I was actually talking with some fellow violinists during our juries about assuming external world skepticism to reduce performance anxiety, and I must say it works. It's not the most out there thing in terms of anxiety management, and it allows you to periodically believe that you're incapable of playing a wrong note. Very helpful. :)
Wow. That last part, about being more effective when assuming that it's just a dream, it's such a powerful idea. It's almost scary. Because saying that "it works" is a very strong, robust argument for a default view. Without that, it's just weightless, arbitrary convention.
Matter implies Mind, and Mind implies matter. You have access to your mind, and your body. In order to socialize you have to accept that others have minds to themselves. No absolute positions can be endorsed due to duality of nature. The set and its subjects and objects. Nothing and something compose a set of relations. The information problem is what to do with unknowns and unknowable things.
Interesting take on the distinction between functiom and structure. It's true that structure is important for function, but the fact that many structures can complete the same function may be at the heart of the problem of the one and the many. So the question then becomes, which do we care about, function or structure?
@@KaneB you didn't specifically, but I think its relevant. I'm thinking of the piece where you're talking about your hands, and that the function they serve is more important to you than their ontological make up (or structure). There is imperic back up for this, the rubber hand experiment demonstrates our brain seems to care more about function than the ontological make up
12:35 You conclude that "I still have hands", but isn't the "I" also under scrutiny here for its being real? May not an illusory "I" have an illusory hand? Then what is "having"? Does anything have your "I"? Or anyone/anything else have your hand against your I's understanding or perception? (because the "I" is illusory) Yes, I realize I am not making things easier.
Yeah, although I was bracketing the topic for the purposes of this video, I think the case for skepticism of the self is just as strong as the case for external world skepticism. And I think that skepticism of the self can similarly play a useful role in reducing anxiety in certain contexts.
Hey, can you recommend me some beginner to intermediate level philosophy books? I have read some philosophy books from plato, albert camus. Some dostoevsky and kafka. But nothing too extreme. Can you make a video about or something pls? Thank you :).
Insert "they don't know" meme here. Listening to an Anglo talking about how skepticism might actually just be supportive of his social anxiety. What a way to start the weekend! Question: What do you think of Michel de Montaigne?
@@KaneB Anyways, the Skeptics are a big influence on Hume, about whom you do know. Not judging or anything, I was just asking what the opinion you had of him was.
So would this extend to mental phenomena as well? Could we also say that "mental images" are "real" despite them (probably) simply being manifestations of some sort of computational representation?
Hello, Kane! Have you considered publishing this in a professional philosophy journal or magazine and open it for discussion? I think this could be deserving
@Dharma Defender It's not so much the writing that frustrates me, but constant rejections and "revise & resubmit" with no guarantee that it will be accepted on resubmission. I always enjoyed writing essays during my courses, but academic publishing takes all the fun out of it.
I think other than MIAV or contemporary physics subversion of common sense material realism there is a simpler way to show the limitations of this view, maybe it's what you have called interactionism. When you say things like this or that (say chairs) exist in the real (mind independent) material world, don't you think that the concept of chair-as having a function of sitting, or having fuzzy boundaries in both prototype or necesary feature understanding of a chair, is enough to rule out the possibility of a chair being a mind-independent reality? I think even a "thing" is a very complex idea that can not exist materially independently of minds.
Yes, and in fact this is pretty much my actual view -- I explain it at some length in this video: ruclips.net/video/arDbrM27s4s/видео.html But this kind of constructivism is pretty controversial, and defending it would have taken the video on a big tangent!
Yes. You're not currently aware of the vast majority of your beliefs. For example, presumably you have beliefs about the capital cities of various countries, but you'll only become aware of these beliefs when you're asked the right question about geography. When you're in a dreamless sleep, you're not aware of any of your beliefs. Beliefs are dispositional.
No. I do have a video on Kantian constructivism coming soon. Then after that, I'll probably do one on Humean constructivism. I've started writing the Frege-Geach video but honestly... I hate pretty much all the literature on this. It's probably my least favourite aspect of contemporary metaethics. The debate about it seems like a waste of time to me. So it's hard to get the motivation to finish the video.
@@HudBug Kantian constructivism as a position in metaethics. I won't be talking about Kant, who I don't much care about, but rather the contemporary Kantians like Christine Korsgaard.
@@InventiveHarvest skepticism could be framed as a method to avoid false beliefs. Solipsism is a result of not caring about holding true beliefs, and only avoiding false ones. If we allow some measure of false beliefs for utilitarian purposes, we can disregard solipsism while still holding on to trying to avoid false beliefs generally.
There is no "common sense hypothesis". Because it is NOT a hypothesis. There is not some space of hypotheses you discover and where one of the hypotheses corresponds to the actuality. The space of hypotheses is made up by your mind and is already restricted to the limits of actuality. Common sense is to ignore all this nonsense or to at least admit that NONE of your hypotheses can correspond to actuality. Actual reality cannnot ever be fully understood or described by a hypothesis. Every failed philosophical argument and thought experiment is further evidence for that.
You don't think that "there is an external world consisting of material objects that cause many of our sensory perceptions (etc.)" is a hypothesis? Well, okay. Call it what you want. "Position", "view", "idea", whatever. I don't think much of importance turns on what we call it.
@@KaneB I don't think common sense ever considers "internal" vs "external world" in the cartesian sense. I think there is a distinction of acting upon something and being the one acted upon. I think describing things in terms of what we do and what happens to us is much more common sensical, than some immutable (eternal) ontological categories and platonistic conceptions of being. Common sense comes to what can we do, can we repeat that, etc. - as something much more fundamental than the philosophical "what is". Generation of hypotheses is picking some variables and then ranging the space made out of those variables. In this case, your variables are substances like mind, matter or something. So you have monist hypotheses, dualist hypotheses and whatever else based on which variables you range over. But these are then only ficticious worlds created so you can analyze them in a thought experiment. I also think, the concept of the world is only for thought experiments and doesn't make sense as anything else. What we actually live in is what allows for all these thoughts and what also made them very unfruitful as anything else but mind games so far.
I was actually talking with some fellow violinists during our juries about assuming external world skepticism to reduce performance anxiety, and I must say it works. It's not the most out there thing in terms of anxiety management, and it allows you to periodically believe that you're incapable of playing a wrong note. Very helpful. :)
Lol. I've actually tried that! (Harpist here). It failed miserably for me. Oh God! Juries!! *Shudder*
15:48
I would be interested in a video on how you could respond to solipsism with Donald Davidsonian approach
25:13 Summarized my approach to social media.
Wow. That last part, about being more effective when assuming that it's just a dream, it's such a powerful idea. It's almost scary. Because saying that "it works" is a very strong, robust argument for a default view. Without that, it's just weightless, arbitrary convention.
Matter implies Mind, and Mind implies matter.
You have access to your mind, and your body.
In order to socialize you have to accept that others have minds to themselves.
No absolute positions can be endorsed due to duality of nature.
The set and its subjects and objects. Nothing and something compose a set of relations.
The information problem is what to do with unknowns and unknowable things.
Interesting take on the distinction between functiom and structure. It's true that structure is important for function, but the fact that many structures can complete the same function may be at the heart of the problem of the one and the many.
So the question then becomes, which do we care about, function or structure?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I honestly don't recall talking about the distinction between function and structure in this video lol
@@KaneB you didn't specifically, but I think its relevant. I'm thinking of the piece where you're talking about your hands, and that the function they serve is more important to you than their ontological make up (or structure).
There is imperic back up for this, the rubber hand experiment demonstrates our brain seems to care more about function than the ontological make up
7:12 "So what is the point of this?" This theme is consistent in your videos. The question is a vague notion of philosophy itself.
Yeah, I don't usually have any particular conclusion in mind when I do videos like this. It's more about exploring ideas.
The external world can never be known with perfect knowledge. (Objects)
The internal world can never be fully understood. (Subjects) Mirrors n mirrors
Some interesting points here
I blinked into existence to write this comment: Want to debate moral realism with me? I would take up the realist case (and give it my best shot).
Sure. Send me an email and we can organize something.
12:35 You conclude that "I still have hands", but isn't the "I" also under scrutiny here for its being real? May not an illusory "I" have an illusory hand?
Then what is "having"? Does anything have your "I"? Or anyone/anything else have your hand against your I's understanding or perception? (because the "I" is illusory) Yes, I realize I am not making things easier.
Yeah, although I was bracketing the topic for the purposes of this video, I think the case for skepticism of the self is just as strong as the case for external world skepticism. And I think that skepticism of the self can similarly play a useful role in reducing anxiety in certain contexts.
Hey, can you recommend me some beginner to intermediate level philosophy books? I have read some philosophy books from plato, albert camus. Some dostoevsky and kafka. But nothing too extreme. Can you make a video about or something pls? Thank you :).
Hopefully not drudging up anything negative, but just curious what your professional plans are now that you're basically done with the PhD?
I'm fucked lol
@@KaneB sorry to hear man. I hope something shakes out. You definitely deserve it and you'd be an awesome educator
Insert "they don't know" meme here.
Listening to an Anglo talking about how skepticism might actually just be supportive of his social anxiety. What a way to start the weekend!
Question: What do you think of Michel de Montaigne?
Never read him.
@@KaneB One of the most important Pyrrhonists, especially after antiquity.
@@anothername5272 I don't really know anything about philosophy outside the analytic tradition and its later developments.
@@KaneB Anyways, the Skeptics are a big influence on Hume, about whom you do know.
Not judging or anything, I was just asking what the opinion you had of him was.
@@anothername5272 Oh yeah, Hume is the big exception to that statement!
very detailed,
keep it up Kane
So would this extend to mental phenomena as well?
Could we also say that "mental images" are "real" despite them (probably) simply being manifestations of some sort of computational representation?
Do you mean like when I imagine something -- e.g. when I imagine a unicorn? So we're collapsing the distinction between imagination and reality?
Hello, Kane! Have you considered publishing this in a professional philosophy journal or magazine and open it for discussion? I think this could be deserving
Trying to publish in professional philosophy journals is the most miserable thing in the world.
@Dharma Defender It's not so much the writing that frustrates me, but constant rejections and "revise & resubmit" with no guarantee that it will be accepted on resubmission. I always enjoyed writing essays during my courses, but academic publishing takes all the fun out of it.
I think other than MIAV or contemporary physics subversion of common sense material realism there is a simpler way to show the limitations of this view, maybe it's what you have called interactionism.
When you say things like this or that (say chairs) exist in the real (mind independent) material world, don't you think that the concept of chair-as having a function of sitting, or having fuzzy boundaries in both prototype or necesary feature understanding of a chair, is enough to rule out the possibility of a chair being a mind-independent reality? I think even a "thing" is a very complex idea that can not exist materially independently of minds.
Yes, and in fact this is pretty much my actual view -- I explain it at some length in this video: ruclips.net/video/arDbrM27s4s/видео.html
But this kind of constructivism is pretty controversial, and defending it would have taken the video on a big tangent!
Speaking of beliefs, do you think we can have beliefs without being aware of these beliefs?
Yes. You're not currently aware of the vast majority of your beliefs. For example, presumably you have beliefs about the capital cities of various countries, but you'll only become aware of these beliefs when you're asked the right question about geography. When you're in a dreamless sleep, you're not aware of any of your beliefs. Beliefs are dispositional.
Is your Frege-Geach video coming soon?
No. I do have a video on Kantian constructivism coming soon. Then after that, I'll probably do one on Humean constructivism.
I've started writing the Frege-Geach video but honestly... I hate pretty much all the literature on this. It's probably my least favourite aspect of contemporary metaethics. The debate about it seems like a waste of time to me. So it's hard to get the motivation to finish the video.
@@KaneB kantian Constructivism? Like the way in which his ethics are interpreted, or his metaphysics?
@@HudBug Kantian constructivism as a position in metaethics. I won't be talking about Kant, who I don't much care about, but rather the contemporary Kantians like Christine Korsgaard.
1:23
Some people say you can't hold any beliefs if other minds don't exist because words don't have meanings then
That sounds like a serious problem for their theory of meaning.
@@KaneB
I thought of this as a commonly held entailment of the private language argument
@@justus4684 Yeah, it is. I'm just bantering.
@@KaneB
How do you know that?
Just kidding 😂
Some people say you can hold beliefs even if words don't have meanings.
Double YES
The more I learn about philosophy, the more it seems like an eternal 'what the fuck?' moment
Philosophy is dead
Bruh...
Why?
And yet interestingly, still as sexy as ever.
What do you mean?
24:37
I want this video
ruclips.net/video/jHnx7ddV3fA/видео.html
It sounds like you are describing solipsism not skepticism
Solipsism is a skeptical hypothesis.
@@KaneB well then i am very skeptical about skepticism.
@@InventiveHarvest skepticism could be framed as a method to avoid false beliefs. Solipsism is a result of not caring about holding true beliefs, and only avoiding false ones.
If we allow some measure of false beliefs for utilitarian purposes, we can disregard solipsism while still holding on to trying to avoid false beliefs generally.
@Dharma Defenderwhat?
There is no "common sense hypothesis". Because it is NOT a hypothesis. There is not some space of hypotheses you discover and where one of the hypotheses corresponds to the actuality. The space of hypotheses is made up by your mind and is already restricted to the limits of actuality. Common sense is to ignore all this nonsense or to at least admit that NONE of your hypotheses can correspond to actuality. Actual reality cannnot ever be fully understood or described by a hypothesis. Every failed philosophical argument and thought experiment is further evidence for that.
You don't think that "there is an external world consisting of material objects that cause many of our sensory perceptions (etc.)" is a hypothesis? Well, okay. Call it what you want. "Position", "view", "idea", whatever. I don't think much of importance turns on what we call it.
@Dharma Defender That no hypothesis can correspond to reality was my point.
@@KaneB I don't think common sense ever considers "internal" vs "external world" in the cartesian sense. I think there is a distinction of acting upon something and being the one acted upon. I think describing things in terms of what we do and what happens to us is much more common sensical, than some immutable (eternal) ontological categories and platonistic conceptions of being. Common sense comes to what can we do, can we repeat that, etc. - as something much more fundamental than the philosophical "what is".
Generation of hypotheses is picking some variables and then ranging the space made out of those variables. In this case, your variables are substances like mind, matter or something. So you have monist hypotheses, dualist hypotheses and whatever else based on which variables you range over. But these are then only ficticious worlds created so you can analyze them in a thought experiment. I also think, the concept of the world is only for thought experiments and doesn't make sense as anything else. What we actually live in is what allows for all these thoughts and what also made them very unfruitful as anything else but mind games so far.