATURAL mind (brain) and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness of the NATURAL existence. But Man is the only known Intelligence in the Universe with the Mind of an Intelligence. Chimps have a NATURAL body & mind ... and share 99% of Human DNA ... but a Chimp can never think or do 1% let alone 10% of what the body & mind of Man can do. Clearly the Mind of Man is more that a brain Only an Intelligence ... makes abstract & physical Functions. A Function ... is a system that processes inputs into outputs with clear PURPOSE form, design & properties which are Information that every Function possesses to exist & to function. Information, law, mathematics, time are UNNATURAL or abstract constructs from the Mind of an Intelligence. This is why only an intelligence can make a Function. An Intelligence makes Functions which possess information And Intelligence extracts information from a Function. Anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence. And there is no evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function. Everything in the Universe is a Function. The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space, time, laws ... & ... intelligence to exist & to function. Man is a Natural Intelligence with a Mind .... made by ... an UNNATURAL Intelligence with a Mind. The Mind of an Intelligence ... is UNNATURAL ( ie soul/spirit). The Mind of Man ... is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). The Function & Intelligence Categories prove God created Man with a body & soul. The Universe is a NATURAL System that was made in an UNNATURAL system, with unnatural laws & an unnatural Intelligence. Again. There are only two realities/existence: Natural & Unnatural. The Unnatural or Abstract ... is the domain of the Mind of an Intelligence ( soul/spirit).
You're chasing a Paradigm that requires getting out of the psychological consciousness loop as opposed to looking within. Your program is great, but the subject matter stays in a protected box that keeps looping and looping.
I agree this monetized vlog is the subject matter that stays in a closed loop so how can you say it is great when it circles from nothing of worth back to nothing of worth. Kuhn is certainly no 'Closer To The Truth' than he was when he created this vlog although his real truth, making money, is being satisfied by the uninformed needy & naïve.
@@kingap2201 I have a minor in analytic philosophy. The thing he’s most famous for is giving a philosophical question a catchy name: the “hard problem” of consciousness.
I like seeing spectacular mountains behind Chalmers and Kuhn while they're discussing what exists. :)
Yeah but they are saying does the word Mountain exists?
Beautiful Mountain View
My greatest gratitude to this channel!
40 years ago, In math classroom, we were in grade 7. I remember like it was yesterday those words from my friend who sits beside me after the teacher gave us some work, he started like this, "We are using number one in additions, divisions multiplcations... all day long but we never asked him if he is ok with that," I lauhged so much that day but never realised might be a serious pilosophical subject 40 years later.
Bills, definitely bills
bills are too real
Yep. I think you just solved one of the great philosophical questions.
I think therefore I am. Crushes the existence question
I noticed! The technical difficulties associated with this video! I see a thousand obstacles that were overcome! Indeed I noticed! The sound, the back drop, the angle! I know everything you had to do to pull this off! Job well done!
Robert Rocks
The problems discussed in this video are based on David Chalmers philosophical paper "Ontological anti-realism" (2009), which also appears on his book "Metaphysics, new essays on the foundation of ontology" (2009). The epistemic stance in Karen Bennett's chapter "Composition, colocation and metaontology" is more persuasive tho.
Don't numbers only exist because something or somethings else exists? Aren't they descriptive? I can't see numbers existing by themselves. I can't see the number 3 existing before three things existed.
*"before three things existed"*
it goes even deeper: those three things must first be assigned to a set before 3 can exist, and sets only exist as a product of the mind. sets exist arbitrarily, subjectively, conditionally and contingently, and so, too, do their descriptions exist.
KEvron
Banff, Canada?
WHERE did this conversation take place?
Is this filmed in Switzerland?
Consciousness is not something that exists, it Is existence itself, and gives presence to reality, to the universe.
First you must define consciousness which even our greatest minds have not managed to do. Secondly you must prove this same consciousness existed prior to this universe to provide a prima facie condition that lends credence to your wild & fantastic conjecture. You can do neither & the probability that humans will ever know these answers is infinitely naught plus one. Simply making this statement of yours proves you have no clue to the nature of reality.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 The act of measurement by humans changes the results of experiments as the double slit have shown,so how is it possible to proof ultimate reality.Our senses fool us as Donald Hoffman have shown .
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 so then, do you mean that no human that has ever lived/is living/will live, have no clue to the nature of reality ???
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038
no, first he must define "exist."
KEvron
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 if something exists in effect it must be present in the cause in some way.
Why would you ask, " does the conversion really exist " if you are engaged in the action of conversing with someone.? To question if the conversation exist would also be questioning if the person you are conversing with if they actually exist. or do you exist.
Why did the ontological realist cross the mobius strip?
Without God there is no existence
Two things is not the numeral "2". "2" is an artificial symbol describing a quantity.
a quantity is simply a set, and sets are the product of mind. all sets exist arbitrarily, contingently, conditionally and subjectively.
KEvron
How are mountains non-fundamental objects? 4:00
Is it being asked if there is more to existence than sense perception?
What if there was no one to observe the universe? Would it exist?
Cool.Good question.Because they say something exist only if observer observing that something_space
Yes this Universe does not need us but we need this Universe to be alive. So we can live here. Right temperature, air, light and so on...
@@kipponi we do not live in the universe, we are part of it, we never were outside of it, and nothing from outside of it put us here, like cells in a body don’t reside in the body but are a part of the body
Definetly not because how we think of the universe is a perceptual construct.
Would something exists without observers - that is a harder question!
@@theliamofella Of course we cant get out of here... but that was not my point.
We are atoms, molecules...which are stuff in the Universe is made of.
And maybe life is just coincidence. No reason.
ja like the famous horse: it is just a name given in any language different and the horse will never know it is any of them, but the creapy part is it is not a horse at all...
David's old look was amazing..
Everything is one. Discrimination is human made interpretation.
Lower back pain.
Why ask how many or what the number is?
Didn't know Mourinho was that good with philosophy as well
What the mind does is dissect everything, it wants to break things apart and catergorize them. We need to understand that our mind is a tool, but it is NOT who we are, we are the ones that use IT. But what has happened is that our mind has become to the forefront, it is at the steering wheel, where we should be steering. To understand the mind we have to become away from it, watch it, see how it works. The heart however wants to unify everything, wants to feel whole, complete. What do we want to be driven by, something that forever has questions? Within the heart are all the answers. We need to just simply practice being with the heart, because there is stillness there, and we need to be still. The mind wants to OWN, and the heart just wants to simply BE. Two very strong forces, but light is real and darkness is the abscense of light, it is not real. To make darkness disappear all we need to do is turn round and look at the light. The only real thing there is, is light. Light that shines without a flame, infinite, was here, is here and will always be here. All the atoms in this universe are spinning because of that light, pure infinite conciousness.
Metaphysics
Joy, beauty and harmony (heaven) has no mass and weight.
Misery, ugliness and conflict (hell) has no mass and weight either.
Does the number two exist or does two exist? Both? Neither?
Say. where was this filmed?
Colorado I'm guessing.
Look around you, sir. That is what exists. All of it. How it is done is irrelevant. Do you need to know of the individual pixels to enjoy a good TV show?
These are the important questions which come up when I'm baked :D
Yes to more life is not about my nose
It’s all just waves yknow?
Love the channel and the content. Could you also do a video or two on Godel's theorems and their consequences?
There are plenty of discussions about Godel's incompleteness theorem on this channel. You just gotta do a little digging.
@@acetate909 I couldn't find any. Could you share link of one?
Anurag M / Godel's Theorems have consequences only in the human theoretical domain of logic.
Real life gets over these kind of consequences very easily by creating fast extra causes. Godel's logic doesn't impede or restrict the dynamic of the real material life at all.
Does heavy realist say number 2 helps form reality, light realist says number 2 is part of reality, non-realist says number 2 used to describe reality?
Both are lightweight in one sense: having fun with this.
If nothing exists, life as we know it would be pointless, or would it?
The Question Is What Is the Question?
It is ignorance. Absolute Knowledge need not ask questions. Questions indicate enquiry, indication of seeking knowledge, so it from the stand point of ignorance.
The very stuff of a question is an ignorance, so seeking knowledge for fulfillment.
This is why God is onicisent and omnipotent. God needs nothing so to be fulfilled.
I know you meant your comment in another way. I simply asked the question myself, of what exactly is a question. And see it is ignorance.
@@S3RAVA3LM
Ffs, it's the 21st century.
Time to drop the book of caveman fairytales.
@@S3RAVA3LM and still he WANTED to create the universe, etc. Why? If he was perfect to start with, this could ONLY make things worse.
the first question should be "what does it mean to exist?"
KEvron
how can they discuss existence without first defining it?!
KEvron
The word yes to more life don't exist
I think fundamentally for something to exist, is you be able somehow to measure it .
do you know concept of Maya? OR illusion? IT is sanskrit term and one of the meanings is : To measure. So ultimately reality is not measurable by our means, but the fact we are trying to do, we are limiting it. We collapsing it to something less that it is, but that is not possible to do, therefore it is just dreamlike illusion.
Some philosophers do indeed enjoy playing that trivial game! Others would prefer to do real metaphysics and they would take the mountains as a given relevant fact..
What difference does a definition make as long as we all agree on its color, red (blue, green, et al) even though we can not define it. Bottom line: a rose by any other name is still a rose.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
I don't think the original phrase would have changed your point
@@chaotickreg7024 Google ref says:
People also ask
What does it mean a rose by any other name is still a rose?
Meaning of A Rose by Any Other Name
Simply, it means the names of things cannot affect what they actually are. This line is, in fact, very profound, suggesting that a name is just a label to distinguish one thing from another.
If the number 2 doesn’t exist, then what are they referring to when they say it?
it refers to a value, and all values are the product of valuation, which is something reasoning agents do.
KEvron
@@KEvronista
So when you refer to 2 and I refer to 2 - are those two values equal?
@@deanodebo
if we convene on definition, then yes.
if we don't exist, then no valuation and no convention, thus no two.
btw: what does it mean to say something exists? how would the value of two, absent valuation, meet your definition?
KEvron
@@KEvronista
Wait. One thing at a time.
“Valuation” presupposes value. So we must both appeal to something objective to understand what we mean by any particular value.
So does your 2 = my 2 or not? To evaluate it, I suppose we have to appeal to 1. Do you think circularity will get you anywhere?
@@deanodebo
*"One thing at a time."*
"existence" is the topic. if you contend that 2 exists, what do you mean by "exist?"
*"'Valuation' presupposes value."*
no, it creates it. nothing in the universe bears any value unless we assign it value.
*"does your 2 = my 2"*
it may, by convention. see "anumeric cultures."
KEvron
Since we do not know what anything is, we can not say what exists. Look at it this way. The universe we are aware of may be like the desktop of a computer - and all we can see is this desktop. We see icons and move them around with a mouse. But what really exists? The computer hardware, software, circuits, electricity all lie behind the desktop and are completely out of sight of those who can only see the desktop. They ask what exists, but for them there is only the desktop, nothing else is visible.
Given that all we perceive is a subject of consciousness, it's very easy to see how one could be fooled into believing that nothing else exists. The idealist argument is fairly simple, we can't prove that things exists outside of consciousness there for idealism must be true. It's a vacuous argument from ignorance, much like the theist's 'You can't prove God does not exist therefore he must exist'
Wrong. The Function, Intelligence & Mind Categories ... prove ... the Universe & Life are Functions, composed entirely of Function were made by an Intelligence with an Unnatural Mind(soul/spirit).
There are only two realities/existence:
1. Natural -- space, time, laws of Nature, matter & energy
2. Unnatural -- the realm of the Mind of an Intelligence.
Man is a NATURAL Intelligence with a body & Mind.
But a Chimps has a body & Mind and shares 99% of Man's DNA but can not think or do 1% of what Man's body & mind can do. Because a Chimp is not an Intelligence and does not have the Mind of an Intelligence.
The Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural (soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
And the body of Man is a complex physical Function composed entirely of Functions.
The facts & Sciences prove God created Man with a body & soul.
There is no evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago... or ... today.
All Functions are made by an Intelligence.
Again. There are only two existences/realities: Natural & Unnatural.
Thoughts, beliefs, logic, reasoning, cognition, information, knowledge, laws, design, mathematics, scientific method are all UNNATURAL or abstract constructs from the Mind of an Intelligence.
And the Mind of Man is both natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
To exist is to be loved. The universe was customized for us so that all sensations were pleasant good and acceptable. But since we're fallen, not every sensation is pleasant or good or acceptable and so we begin to doubt our existence and the existence of all other things e.g. the number "2" .
becouse love that we experience is just perverted reflection of the love of God. We really want that relationship, but if that is based on our own misconception of what is good and wrong, it becomes just onesided egoistical thing. Lust not love. But God is all-loving.
(1:20) *DC: **_"Is the conversation really part of the fabric of the universe or is it just part of a way of speaking?"_* ... Hijacking a popular casino phrase, _"What happens in Existence stays in Existence."_ The instant anything enters the existential arena, no matter its duration, it's still *information,* and this information is permanently recorded within the database of Existence. That includes conversations, mathematics, daydreams, prayers, ideas, hopes, lies, truths, idle thoughts, etc.
All of these abstract constructs are equally elements of Existence as what we call _concrete structure._ We just like to categorize everything we observe and pass along our judgments on what should count as Existence ... and what shouldn't.
The best way to determine if something "exists" is to test if it can be _mentally removed_ from existence.
If it can ... _then it exists!_
I finished your book. Just to clear one thing up. You say Existence is embodied in all humans, but the voice in the book which you wrote, is that a literary device of some kind, or is it autobiographical?
@@johnyharris *"I finished your book. Just to clear one thing up. You say Existence is embodied in all humans, but the voice in the book which you wrote, is that a literary device of some kind, or is it autobiographical?"*
... When following the evolution of Existence as chronicled in the book, you learn that Existence has evolved to the point that it now has a "voice" (just like you and I do). Because Existence assimilates all available information and logically moves to the highest forms of information, then "we" provided Existence with that voice.
During the first 10 billion years of the universe, Existence had no "voice" other than whatever information could be extracted via inanimate matter. And for the previous 4 billion years (life) and prior to modern humans, the voice of Existence was limited to the non-self-aware experiences of biological life.
So, to directly answer your question, the book is authored by "Existence" (that which IS) and I am merely the _ghost writer_ that wrote it all down.
I'm guessing everything from the 5th recursion on was probably not what you were expecting? 🙂
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You're right I didn't expect, nor agree with it. It was hard reading but I'm the type who finishes a book even if they don't like it (for my sins). The voice of 'Existence', and why you capitalise 'Existence' is perplexing, it implies to me a kind panentheism, a spirit permeating everything. You have commented previously that you side more with theists than atheists, is this perhaps the reason?
Where is the "database of Existence" located?
@@johnyharris
I capitalize "Existence" to signify the permanence of the underlying stuff that can't be created or destroyed. It's not the Bible God, nor would I call it a spirit. Science talks about particles, but that might not be the final answer either. To me, Existence with a capital "E" says it all. That which is permanent and eternal -- whatever that turns out to be...
I've found that disagreements c usually boil down to a difference in fundamental assumptions and beliefs. BTW I'm idealist, metaphysically speaking. Totally antirealist. Just my belief system, based on life experience gut feeling
Buddhism teaches this, "the middle way". You exist relatively speaking, but you do not ultimately exist.
The "Middle Way" does not speak to existence in any way, shape, or form! Obviously you know nothing of Buddhist philosophy & practice.
to say that because something is not part of the structure of the universe, therefore is doubtfull that it exists, is silly. The question was never, in good terms, if such a thing like a conversation really exist, since that is a universal doubt, that also question if we exist (those who have the conversation) since philosophers are just that, and not necesarilly psychologists, what they are really asking is if this conversation is taking place just due to the mechanisms we see, and not, for instance, the subconscious, where actually we can be having an incomplete notion or perception of the chat, and therefore, as a whole it does not exist. But may be a part of something else, that must exist, otherwise we doubt whimsically having actually no basis to doubt being true that nothing exist. Because or we refer to a part as maybe non existent, or we put that question to the whole of existence. We are saying that our perception of the conversation maybe illusory, but the sound the tonge etc is real as it is, and if its not part of the fundamental part of the universe means nothing, since that puts things just outside the scope of that kind of study, but actually deprived those things of their own realm of studies.
Without knowledge nothing truly exists with out peace knowledge would not be able have anything to grow on or in( peace love)= unity ( wisdom knowledge )= truth knowledge brings existence to all
Potentially perpetual has the ability never to start where progressively potential can be more then ever needed l
Might human perception differ from the reality? In which case there is a real existence, and what human perceives to exist?
Chalmers in the hizzy!
Naming exists. But the thing named...
Is communication transactional like eating? Is there always a quid pro quo, a trade off of for continued survival or meaning? Meaning being defined by a sacrificial/beneficial "dasein".
Is the "being of being" a becoming? In other words: is the taxonomical, inventory of the world we're living in (objects in objective reality) dependent on a sacrificial/beneficial aka ignorance/ knowledge, dualistic, bargain? If it is then the question of ontology rests on which bargain gives the most ontological meaning. Which morality makes certain objects objective: real.
Are the objects in the world like Aladdin's magic lamp? There are some wishes it cannot grant directly. For those wishes the hero can be aided, but, ultimately, the attainment of those wishes/objects requires quasi heroic/quasi shifty effort. A shifting of the self, a shifting of the "dasein" of the self.
How does the carpenter hammering nails become the architect building houses?
To compliment the question of 'what exists' one might want to ask: what allows for what exists, to exist? Or, from where is allotted this essence, life, soul, so something may be made manifest so to exist. And then you realize something substantial.
One may see smoke from far away, but they cannot see the fire, they ignorantly assume that smoke alone exists because that's all they can see. Truly the fire alone exists, and smoke does not.
Somebody may say that both fire and smoke exists. Without the fire, not smoke would be seen. So what really exists?
Your circular logic doesn't validate your caveman fairytales.
You see what you want to see even when there's nothing to see.
Shared reality as we know it is an interpretation of oscillating wavelengths that are within the constraints of the Electromagnetic spectrum garnering intrinsic properties depending on the frequency of the wave. Our brain is the interface that filters what can be perceived as ‘real’ and creates a subjective experience. Going a step deeper; at the base of it all we are a complex physical manifestation of quantum energy propagated by the universe, that is experiencing itself in human form through the perceived passage of time. Therefore the universe seems to be ‘one’ entity which gave us our collective consciousness and explains the saying ‘within or without you’. Energy is the true mystery though. Energy cannot be removed or destroyed, and somewhere within that notion consciousness of a perceived reality can be derived. So it seems E = Mc2 is the answer, being that Energy is the progenitor of ‘everything’. Why this is I have no idea but it’s a good derivative logic base to build up from.
Plato is right about the objective reality of the forms. We just don't or can't know what they are. But we still make and stubbornly believe our guesses.
we can indirectly infere them from perception. And also you forgot one possibility. That objective reality can reveal itself, becouse one of its characteristic is cognizance.
Dope . I mean ?
Dopamine. I need friends.
who thinks that we will be able to equate certain truth with our designation of it? Something that did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future is just a superficial manifestation, but the name we put to that does not imply we take it as a fundamental truth, all little things are forms of the same whole, and the ilusion is not in there, but in us. Who needs to question the practicallity of the following statement: The whole of the universal background, the last expresión of it, is like a planet where things live and develop. if you get stuck in words, you miss the point, since am not saying like what planet, am just saying its similar in the way that planets host the development of further phenomena and period. So words and meanings are not the same. And if I start from my set of words or discipline to say things, no discipline is speaking and no words are the only ones, its just what i mean. What phisics mean when talk about the universe, from where it departs its not words, but generally a pursue or a search for confirmation of what I initially suspect. As Stephen Hawkings said: "our work is mainly theoreticall, we spect or wait for an intuition to move forward" If you just take it as a hipothesis neutraly, its still in line with what has meaning for you. But that meaning is everywhere but nobody really has found yet nothing. So we can use many different words, as in the case of Edgar allan poe, his was not a phisicist but Eureka was latter confirmed as Truth before scientific method was applied. So philosophy is a quality of our discrimination and posibility, not just a carrer one studies.
❤️🌳🌿🌲😊🌹
Everything exist (you can't show me anything that don't).
Show me an everything.
@@andreasplosky8516 You have a number - this number is a part of everything.
@@kimsahl8555 Everything is part of everything.
Which is saying precisely nothing.
My initial response pointed out the problem of semantics. As does the above.
@@andreasplosky8516 Every element of Nature is a part of everything (everything = Nature).
@@kimsahl8555 What you are saying is not wrong, but it is like saying water is wet, the sun is hot. It is basically pointless.
Thinking is good. But you can overdo it.
This is like seeing the color red. Its there but it doesn't really matter until it shows up as a feeling of anger "seeing red" triggering survival mechanisms.
Actually two questions: "What exists?" and, "What Exists?" The first applies to temporal things that come and go. The second applies to that which is eternal.
All because your latter example begins with capital. E. .... Insatisfactory. .......
Deep
@@HyzersGR Deep:::purple, down, space, reality. .. .........
@@HyzersGR
It's pretty evident there is a duality to "existence." Even universes come and go, but there also appears to be an underlying permanence behind everything. That may be the ultimate brute fact.
There are only two realities:
1. Natural - space, time, laws of Nature, matter, energy
2. Unnatural - realm of the Mind of an intelligence.
These two realities answers everything ... that Man can ... THINK of.
What am I.?
I once took a bunch of mushrooms, sat on my sofa begging almost crying to myself asking that very question:)
A Hologram.....
You are an idea 💡. You was not born a baby no no…. You was born as an idea 💡 remember you said 🧸 “MY toy” “MINE”!! That’s YOU. YOU are just an 💡 you spawned into existence as an idea and you claimed ownership over an impersonal experience. :)
matter in motion within spacetime.
KEvron
Ho,nature is fondamentale, each piece of grass existe as you are existing.
Good job there wasn’t three of them
Looks like mountains to me.
What exists? It seems we could use the physics approach, "depends on the observer".
No depends on the Apparatus....
@@suatustel746
no, depends on the definition of "exist."
KEvron
@@KEvronista what exist can only be define what are receptors endows us. Which is inadequate perceive the world and cosmos simply universe is more than meets the eye.
@@suatustel746
fail.
KEvron
@@KEvronista who failed me or you!!!!!!
I'm sorry. I like this channel but this conversation was nonsense 🙄.
Don't get confused between what's an abstraction in your mind and an artifact that exists.
what does it mean to exist?
KEvron
What doesn't exist!!!!!!
has something just one only state so we can call it with one name? and when interacts causing something else, lets say highs boson, and its mass giving property, are we going to entangle mixing what it is with what it does? Because, if (as said here) particles are for real, but "philosophers" question about mountain's reality, aren't mountains done by particles? So if fundamental truth is really real, all things made by it are real. But if that has the capacity to act as illusory, is due to having produced a real thing that for real is in ilusion. It does not act illusory, acts for real, and we are illusioned. So Where is illusion, nowhere until and unless we take it for another things with a superposition of a wrong opinion. Otherwise we could be just seeing the surroundings knowing we know nothing and thats ignorance not ilusion. And ignorance is true and is real. In the end all we see is nothing but the manifestation of one reality in different forms, so why speak about illusion, is because one is not fixed in the understanding that all interpretation must include a relation of things with the supreme thing that we should be craving for. How this unknown but certain last truth makes us being not in ilusion? Only when we do not waste time talking about what exist and what doesn't. All exist, and all is real, but if we want to separate the part as if is something separated from the supreme, we are in ignorance, and later we confuse the superficial aspect as being fundamentally ilusory, but fundamentaly is another things and no part at all, just more of the only truth wich is like the water in a planet, that host all and fathers all.
When philosophers divorce percerpts from concepts, they end up not knowing what they're talking about, like the two here. They could just as well be wasting each other's time (and ours as well) by discussing the question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Realism or fealism are both manifestations of the same dichotomy they are reveling in. Each quickly would learn of the necessity of discarding the split and respecting the union of the two, if they had to work for a living.
.
No, the number, '1,' does not exist. Go ahead and get angry, but it's entirely a construct of the human imagination.
Doubt this? Try to give one physical example of an integer. One marble? It's made of many, many particles. One inch? Precisely where is the ruler's edge? One second? According to which clock? In each case, a standard is required. Some arbitrary comparison must be established in order to define the one.
Oh, you meant to tell me that there's an _ideal_ 1 out there instead, as per Plato's Forms? Well then, Mr. Dualist, I'd ask you to provide some evidence for this claim, but I already know that you have none, because the argument is unfalsifiable. But I will ask you to then consider the mathematics of it:
Have you realized yet that our '1' construct can be entirely supplanted by a √2 for all mathematical operations? 1 has been designated as a basis arbitrarily, and thus √2 is only 'irrational' insofar as it does not easily divide by 1. In terms of its geometry, √2 is just as substantive a fixed distance/quantity as any whole number. If a square has side lengths measured in units of √2, then its diagonals will be considered 'irrational.'
Make no mistake, mathematics is an outcrop of conscious deliberation; any suggestion that mathematical descriptions are intrinsic to the universe (such that they are not actually descriptive but properties themselves) is a biased, anthro-centric overestimation. Mathematical concepts are, necessarily, just that. No, '1' doesn't exist-but one 1" marble that's one second away from rolling over an edge sure does.
What's "serious" about any of this?
yep. the mountain is there, it exists, the sun is there, does it exist. yep... Unless of course it's a computer graphic.
I'm guessing the purpose of this video was to show that there is no objectively ontological justification for this conversation.
Let's call this one "Two Mountains Eclipsed by Two Clowns Discussing the Number Two."
Since humans discovered thoughts and imaginations, nothing is the same.
The peaceful time of just accepting reality how it is, is gone forever.
Now everyone has his own interpretation of reality aside influenced information.
Life is so clear, and our place in the universe is a given opportunity to live and enjoy the limited time we've got, and pass experiences to the next generation not knowing where it will take us.
The day I can walk through walls, I'll doubt reality.
Ha the background audience finds the speakers stupid. trees.
Pauli exclusion principle seperates things, seperations are sets, sets are numbers. So numbers exist because of quantum mechanics. Did I go wrong somewhere? 🤣
Guys discussion hasnt aplication in Philosophy his show baseless rethoric. He minds are underminimg true philosophy though bobastic hipotesy.
Why does David speak about metaphysics in that manner?
Metaphysics, physics, theology, science, scriptures are all One, as in a mountain, it is the individuals point of view that see's differing facets, and when one achieves the level of convergence atop, there's only Oneness. One pointedness. The beauty of metaphysics, being Reason, logical, dialectic, negation, a conglomeratiom of all what's true from other branches of study, is that it applies everything for fact checking. If science doesn't align with scripture, or psychology with consciousness and biochemtry, or physics with theology, than your Metaphysics isn't good, because there's only Oneness, ignorance see's multiplicity and duality.
Metaphysics is the greatest endeavor a Philosopher, yogi, sage, seer can exercise. Because it's non dual, and the truth is non dual.
so according to your philoshopy you have oneness and ignorance of oneness. That is duality. IN fact oneness and duality are simultaneously present. That is ultimate message of scripture. If everything would be one, what would be use of scripture? or any exercise ?
That didn't help at all
Physicists and philosophers cannot get along.
You're all unconscious.
I just love intelligent idiots..lol
The supreme personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna only exists because all other demigods are exist in trime frame , God Sri Krishna is absolute concious being both material world and spiritual world emarge from Him, but material world his inferior energy ,spiritual world is His superior energy.
Prove it
Yeah, prove it. Anybody can fantasize, and talk nonsense words.
@@andreasplosky8516 Remembering Him through devtion and Yoga creates ecstasy in our mind , we experience bliss in our heart thus we can prove His existence.
@@chayanbosu3293 These effects in the brain can be created by all sorts of means. It does not prove what you think it does.
That’s like saying reality is a void full of equations and laws governing a zoo of particles:)
The same BS from David Chalmers. Zero intelectual value!🥴☹️
Hahaha 🤣
There are only two existences:
1. Natural (physical) -- where everything is composed of matter & energy and within the confines of a space with time & laws of nature.
2. Unnatural (nonphysical) -- where everything is NOT composed of matter & energy and NOT within the confines of a space with NO time & NO laws of nature.
Free will, nature & consciousness ... are functions of the MIND of an Entity.
Animals & Man are NATURAL entities .... with a NATURAL mind (brain) and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness of the NATURAL existence.
But Man is the only known Intelligence in the Universe with the Mind of an Intelligence.
Chimps have a NATURAL body & mind ... and share 99% of Human DNA ... but a Chimp can never think or do 1% let alone 10% of what the body & mind of Man can do. Clearly the Mind of Man is more that a brain
Only an Intelligence ... makes abstract & physical Functions.
A Function ... is a system that processes inputs into outputs with clear PURPOSE form, design & properties which are Information that every Function possesses to exist & to function.
Information, law, mathematics, time are UNNATURAL or abstract constructs from the Mind of an Intelligence. This is why only an intelligence can make a Function.
An Intelligence makes Functions which possess information
And Intelligence extracts information from a Function.
Anything that is a Function can only be made by an intelligence.
And there is no evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function.
Everything in the Universe is a Function.
The Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System.
All thermodynamic Systems are Functions and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the matter, energy ... & ... space, time, laws ... & ... intelligence to exist & to function.
Man is a Natural Intelligence with a Mind .... made by ... an UNNATURAL Intelligence with a Mind.
The Mind of an Intelligence ... is UNNATURAL ( ie soul/spirit).
The Mind of Man ... is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
The Function & Intelligence Categories prove God created Man with a body & soul.
The Universe is a NATURAL System that was made in an UNNATURAL system, with unnatural laws & an unnatural Intelligence.
Again. There are only two realities/existence: Natural & Unnatural.
The Unnatural or Abstract ... is the domain of the Mind of an Intelligence ( soul/spirit).
You're chasing a Paradigm that requires getting out of the psychological consciousness loop as opposed to looking within. Your program is great, but the subject matter stays in a protected box that keeps looping and looping.
I agree this monetized vlog is the subject matter that stays in a closed loop so how can you say it is great when it circles from nothing of worth back to nothing of worth. Kuhn is certainly no 'Closer To The Truth' than he was when he created this vlog although his real truth, making money, is being satisfied by the uninformed needy & naïve.
No idea why this guy is even famous. What has he actually contributed to mankind's body of knowledge?
Nothing
Lol. He’s fun cmon
If you study philosophy then you’re very familiar with Chalmers’ work and numerous citations
@@kingap2201 I have a minor in analytic philosophy. The thing he’s most famous for is giving a philosophical question a catchy name: the “hard problem” of consciousness.
Are you new to philosophy?
Ah, so philosophers today are useless posers? Does Chalmers even exist or is he just a meme in someone's head? We'll never know, or will we? 🤣
Who are these clowns