Видео

While there are many different ways to base morality, basing moral obligation seems a lot harder. I would say for me I base it in God, but I'd be curious to hear an atheists take on it

@@DavidTShaw Yes, perhaps I was a bit careless in the deduction and could have stated the implied premise. I would have to disagree with your previous point. Several philosophers would argue that the decision is not wise at all because it is meaningless.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say the "apple in your mind." Do you mean the image or the idea? The problem with saying that the image or the idea is not real or that it does not capture an objective reality is that we have no other way of knowing what the objective reality is. So even talking about apples is pointless because we can't know what an apple is.

@@philosophyteacher3852 Well that's not quite true. You make it sound like anything besides perfect knowledge is pointless. I don't subscribe to absolute knowledge being obtainable, but let's play along. Suppose for a moment that we're living in a simulation, and the true nature of apples are just bits of code. We never gain the knowledge of this fact, but we somehow gain perfect knowledge of the apple in all other respects. Its sensory shape, taste and color, its atomic make-up within the simulation down to the very last particle. How all the laws of (simulated) physics interact with the apple. We can predict like clockwork every single interaction that could occur with the simulated apple. Would you still say even if we know *all* of that, with all the practical implications that accompany it, that it is "pointless" because we don't know the apple is simulated? That's absurd. Let's now get back to reality and assume we're not in a simulation. We'll even lower our standards for what counts as knowledge. You seem to forget that the assumption of an objective reality external to us, does not only bring the possibility that we incorrectly interpret said reality, it also brings the possibility that we are *correct* in our interpretation - afterall, we are part of that objective reality. We are living beings who have calibrated to it through natural selection for millions of years. So if I see an apple in front of me, that appears to be 10 cm wide, and when I close my eyes, I envision a 10 cm wide apple in my minds eye, is this apple the same as the same size as the one in objective reality? You will correctly point out I can't be certain. But uncertainty does not guarantee failure. It might be exactly 10.0 cm wide. Or it might be 10.1, or 10.2. I may be wrong, but *within reason* . I can be certain it isn't the size of the moon, given what I know about the laws of physics. How close our approximations get to the truth, matters. And how *reasonable* we were in arriving at that supposed "truth" matters even more than the truth itself. That's anything but pointless.

@@Google_Censored_Commenter When I say that I know what an apple is, I am talking about knowing that it is an apple. In other words, I am talking about knowing the essence of the apple. I do not mean to say that we perfectly know all the particular qualities and quantities of an apple. That seems to be impossible. So I agree with you in a sense. Our imperfect knowledge of an object is valuable. But just because our knowledge is imperfect does not mean that we do not have certainty with what we do know. I am certain that the red fruit in front of me is an apple.

*gen z tiktok addict intensifies*

Theology concerns reasoning from divinely revealed premises. Philosophy concerns reasoning from premises arrived at by natural reason. So, the channel is appropriately named.

This problem pervades most of philosophy. I would argue it is core to the idealism v.s. materialism debate.

@@evan7391 I agree.

Don't be mad that theologians are also unsurprisingly the best philosophers.

@@harlowcj okay I won't be mad, I will continue to point out presup cannot serve any rhetorical purpose and that they are just making arbitrary observations about the universe and looking for matches in their worldview. I say this all as a Christian. Also which presup is right, the reformed presup or the Orhodox presup or Darth Dawkins? I'm guessing you'll say reformed, even though you have no normative authority and cannot rationalize due to determinism.

The term is the link between the concept and the word. A word is an expression of a term. A term is a unit of meaning often found in propositions, and it is the public expression of the concept. The concept is known subjectively in the individual’s mind, but objectively when expressed in a term. It is the concept by which we know the actual object (chair). Furthermore, the definition of chair would not be based on the word, but rather on the term. So, the term would have extension, not the word (as you stated).

I would have to agree with you. The argument you are refuting is incredibly weak; however, that is not the argument I give in the video. I am not claiming that the perfect circle in our mind is a perception. In perception the physical object is presented to our mind. I am also not claiming that "any kind of mental picture" is a perfect concept. A mental picture is physical and therefore cannot be perfect or a concept. I am claiming that the concept by which we know objects is perfect. By 'perfect', I mean it is the ultimate standard by which we judge objects. My concept of a circle is that by which I know circular objects in the world. That concept must be immaterial or else it could not be the standard by which we know and judge all circular objects.

@@philosophyteacher3852 "That concept must be immaterial or else it could not be the standard by which we know and judge all circular objects." This just doesn't follow at all. You can train a finite, material computer to correctly classify circular objects just as well as a human and it doesn't need any access to anything immaterial to do that. Again, how would this even make sense with the understanding of our brain as a physical object following physical laws - how does this supposed immaterial substance influence the material substance of my brain to make me talk about circles?

The key word in the quotation is "know". To know something is to understand it. When you say, "…to correctly classify circular objects," that does not equal understanding. A human being first understands what a circle is, then imparts those parameters to the computer. Understanding something is a remarkable complex event involving a wide range of emotions, actions, and intellect. The computer is not capable of experiencing that event because it is not alive. So, if it does understand, it would have to do it on a much higher level than human beings since human beings learn by experiences in the world.

@philosophyteacher3852 There's a point I've made in both of my previous comments that you've ignored so far that I feel like I should underscore as the biggest issue here, which is how you square any of this with a physical understanding of the brain. Presumably you at least think the human brain is a physical thing following physical processes, right? This means that everything that the brain does follows from the laws of physics, all the way from the sensory stimuli being induced in your eyeballs up until the point that you wrote that comment about experiencing circles. It seems apparent to me that there is no room in this explanation for some immaterial substance to intervene in any way. Plato and Socrates had no knowledge of physics, so their thoughts seemed like something magical and immaterial to them. What's more, I think your claim that computers are incapable of "knowing" is extraordinary - after all, why should a perfect simulation of your brain not have all of the same experiences as the real thing? Do you believe it would be a philosophical zombie or something? Why?

The brain and the mind are two different things. That is why they are not the same word. The brain is the tool by which the mind understands. In understanding the mind comes to know some object by taking possession of its form (the concept). Think about the concept of a coconut, and a coconut itself. A coconut has size, weight, color, and it takes up space. If the mind was merely the physical brain, then the concept of the coconut would not fit in the mind. We also have concepts of buildings and planets. If these concepts were physical the brain could not contain them since the brain is too physically small. Does a person gain weight when they think of an apple or a tree? If the concepts are physical and contained in the brain then the person should gain weight when they think about these objects.

I am not arguing that a computer cannot simulate human beings. The main point that I am making is that human concepts are immaterial and computers are purely physical. Therefore any 'thinking' done by a computer will never be the same as human thinking. This involves knowing because concepts are that by which humans understand or apprehend an object. You say that AI "has a concept of a circle." Are you saying AI is capable of understanding objects?

​@@philosophyteacher3852 > The main point that I am making is that human concepts are immaterial and computers are purely physical. And my rebuttal to this is: Humans are also made up of entirely physical things. If the immaterial can arise from the material once (ie. Humans with human concepts), then it stands to reason that it could happen again (ie. computers). >Therefore any 'thinking' done by a computer will never be the same as human thinking. I don't see why not. I genuinely don't think humans and computers are *that* different. >You say that AI "has a concept of a circle." Are you saying AI is capable of understanding objects? To a certain extent, yes. They're capable of recognising objects. Even in images they've never seen before. They're also capable of creating new images of the thing based off a text description. Is a classifying AI (image recognition, etc.) and a generative AI (ChatGPT 4's image gen, Midjourney, etc.)'s concept of, say, a clock the same as a human's concept of a clock? Likely not. It probably classifies shapes in a different way than we do. It's by no means perfect. It doesn't have permanence, it even struggles with context in certain cases. We're not even close to AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) yet. And of course, currently, AI doesn't "think" like humans. Obviously not. Most generative AI is actually two pieces of software. The generator and the "tester". The generator generates images, which is then fed to the classifying, testing AI, which assigns it a score, adjusting the "weight" of each individual neuron in the generative AI's neural network. This goes on for many generations until you have something resembling, say, a clock. There's a bit of extra detail that I've glossed over with regards to modern image generation AI and diffusion models. It's not something that thinks yet, but we are getting closer and closer to solving these kinds of things. "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" problems is what these kinds of problems are known as in the Computer Science world, and is definitely something I'd recommend looking closer at.

@@SeralyneYT To say that AI is capable of understanding is an extraordinary claim. Human understanding is a remarkable process. Think about what it involves. First, the human being has to be alive. Then the human being must have experiences in the world. When the human being tries to understand something, like how to solve a math problem, there are frustrations, distractions, family member disturbances, hunger, sleepiness, just to name a few. And finally, after much trial and tribulation, there is understanding that is usually accompanied by a sense of fulfillment. Now the solution is in our mind and we can use our imagination to manipulate it as we wish. It is a part of us, but it wouldn't be if we didn't suffer through the hardships. Human understanding necessarily involves those experiences to a lesser or greater degree. The computer goes through none of that. If AI does not need to go through those experiences in order to understand then the argument for AI may be entering the theological realm. The theologians claim that angels understand without sense experiences since they don't have bodies. If AI understands in the same way it seems to have an angelic status.

Perhaps I could have been more clear in stating that the philosophers I mention are giving their answer to how particulars and universals exist in the world. Descartes and many others answer this problem by saying that we cannot know that both exist. Aristotle also answers this problem (which I should have made more explicit in the video). But it's important to keep in mind that Aristotle seeks to explain the reality in front of all of us. If he cannot give an explanation or a proof, he is not going to deny that they exist like the other philosophers. He basically says the following: We see particular things in the world. We have universal concepts in our mind of these particular things. The universal concepts are that by which we know the individual instances outside our mind (of the concepts). Therefore both the particular and the universal exist.

@@philosophyteacher3852 thanks for the clarification.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "template". It sounds like it is similar to how I am using the word "concept". If that's the case, a baby does not form concepts. Once the child grows and develops reasoning, then through numerous interactions with the world, the child develops a concept of something. The developing of the concept is called understanding, and it is not the concept that is understood, but some object. These concepts cannot be an accumulation of instances of sense experience. If that were the case then it does not explain how a human being understands a new object. The concept has to be immaterial because it is used to understand a potentially infinite amount of objects. This is the conclusion Plato reaches.

A Kantian would question the accuracy of self-perception. They accept the hyperbolic doubt of Descartes.

@@philosophyteacher3852 so you can't just say that we objectively perceive the object first and not the concept

@@Oaz_Oliver_proof A Kantian would not say that, but normal people assume that. Kantians do not believe that they know the objecit. They claim that they only know the concept. That leads to one of the great problems in modern philosophy, science, and academics. If what one knows first is the concept, then the truth lies only in your mind. Therefore, there is no outside objective standard that can test the idea in your mind. It can be hard to fathom how ingrained this idea is in our society today, but it is everywhere. If you read the average psychology book or listen to a random song you will notice that the measure of truth that is preached is always subjectively located in the mind. What this means is that there is no standard for truth, since two people can have contradictory views on the same point.

@@philosophyteacher3852 If an apple falls in a forest in china and no one was there to perceive it did it really fall?

@@philosophyteacher3852 “truth is subjective” is a truth claim (I am not trying to debate)

I have to admit I do not know much about the philosophy of Spinoza.

I would have to disagree with you about the objectiveness of color. The reality of the color that is seen is what is most known and makes all other investigations possible. The cognitive scientist must first say "Let's investigate the true nature of blue" before investigating the nature of blue. The error of some cognitive scientists and philosophers is that they assume the reality of a being in order to show that that reality is not real. Concerning color, investigation can show further realities into the nature of color. But that does not mean that the original color is not real. It has to be real or there is no reference point of the investigation. The further discoveries only mean that the nature of blue is perhaps more complex than originally thought.

@@philosophyteacher3852 flying elephants do not exist, right? what happens if you analogously substitute color with flying elephants? just because we can treat it as an existent thing for our starting point of reference does not make them exist. i am studying my own hypothesis that colors are kind of like an optical illusion but "even less existent" since some kinds of optical illusions may have a perceiver-independent arete but color does not

@@hordewithbenoni9520 The difference between flying elephants and the color blue is that the color blue exists outside your mind. The flying elephants do exist, but only in your mind. So it would be incorrect to say they have no level of reality. Thomas Aquinas calls them beings of reason.

@@philosophyteacher3852 we dont know if the color blue exists outside of our mind.

@@hordewithbenoni9520 I am looking at a computer screen with blue buttons right now. So, I can verify that the color blue exists outside my mind. Even if the color blue is composed of other elements and has a deeper nature, it does not negate the fact there is a color blue. I don't accept the philosophy that says I can't trust my sense experience. If I can't trust my sense experience then I would be wholly dependent on some authority (scientist, philosopher, witch doctor, etc.) to tell me the reality of things that I clearly know.

I wouldn't say that Augustine thought that children had an absolute free will since he is aware that children choose among limited goods. For example, a child has a choice between two goods: pizza and ice cream. The child needs food in order to survive, and the child maybe desires the flavor of chocolate over cheese. In that sense, the child is determined by the limited goods, but since the goods are limited the child can make the choice among the limited goods. If the goods were absolutely good then there would be no free choice concerning these goods. Children and adults do not have an absolute free will but a moderately determined free will.

Furthermore, a parent can predict the choices children make because any parent knows that a child needs to survive and is hungry. So, any parent can conclude that a child will choose to eat food. Good parents know the good and bad habits of their children as well. So good parents can more accurately predict the choices of their children based on knowing their good and bad habits.

@@philosophyteacher3852 what is the best definition for free will? i think what separates all living things from non living things is motive, and i think what separates all sentient living things from non sentient living things is free will...so i think all sentient animals have free will like humans but i think it so appears that humans have more free will than animal because humans replaced their instincts with ideas because humans left records behind for future humans to build systematic codes out of. nietzsche says to be noble is to respect and take note of our ancestors and their "creativity"

@@hordewithbenoni9520 I agree with Aristotle on these matters. A free will requires reason because it involves choosing. And a genuine choice involves choosing among limited goods. Reason is necessary because we deliberate when we choose among limited goods. When I say reason, I mean a calculation only humans do.

@@hordewithbenoni9520So, I would agree that what separates living from non living is motive, but that also separates humans from other sentient beings because motive requires reason.

Wheather the culture argues about the existence of climate change doesn’t change the truthfulness or falsity of anything said. The definition of climate change isn’t even solid so the entire debate is constantly changing depending on the usefulness of that sort of debate for certain types of people. Weather the culture agrees or disagrees doesn’t change the facts of the matter. If you think so then you’ll have to state what facts you hold true and go from there.

Nietzsche might disagree with Hitler's holocaust, but the problem with his philosophy is that it would condone or even promote such viewpoints.

@@philosophyteacher3852 So the holocaust could have prompted nietzsche to rewrite these elements of his philosophy if he lived to see it?

@@philosophyteacher3852 also, nietzsche was a specialist of classical greek philosophy and at his time understood the german (and I think english?) language better than anyone else in the world. isn't it then weird that he holds a mixture of the views of thrasymachus and polemarchus definitions on justice?? socrates' criticisms against them are so basic and compelling at the same time. also socrates is someone who is hard to disagree with because his work was less about postulating things and more about tearing down what others have postulated

@@hordewithbenoni9520 It is helpful to understand what type of people we are dealing with here. Modern philosophers like Nietzsche reject common sense arguments because they reject sense experience. They despise the common sense of normal people.

@@philosophyteacher3852 and?

I think Plato would eventually have accepted Aristotle's critique of his philosophy. Therefore, I think Plato would not have agreed with the modern philosophers.

The proof for the immortality of the soul given by Plato is extremely difficult to refute. As Mortimer Adler points out, the mind verifiably does an immaterial act. If the fundamental act of the mind (forming concepts) is immaterial, then the conclusion that the soul (mind) is immortal is not too far behind.

@@philosophyteacher3852 Oh please its so "I'm 13 and this is deep". Its nonsense. 1. Things come from their opposite. Nope. 2. You sleep then you awake then you sleep, therefore you are born then die then must be born again. 3. People die but souls and bodies are different. 4. Therefore immoral soul. Its childish and stupid on the face of it.

Correct ​@@philosophyteacher3852

That concept only exists in your mind. So, it is still a level of reality, but only the reality that exists in the human mind. Thomas Aquinas would call it a being of reason. The mistake most often made among the mathematical philosophers is to think that a being of reason must exist outside the mind.

​​@@philosophyteacher3852 Thanks! I would think my concept of an apple is of the same nature. My conception is not equivalent to an actual apple. I just have a picture of apples in my mind. But real apples are a cloud of protons, electrons, and other quantum particles. The only difference between my conception of an apple and my conception of a werewolf octopus hybrid is that the apple conception is a closer approximation of something we accept exists in reality.

@@kensey007 I'm impressed by your thought on this issue. If you are interested, here is an explanation concerning the points you made: Imagine a biology teacher introducing a cell to students without first telling the students where the cell came from. The cell parts would make no sense to the students. We first need to know where the cell comes from before we can fully understand the parts of the cell. It is similar with the apple and protons, electrons, and other particles. The particles do not make sense without first knowing the substance, in this case the apple. In that sense, the apple is the reality most known to us, because it is what we encounter first. We know it firsthand and do not need to rely on the authority of secondhand sources (i.e., microscope, scientists, photos, etc.). If we don't know the apple with any certainty, then the particles can only be known with less certainty. But I do know the apple I am eating with certainty because I trust my sense experience. On a personal level, this approach always appealed to me since I was always skeptical of authority.

I agree that Hobbe's doctrine is self-defeating. It is also self-defeating when it comes to peace. If to war with other people is our essential nature, then why would it be wrong to act out our true nature? It seems that it wouldn't be.

Yeah when you ignore the need for objectivity

@@nova8091 It's philosophical masturbation.

Yes, it seems that the statement could be put in that form. The guiding rule is that it must keep the intention of the original statement.

I don't understand how that law is a problem.

@@philosophyteacher3852 Exactly, different premises lead to different results. Peace

@@jamessheffield4173 But how does that show that the law of non-contradiction is false?

@@philosophyteacher3852 I was saying you can't have all three being correct according to that law.

@@jamessheffield4173 Yes, I agree. In there core doctrines they contradict each other.

Marx uses the idea of the dialectic from the philosopher Hegel. For Hegel it is part of an explanation of how ideas evolve throughout history. The dialectic involves a sort of clash between opposite ideas that ultimately produces the new (evolved) idea. Marx believes that ideas are soley based in the material reality because he is a materialist. So, he shifts the dialectic from ideas to matter. The unfolding of history still involes a clash between opposites, but instead of a clash of ideas as Hegel believed, Marx claims the real clash is between physical things. So, the unfolding of clashes between material opposites throughout history is the dialectic materialism.

At some point in life, you recognize and contemplate your own being. As far as I can tell this probably happened at a very young age. The concept is immaterial and cannot be seen, but it has to exist because we know ourselves and other individuals as they exist themselves. Recognizing the individual self and other individuals themselves can only take place if we have the concpet of what it is to be a self. If we did not have this concept then we would not be able to have a category of "self."

@@philosophyteacher3852 yes foundationalism and especially strong foundationalism with Cogito as you mentioned have been heavily criticized as you well know. Or are you making more of transcendental argumentation for the existence of the self?

I may have taken your initial question the wrong way. As far as the existence of the self, it is immediately self-evident. It doesn't need to be proven like the conclusions reached in mathematics or any other science. Everybody initially accepts the reality of their own individual existence; It is usually through reading some philosopher that one even thinks about denying it. Once someone denies that they know substances immediately by sense experience, I don't think the "self", or any other piece of knowledge, can be proven.

@@philosophyteacher3852 Both of the justifications that you gave are fallacies. The "self" is a metaphysical claim that needs to be justified. In order to observe the world and start to "know" things first you have to establish the "self" which is an immaterial abstract invariant object. You cannot see a "self" in nature.

@@e.omonarchy8506 It seems that all claims have a metaphysical dimension. If I claim "The apple is red," then there is a metaphysical element. "Red" is an abstract category. "Apple" also is an abstracted (metaphysical) category. That does not mean that someone has to prove by argumentation that the apple is red. The ultimate "proof" for that claim would be to show someone the apple. This is why I mentioned the rejection of the reliability of sense experience. I don't accept the hyperbolic doubt of Descartes. I, personally, know that I myself exist as a living, conscious, aware, human being. I do not need to prove that. It seems to me that the problem is not what can we know, but that there is too much to know.

We don't know the concept before the experience. Concepts are formed by sense experience. When we first see an object, we do not know what it is. After seeing the object many times and learning its function, then the concept is formed. The concept is that by which we know indvidually existing things, like an apple. We apply the concept of an apple to a potentially infinite amount of actual apples. That is also why the concept must be immaterial.

@@philosophyteacher3852 I agree, thanks for the follow up. Do you feel that the second we see an apple the concept starts to form and each experience we have with what we deem "apple" it better forms that concept, or even changes that concept over time? To me I dont see a problem with the one and the many, its just how we equate a thought with what is real

At first the concept that we have of some unknown object is not clear. That is why we ask "What is it?" Just think of a time where you saw a different type of fruit for the first time. Then, the concept becomes more clear the more we find out about the object. The ultimate intellectual knowledge we can have about an object is when we know the essential definition of the object. This is what Socrates was searching for. So, I think you are correct in what you say. This is basic epistemology that explains how human beings know, and it affirms that human beings do know. It is contrary to the popular skepticism of modern times.

@@philosophyteacher3852 Ok that makes sense, thanks lol. Im not well learned in this, so that helped a bunch tyty

Yes, it is a way of grouping things, but someone can have a concept even if the individual things do not fully exist in reality. For example, someone can have a concept of a purple dragon even if they do not exist outside of the mind. The concept is still real, but its reality is limited to existing only in the mind. This is what Thomas Aquinas would call an ens rationis, that is, a being of reason. But keep in mind that the concept is not seen because it is immaterial. The purple dragon that pops up in your mind is an image. The concept is the principle that categorizes those images into purple dragons.