As a philosophy major, I am SO GLAD you guys have decided to do a crash course with philosophy. I am studying this stuff but it helps a lot with these videos. So glad we have Hank doing it too! Thank you!
what I love about this crash course is that it's helping us to explain stuff that is mostly common knowledge and at the same time making you ruminate more on the topics at hand
Berkeley's argument actually reminds me of when I first started writing Java. I was following tutorials, and created a bicycle. It contained variables like cadence, weight, arguably innate qualities, but all I could do was output these qualities onto a screen. I couldn't *see* the bike, so how on Earth could it exist?
Wow..... I am an atheist. And that is one of the MOST convincing arguments for god I have ever heard. I am not being sarcastic. From a rationalists perspective that is airtight or damn near at least. I am shocked and impressed. It's logical, and solid, but it's just too small an argument for the existence of god. But I am going to have to think about this a lot.
It does seem to be a good argument. I like to mix western and eastern philosophy a lot and this particular question makes me think of Buddhism. In this explanation of empiricism, the usually sense organs were describes: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. In Buddhism, the mind is another sense organ, with thought being the sense object of the mind. I do think it is easily arguable that thought is a form of perception, as our thoughts are generally subjective experience in the same way that sight, sound, etc are. So, in this sense, I think it can be said that we don't disappear because we are self-perceived. Even when we're asleep, our mind is still going, providing some amount of information or reiterating information we've received throughout the day in the form of dreams. We are self-perceived by our conceptions of ourselves through our additional sense organ: our minds.
It is indeed a pretty amazing and elegant argument, but the problem is it only works if we are certain that there can only be perceptions and percievers and no matter in the world. That seems hard to prove.
I m theist agnotic because there are so many theory both support and go agaisnt the existence of god, bu i hope the higher being exist as it make me less afaid of dead.
@@s.toctopusn248 let me tell you what helped me be less scared of death as an atheist, I thought about how boring heaven must be if you have done everything in heaven multiple times, if there is nothing after death why would that be scary it shouldn't be because you "experience" nothing(no boredom, no happiness, no sadness etc) it's just like before you were born.
I hope crash course reads this! (I am so thankful for your educational videos / slight addiction, due to being dyslexic I learn visually and this is the only platform I can learn and take it in) thank you 🙏🏻
I think Berkeley deserves more credit. I scoffed at the "tree falls in a forest" arguments along with most other people, but many of the principles of quantum physics, and even a couple of aspects of relativity, were foreshadowed by Berkeley's insights. Many scientists, including Einstein, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the principles of quantum physics by repeated and irrefutable experimental results. Berkeley came up with many of the same principles with only the guidance of careful philosophical reasoning. That's an amazing achievement. I'm not saying that Berkeley is right about everything, or that he calculated every aspect of QM. I'm saying give credit where it's due, and give a second look to the arguments which led to such an achievement. He had a point: we don't measure in the purest sense, we can only perceive. That puts some fundamental limits on our measurements. It makes sense, therefore, that as we get better and better at measuring things, we will inevitably hit those limits. Definitions will break down, and the role of the observer and our perceptions will become increasingly important. That doesn't stop scientific progress, of course, but it does help describe some of the limits that we'll keep hitting. Not bad for a guy with little more than his own thoughts to guide him. Not bad at all.
+William Dye Appealing to quantum physics is just ad hoc reasoning. A tree is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A tree is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics.
While it's easy to abuse QM principles, I think that the connection to Berkeley is quite valid. Are you familiar with Schrödinger's cat? Re-read your counter-argument, substituting the word "tree" with the word "cat". It then reads: "A *cat* is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A *cat* is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics." Again, I acknowledge that it's easy to abuse QM principles, but I don't think that we can dismiss the connection to Berkeley. The experimental results are consistent: QM is a fundamental part of how the universe works. That includes cats in boxes, trees in forests, and our own minds trying to make sense of it all.
'If a tree falls in a forest' is a philosophical thought experiment about observation and reality. The cat in Schrödinger's example is secondary since the example has radioactive matter which sets off the poison gas if decay happens. The cat is only there to show that the randomness can have real life consequences. The quantum phenomena is transferred to our physical level through the poison and the cat.
+William Dye A cat actually is a bad analogue for a particle. The real problem with Schrödinger's cat is that both the cat and the Geiger counter would act as observer's. Quantum objects behave as quantum objects, and non-quantum behave as non-quantum objects.
+Calum This is a good discussion, constrained to a bad forum. :-) I don't think that our time is well-spent interacting though RUclips comments, so I'll try to be brief. My original point is that Berkeley should not be dismissed lightly, and by extension, neither should philosophical debates. Physics equations break down when underlying assumptions are changed, and the debate about Platonic ideals teaches us that this limitation is inherent. Long and expensive debates turn out to be a matter of differing basic assumptions, and "I think therefore I am" teaches us that we will always have unproven assumptions. We still can't experimentally settle if we're in a many-worlds universe, or if we are all just Boltzmann brains, and Berkeley teaches us that such failures are rooted in deep vagaries about what constitutes an observation. I've seen very intelligent people use the term "philosophical argument" as a synonym for "waste of time", and that's the assumption I'm challenging. Even when philosophy doesn't give us answers, it can be of practical value to scientific inquiry, because the difficultly of the unanswered question often indicates a fundamental problem that cannot be easily settled through experiment. Whenever you find yourself in such a situation, I expect that you'll do well to spend more time spelling out your assumptions carefully, and double-check your experiment for anything that is difficult to define. That strategy won't settle any ancient philosophical debates, but it might help you avoid them.
+CrashCourse Hey Nicole, or Crash Course, or whoever sees this; do you reckon we'll ever see the return of John and World History? Or just John in general? Don't get me wrong I love all these series, but I must confess that John, and World History will forever be my favourite. I discovered Crash Course whilst revising for my Egyptology college course, and through that discovered Vlogbrothers etc, etc. So it would be nice just to see his return. Your content rocks by the way!
this is awesome have gotten the point between the two ,the most points to remember is that rationalism beliefs on deduction ,innate ideas and reason while empiricism beliefs on induction ,sense experience and evidence ,no innate ideas .this is so good
We aren't born as a blank slate. One of the core ideas of an evolutionary psychology class I had taken was to reject Locke's Tabula Rosa. We have biological underpinnings that determine how we act.
Mj Black I've best heard it described as a coloring book. There are lines filled in to color as you wish. You could ignore them and draw other things, but generally people won't.
We do have some limited instincts, and minor differences in temperament. But that was not what Locke was getting at. Instinct and temperament are not knowledge. To understand what he meant, you must compare it to the school of thought he was countering.
How do you know we have biological underpinnings? What you describe is an assumption or hearsay. With that said, there is the fact that Locke lived in a time in which this knowledge just didn't exist. Still, it may be dangerous to reject the Tabula Rasa completely. We don't know with which knowledge we start our lifes. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that there was knowledge preceding experiences. Among them are space, ttime and causality. Howevever, modern physics imply that we were wrong about the nature of these very things. Furthermore, cognitive science has shown that understanding these concepts, especially causality, is a learned skill. Thus, we are back at square one: what are those ideas we are born with?
The fact that there are primary and secondary characteristics and that we disagree about the secondary characteristics doesn't mean that there are no objects in reality, what it means is that there is something real and physical and objective that is responsible for the secondary characteristics that we disagree about how to interpret. There is a pigment that is making the apple red. Some people are more sensitive to certain colors than others because they have more of a certain cone or less, but there is a real pigment that is causing us to perceive the apple as being red. There is real sugar in the Apple our tongues perceived as being sweet or rather our minds perceive as being sweet based on incoming data from the tongue. Some people are more sensitive to sugar some people are less sensitive to sugar, and I imagine some people might not be able to taste sugar at all hypothetically, but sugar is a real thing sugar is what makes something sweet. There are real causes for these secondary phenomenon.
Acthon 39Times like this when I think how wonderful and important crash course philosphy is...And how much more wonderful it'll be when we eventually get to the topic of the meaning of life
This is proably the most helpful philosophy video I ever saw! I´m german so I thought it would be kinda hard to understand such a subject in english but I had no issues while watching :) Thank you!
+Vaibhav Gupta I hope it was a better apple than the one Hank was eating. Red "Delicious" . . . should be called Damp Moldy Cardboard. I know it's an iconic cultivar, it's just such a bad exemplar of what a good tasting apple is. A dozen varieties available in a typical grocery store and they gave him a Red "Delicious."
Well then, I asked for a single night of undisturbed sleep, without existentialism, and what do I get? Existentialism (and a craving for an apple). Reminder to self: don't try to get educated in things involving the mind; you will only be on the path to more crazies.
Remember that you don't have to explicitly follow empiricism. You can also follow strict rationality where primary and secondary qualities are both objective. We would know, through equilibrium theory what an apple's texture and color and form if we look hard enough. Our subjectiveness adheres not to something universially nonexistent but rather to something that's actually in nature objective.
existentialism merely is the oversimplification of existence and the abolition of metaphysics and logic imo. For in the end there is only chaos and flux and the only thing that is real is your will, the power of your will will determine your path in this life. but in the end, nothing has a reason because its all accidental. our lives have no greater purpose or meaning. there is no reason to have morality, there is no room for true objectivity. only what is experienced is true. but no purpose in our lives ultimately leads us to the idea that nothingness awaits us after our short lives have ended. its truly a wonderful 'philosophy'
it IS amazing that with some pictures and a bunch of nerds in a room even I, "just some dude" can understand the essence of what was cutting edge thought at the time. Within 10 minutes. Obviously, there's details, but the message is clear.
I'm makiing a new simple primary quality. This is that anything that has other primary qualities then has secondary qualities despite if someone disagrees what they are, they do exist. This is a good way to null the whole argument that not seeing the secondary qualities means it doesn't exist.
I think from a psychological stand point, Locke was on to something. Objects do have objective qualities (though texture and color SHOULD also be part of those objective traits) but objects can also have subjective qualities that are imparted by a person based on their experience with the object. For example we hold a normally useless trinket of more value if they where gifts from a lover, the smell of mint makes us cringe because it reminds us of that terrible time at the dentists office, and so on.
I watching this with Wikipedia in another tab for further information, and it's interesting to note that - the English page for Berkeley writes his motto as "Esse est percipi" : to be is to be perceived, - whereas the French page (my language) writes "Esse est percipi aut percipere" : to be is to be perceived or to perceive, which is quite different !
"You cannot remove an object of it's secondary attributes without removing the object, so therefor I'm going to trust in something with neither primary nor secondary attributes" Fair enough I guess lol
I love philosophy. First week of Acting class, everyone was wondering if they were real, and asking people out of the class about Plato's theory and life. It was hilarious. It's so cool
7:21 this reminds me of something i learned at the mosque ; ''beautiful things on this world are to have an idea of heaven because Allah made us without such capacity.'' ( this is not a quote from the quran but the explanation of my teacher from a part of the quran.) Our brains don't have the capacity to imagine things that are not based on things we have already seen. For example unicorns are based on horses and horns. This is to give us motivation to stay on Allah's path and go to heaven. This just something i found interesting.
Love this series! So fascinating! I have a question though - everything we can sense is not real but simply a perception, why would there be shared perception? If the apple isn't real, why does it weigh 150 grams, no matter who measures it? If our minds were just creating this scenario around us, wouldn't it populate the scenario with what we want to see? Did Berkley address this?
+Kate Parker I feel like scientific thinking and the scientific method have solved a lot of old philosophical dilemmas which were based on faulty thinking or pure rational thought removed from falsifiable evidence.
+edheldude Sure! Plus it really doesn't seem like it matters whether we're "real" or not: we still have to live our lives and be productive, curious, kind, and helpful. Even if this is all an illusion, I'd rather make it count. But I was wondering what Berkley would have said about shared perception, if he really did believe that perception was the way the world worked.
Picked the right time to take a philosophy class, as these are rolling out when my class covers it XD. Thanks crash course, I have something to look back at when studying for a test :)
I'm a little late to this party, but the whole "To be is to be perceived" thing has got me thinking about video games. A computer essentially acts as God in this frame, because nothing that the computer isn't processing actually exists. Even in a game like Minecraft, only portions of the world are processed and observed at once. The rest of the world ceases to exist as soon as the computer no longer perceives it.
I like to toy with the idea that God is a just a programmer who designed the fundamental laws of the universe, amazing AI ( Free will) and an amazing self learning algorithm (Evolution). Pressed start and watches it unfold, unable to alter any of his initial code or the current state of the simulation which would explain why he doesn't intervene . oooo and science is just the understanding of the rules he initially coded! haha just a hypothetical :P
I have always thought the same thing. I like to think God is a member of some advanced society who can preserve the brain in a hyper-realistic simulation after death, so they isolated his in an empty universe. What can he do but fill it at that point?
Partial conversion fallacy detected: All snow is white. some flour is white Therefore flour is snow? =FALSE (p.s. anything yellow is no longer snow ;-)
Not true, not valid. Would be valid if it said: When you know nothing, you are a new born. Jon Snow knows nothing. Conclusion: Jon snow is a new born. The problem here is: being new born => knowing nothing =/= knowing nothing => being born This is a logical mistake, both in maths and phylosophy, so no, not valid.
you equated sufficient condition with necessary condition. your are born --- > knowing nothing And then you made this fallacy Jon knows nothing .....> Jon is new born. You reversed it. When you're a newborn you know nothing, but just because you know nothing doesn't mean you're a new born. kay.
"You cannot be sure that anything exists so therefore I'm sure that nothing exist" What kind of logic is this? It doesn't make any sense at all. The argument should be "I cannot be sure that anything besides my perceptions of things exist therefore they either do or do not exist, but I'm not able to determine this"
Yup! I think that's a common mistake people make when they start learning about different forms skepticism. It was not quite what the philosophers were saying. (I don't know about Berkeley, though.)
Not quite: "I cannot be sure of the nature of reality, as I can only experience it through my perception of it, which is unreliable. Therefore, the nature of reality cannot be determined."
Berkeley was trying to convey that it is physically impossible for anything to exist, not that there is uncertainty as to whether anything exists or not. Premise 1: Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities. Premise 2: Secondary qualities are not objectively real. Conclusion: Therefore, primary qualities, including all matter, cannot exist. Explanations: Premise 1: Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities in the same way an object cannot have a shape (the primary quality) without a colour (the secondary quality), or in the same way an object cannot exist without having a texture or feeling. Premise 2: Secondary qualities are not objectively real, but can only be subjectively perceived. This is because humans perceive objects so differently - Some may think that something tastes good, while others may think it tastes bad - and none of those human perceptions are objectively, "more right," than others. This means that there is no, "objectively right," perception, and if there is no objective perception, then the perception cannot be real unless there is someone there to perceive the object and make the perception themselves. Conclusion: If one thing cannot exist without another thing, and that other thing does not exist, then the first thing cannot exist either - Because there being primary qualities, and matter as a whole, relies on there being secondary qualities which do not exist, there can not physically be any matter at all.
7:38 Not terrifying, but a bit far down the rabbit hole - if there is any, and we both have the same perception of what a rabbit hole, a hole or a rabbit is, ...
+Jim Fortune That's good because that means if you don't see for example, falling rubble, it doesn't exist, so it can't fall on your head and kill you! Yeay, we can spare money on worker protection! No accidents can happen in the real world! It's so good that philosophy is absolutely not completely detached from the real world, and is actually useful!
+1234kalmar dude! its philosophy! its all about being "detached from the real world" that is the point. because only when you step out of something can you see it clearly. also they did not have any computer games back then, so it was either this or drugs, (probably sometimes both)
I would like to take a moment and appreciate the timing of my distracted mind. I turned my head to watch a bird outside my window at the exact moment you asked not to turn away from my computer screen.
but secondary qualitys do exist, color is a light frequency the exists regardless of a perceiver texture is an arrangement of matter on a surface of an object it also exists regardless of a perceiver, so the assertion that nothing can exist cannot be verified through this means, if i'm wrong about something and you noticed let me know thank you.
One thing I love about philosophers, we are not arguing to show up the other person or whatever. We truly want to know if we’re right or wrong, and if we’re wrong, we don’t complain or whine about it, we thank the other for opening is up to apart of the world we’ve truly never thought about before.
6:36 Don't blind people hold a concept of shape without colour? I suppose when they feel something, they also feel the temperature which is a secondary quality however.
There is at least one blind person that can detect shape using echo location. He makes clicking noises with his mouth and can "hear" the shape based on the reflected sound.
This has actually been empirically investigated. People who were blind from birth and were able to differentiate cubes from spheres, and recognize them by touch, were *not* immediately able to recognize those objects by sight alone once sight was restored. Look up Dr. Pawan Sinha for more info. To me this result is not entirely persuasive - the study acknowledges that first sight is really just a confusing brightness in which it is likely that nothing can be differentiated, and it could be that the dulling of this brightness into distinct visual experiences is exactly the sort of "learning" that allows a person who is not blind to make these sorts of distinctions, which would make any attempt at empirical verification or falsification impossible in principle. But it's an interesting result nonetheless.
Learned =D - Empiricism as a Response to Skepticism - John Locke and his distinction between primary and secondary qualities - Why George Berkeley thinks that distinction ultimately fall apart
And this is why you shouldn't ever start a theological discussion with friends (or internet) .... true philosophers and scientists had debates for ages, you and your most likely drunk friends will not find the "truth".
but don't you find it beautiful to have the same discussions that every human that could think has had? it may not be cutting edge intellectual debates, but I think there's something undeniably important about pitting your school of thought against another being's
That's like saying you should never play any video games, because no matter what game you choose, there will always be someone out there better at the game than you. Yes, some of your "debates" might be kinda sloppy and unimpressive, but that doesn't mean they can't lead you to the truth (or at the very least, lead you to less sloppy debates).
+Zeliek Just because I'm drunk and so are the rest of my friends (or internet) doesn't mean I'm wrong! A lack of evidence would mean I'm wrong. That's why I enjoy getting drunk and laughing at those who fall victom to idea's without evidence.
Don't misjudge me, debating and have conversations is not what i want you to stop quite the contrary ,but like the analogy with the video games that thatguyoverthere mentions play the game don't expect to get the highest score
Primary qualities are from a far, second are near. Two distinct levels of perception summed. When light is considered, the apple could be far, by which color is indistinguishable but shape is not.
I watched this and a short philosophytube video and got a 90 on my test on Berkeley, the highest I’ve gotten on a test in that class and I failed to get through even one of his video lectures. Thanks :)
+Catfactory Yeeeaah, we didn't catch that until we were kind of far along in the process. Thought Cafe added a little animation for us to alert viewers of this error, though!
+CrashCourse Arguably, it's just a matter of local accent. You probably pronounce "Mexico" in a way that differs from how they say it in Mexico, and we generally pronounce "Berkeley, California" in a way that Mr. Berkeley would not. English lets us make up new stuff just by using the new stuff, so I've long stopped worrying about it and just say "Berk-Lee" unless I'm talking to someone who says "Bark-lee".
I love how somebody makes a great conclusion than somebody comes along and just breaks their whole theory down with two questions
Thats just how philosophy works
that's sublimation actually, an idea that breezes throughout hegel's
@@catalinluncanu1170 Your impressive! Thank you.
then
welcome to philosophy
I just watched 6 of these episodes in a row and I feel like I know everything in the universe
MemesAreHealthy u don’t
I feel like I don't know anything after watching this, haha
Me after completing this course
I know that i know nothing .
More like you know only that you know nothing
I feel like I don't know what it's knowing.
Is binge-watching crash course considered as procrastination or studying?
Studying 🤓 even more so if you can explain what you learned to a friend 😁
how about fun:)
Either
This has increasingly become a dilemma in my life
You just need to think about it
I love how you're teaching us how to think and not what to think.
Yeah, that's the point of philosophy.
As a philosophy major, I am SO GLAD you guys have decided to do a crash course with philosophy. I am studying this stuff but it helps a lot with these videos. So glad we have Hank doing it too! Thank you!
Hank Green can make anything interesting. If he made a video where he explained paint drying, I would watch it.
I guarantee you that video either already exists or will exist in the near future.
Of course you would, sheep follow their masters.
Eating a Apple during this episode, was a deeper experience than I thought it would be.
what I love about this crash course is that it's helping us to explain stuff that is mostly common knowledge and at the same time making you ruminate more on the topics at hand
"If you stop perceiving me, I stop existing" -Hank Green
Sounds like a good break-up song! 🎵🎶
And here I was, thinking no one could give me a bigger existential crisis than Descartes. Good job Mr. Berkeley
Thanks for the addiction to philosophy
rite?
You thank him now, but one day you will stumble upon Hegel and your life will be ruined.
tHANKs
yep! all of a sudden we became addicted and committed to this course ☺️
You love phlosophy ?
Berkeley's argument actually reminds me of when I first started writing Java. I was following tutorials, and created a bicycle. It contained variables like cadence, weight, arguably innate qualities, but all I could do was output these qualities onto a screen. I couldn't *see* the bike, so how on Earth could it exist?
9 minutes of this video summarized my entire 3 month modern philosophy course at the university.
Wow..... I am an atheist. And that is one of the MOST convincing arguments for god I have ever heard. I am not being sarcastic. From a rationalists perspective that is airtight or damn near at least. I am shocked and impressed. It's logical, and solid, but it's just too small an argument for the existence of god. But I am going to have to think about this a lot.
The Geckomancer after one whole year. What have you concluded now.?
It does seem to be a good argument. I like to mix western and eastern philosophy a lot and this particular question makes me think of Buddhism. In this explanation of empiricism, the usually sense organs were describes: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. In Buddhism, the mind is another sense organ, with thought being the sense object of the mind. I do think it is easily arguable that thought is a form of perception, as our thoughts are generally subjective experience in the same way that sight, sound, etc are. So, in this sense, I think it can be said that we don't disappear because we are self-perceived. Even when we're asleep, our mind is still going, providing some amount of information or reiterating information we've received throughout the day in the form of dreams. We are self-perceived by our conceptions of ourselves through our additional sense organ: our minds.
It is indeed a pretty amazing and elegant argument, but the problem is it only works if we are certain that there can only be perceptions and percievers and no matter in the world. That seems hard to prove.
I m theist agnotic because there are so many theory both support and go agaisnt the existence of god, bu i hope the higher being exist as it make me less afaid of dead.
@@s.toctopusn248 let me tell you what helped me be less scared of death as an atheist, I thought about how boring heaven must be if you have done everything in heaven multiple times, if there is nothing after death why would that be scary it shouldn't be because you "experience" nothing(no boredom, no happiness, no sadness etc) it's just like before you were born.
I hope crash course reads this! (I am so thankful for your educational videos / slight addiction, due to being dyslexic I learn visually and this is the only platform I can learn and take it in) thank you 🙏🏻
I think Berkeley deserves more credit. I scoffed at the "tree falls in a forest" arguments along with most other people, but many of the principles of quantum physics, and even a couple of aspects of relativity, were foreshadowed by Berkeley's insights. Many scientists, including Einstein, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the principles of quantum physics by repeated and irrefutable experimental results. Berkeley came up with many of the same principles with only the guidance of careful philosophical reasoning. That's an amazing achievement.
I'm not saying that Berkeley is right about everything, or that he calculated every aspect of QM. I'm saying give credit where it's due, and give a second look to the arguments which led to such an achievement. He had a point: we don't measure in the purest sense, we can only perceive. That puts some fundamental limits on our measurements. It makes sense, therefore, that as we get better and better at measuring things, we will inevitably hit those limits. Definitions will break down, and the role of the observer and our perceptions will become increasingly important. That doesn't stop scientific progress, of course, but it does help describe some of the limits that we'll keep hitting. Not bad for a guy with little more than his own thoughts to guide him. Not bad at all.
+William Dye Appealing to quantum physics is just ad hoc reasoning. A tree is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A tree is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics.
While it's easy to abuse QM principles, I think that the connection to Berkeley is quite valid. Are you familiar with Schrödinger's cat? Re-read your counter-argument, substituting the word "tree" with the word "cat". It then reads:
"A *cat* is a bad analogue to particle and quantum physics. A *cat* is unaffected by the forces that govern the deepest reaches of our knowledge in physics."
Again, I acknowledge that it's easy to abuse QM principles, but I don't think that we can dismiss the connection to Berkeley. The experimental results are consistent: QM is a fundamental part of how the universe works. That includes cats in boxes, trees in forests, and our own minds trying to make sense of it all.
'If a tree falls in a forest' is a philosophical thought experiment about observation and reality.
The cat in Schrödinger's example is secondary since the example has radioactive matter which sets off the poison gas if decay happens. The cat is only there to show that the randomness can have real life consequences. The quantum phenomena is transferred to our physical level through the poison and the cat.
+William Dye A cat actually is a bad analogue for a particle. The real problem with Schrödinger's cat is that both the cat and the Geiger counter would act as observer's. Quantum objects behave as quantum objects, and non-quantum behave as non-quantum objects.
+Calum This is a good discussion, constrained to a bad forum. :-) I don't think that our time is well-spent interacting though RUclips comments, so I'll try to be brief. My original point is that Berkeley should not be dismissed lightly, and by extension, neither should philosophical debates. Physics equations break down when underlying assumptions are changed, and the debate about Platonic ideals teaches us that this limitation is inherent. Long and expensive debates turn out to be a matter of differing basic assumptions, and "I think therefore I am" teaches us that we will always have unproven assumptions. We still can't experimentally settle if we're in a many-worlds universe, or if we are all just Boltzmann brains, and Berkeley teaches us that such failures are rooted in deep vagaries about what constitutes an observation.
I've seen very intelligent people use the term "philosophical argument" as a synonym for "waste of time", and that's the assumption I'm challenging. Even when philosophy doesn't give us answers, it can be of practical value to scientific inquiry, because the difficultly of the unanswered question often indicates a fundamental problem that cannot be easily settled through experiment. Whenever you find yourself in such a situation, I expect that you'll do well to spend more time spelling out your assumptions carefully, and double-check your experiment for anything that is difficult to define. That strategy won't settle any ancient philosophical debates, but it might help you avoid them.
This is genuinely helpful in my philosophy revision. I'm so thankful, Also when is physics coming (sorry to ask)?
+Dan Yates End of the month! We put out the trailer a bit early, it seems. But soon! The wait is over soon!
-Nicole
+CrashCourse Hey Nicole, or Crash Course, or whoever sees this; do you reckon we'll ever see the return of John and World History? Or just John in general?
Don't get me wrong I love all these series, but I must confess that John, and World History will forever be my favourite.
I discovered Crash Course whilst revising for my Egyptology college course, and through that discovered Vlogbrothers etc, etc. So it would be nice just to see his return.
Your content rocks by the way!
+Joshua Davies I don't know about world history, but John is doing some more literature. No idea when it is coming, though.
+Joshua Davies Yah john will be doing several lit videos. Covering Their Eyes were Watching God (by Zora Neal Hurston) and others.
+Joshua Davies You're taking Egyptology? What college is this at?
I'm now going to call the sound made by eating an apple "apple sound."
+Clicker Happy
"Hey guys, want to hear an apple sound?"
this is awesome have gotten the point between the two ,the most points to remember is that rationalism beliefs on deduction ,innate ideas and reason while empiricism beliefs on induction ,sense experience and evidence ,no innate ideas .this is so good
We aren't born as a blank slate. One of the core ideas of an evolutionary psychology class I had taken was to reject Locke's Tabula Rosa. We have biological underpinnings that determine how we act.
Somewhat. It's not blank but it sure as hell ain't full. It is WAY more blank than full most of the times.
Mj Black I've best heard it described as a coloring book. There are lines filled in to color as you wish. You could ignore them and draw other things, but generally people won't.
We do have some limited instincts, and minor differences in temperament. But that was not what Locke was getting at. Instinct and temperament are not knowledge. To understand what he meant, you must compare it to the school of thought he was countering.
+Mj Black
Heck, the people in office nowadays are probably closer to blank than they were at birth!!!
How do you know we have biological underpinnings? What you describe is an assumption or hearsay.
With that said, there is the fact that Locke lived in a time in which this knowledge just didn't exist. Still, it may be dangerous to reject the Tabula Rasa completely.
We don't know with which knowledge we start our lifes. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that there was knowledge preceding experiences. Among them are space, ttime and causality. Howevever, modern physics imply that we were wrong about the nature of these very things. Furthermore, cognitive science has shown that understanding these concepts, especially causality, is a learned skill. Thus, we are back at square one: what are those ideas we are born with?
No apples were harmed during the making of the show
+shane tennyson ...Right, I saw one casually thrown to the ground, then atrociously maimed by a heinous bite.
+invock
Your visual sensors fooled you. Deduct that experience.
10/10
- Descartes
+HistoricaHungarica 10/10 would have another existential crisis
I thinkers I've LOCKEd down "best joke in RUclips comment section" for today.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
+Cryp Tic
Well thinkered.
+Cryp Tic I Kant handle this right now.
+POWERBUT Just step onto this Plato
Robin Didriksen
Sure, I'll just Bentham over.
The fact that there are primary and secondary characteristics and that we disagree about the secondary characteristics doesn't mean that there are no objects in reality, what it means is that there is something real and physical and objective that is responsible for the secondary characteristics that we disagree about how to interpret. There is a pigment that is making the apple red. Some people are more sensitive to certain colors than others because they have more of a certain cone or less, but there is a real pigment that is causing us to perceive the apple as being red. There is real sugar in the Apple our tongues perceived as being sweet or rather our minds perceive as being sweet based on incoming data from the tongue. Some people are more sensitive to sugar some people are less sensitive to sugar, and I imagine some people might not be able to taste sugar at all hypothetically, but sugar is a real thing sugar is what makes something sweet. There are real causes for these secondary phenomenon.
Acthon 39Times like this when I think how wonderful and important crash course philosphy is...And how much more wonderful it'll be when we eventually get to the topic of the meaning of life
This is proably the most helpful philosophy video I ever saw! I´m german so I thought it would be kinda hard to understand such a subject in english but I had no issues while watching :) Thank you!
I love you're videos. Often I let the ads roll so you get the revenue
How can you talk about Empiricism without mentioning Hume! Unbelievable!
+Rahell Omer Oh hey! I had the same thought!
+Rahell Omer Maybe they save Hume for the debate of reason vs. passions and the topic of moral psychology.
+karamei ikr!
+Demian Haki true, but he is still not to be dismissed in his area of expertise.
and my exam
These are so well done. I really love the little animated pieces, and of course Hank too. Thank you all!
Why is this guy a life saver
Oh my God, this should be aired in Prime time television in Brazil with this war against Philosophy and Sociology.
watching this while eating an apple.
Mindblowning.
then u should take care of empirisism
But how can I really be sure you were eating an apple?
+Vaibhav Gupta I hope it was a better apple than the one Hank was eating. Red "Delicious" . . . should be called Damp Moldy Cardboard. I know it's an iconic cultivar, it's just such a bad exemplar of what a good tasting apple is.
A dozen varieties available in a typical grocery store and they gave him a Red "Delicious."
+Vaibhav Gupta dude I didn't even realize the connection as I was eating this apple
Well then, I asked for a single night of undisturbed sleep, without existentialism, and what do I get? Existentialism (and a craving for an apple).
Reminder to self: don't try to get educated in things involving the mind; you will only be on the path to more crazies.
Remember that you don't have to explicitly follow empiricism. You can also follow strict rationality where primary and secondary qualities are both objective. We would know, through equilibrium theory what an apple's texture and color and form if we look hard enough. Our subjectiveness adheres not to something universially nonexistent but rather to something that's actually in nature objective.
existentialism merely is the oversimplification of existence and the abolition of metaphysics and logic imo. For in the end there is only chaos and flux and the only thing that is real is your will, the power of your will will determine your path in this life. but in the end, nothing has a reason because its all accidental. our lives have no greater purpose or meaning. there is no reason to have morality, there is no room for true objectivity. only what is experienced is true. but no purpose in our lives ultimately leads us to the idea that nothingness awaits us after our short lives have ended. its truly a wonderful 'philosophy'
Hank, your totally a physical object to me.
+beatngu We will always perceive you Hank.
I don’t study philosophy but it’s one of my major interests
4:17 You really handled that apple and your speech like a boss!
but if all we are is perceivers... then what exactly are we perceiving?
... Woah
I really, really want a René what's good? shirt.
+Aaron G ME TOO. I don't have that kind of authority, but ME TOO.
-Nicole
aristen the link is broken
Stop the video at 2:05 and spin the screen 180* and read (like leters) what is written on the computer.
Renske050 I don't understand.
It says "hello" on the calculator when you turn your screen upside down.
LOL Yh
Bruh
SO COOL
it IS amazing that with some pictures and a bunch of nerds in a room even I, "just some dude" can understand the essence of what was cutting edge thought at the time. Within 10 minutes. Obviously, there's details, but the message is clear.
listening to this while writing a section of my thesis on ontological accounts and the construction of the 'self'. Super nerdy night all around.
2:34 Invisible basketballs.
"It's like, apple sound." - Hank Green, 2016
2:38 Aristotle's like I'm gonna let you finish Socrates but you can't truly know what's real by just thinking it, not all the time, not all the time.
+Kenneth Uyabeme Um, that's Plato with Aristotle, but he totally is :)
I know what is good and bad when I feel pleasures and pains. "But what doesn't kill us makes us stronger." So good and bad is relative.
I'm makiing a new simple primary quality. This is that anything that has other primary qualities then has secondary qualities despite if someone disagrees what they are, they do exist. This is a good way to null the whole argument that not seeing the secondary qualities means it doesn't exist.
I think from a psychological stand point, Locke was on to something. Objects do have objective qualities (though texture and color SHOULD also be part of those objective traits) but objects can also have subjective qualities that are imparted by a person based on their experience with the object. For example we hold a normally useless trinket of more value if they where gifts from a lover, the smell of mint makes us cringe because it reminds us of that terrible time at the dentists office, and so on.
I watching this with Wikipedia in another tab for further information, and it's interesting to note that
- the English page for Berkeley writes his motto as "Esse est percipi" : to be is to be perceived,
- whereas the French page (my language) writes "Esse est percipi aut percipere" : to be is to be perceived or to perceive, which is quite different !
Tiwinee you really can just think logically here, the second part the french people added isn't there in the latin version
Time for Wiki messing
Evgeny Koslov okay, I should've checked that first. thanks for explanation!
my school philosophy book ( Greek btw) .. has the French version
It's like they attached the Rene Descartes philosophy to It.
"You cannot remove an object of it's secondary attributes without removing the object, so therefor I'm going to trust in something with neither primary nor secondary attributes" Fair enough I guess lol
Can I just say....THANK YOU for these videos. I love philosophy and can't wait until each of these!
I love philosophy. First week of Acting class, everyone was wondering if they were real, and asking people out of the class about Plato's theory and life. It was hilarious. It's so cool
Vsauce, CPGrey and now Crash course. im having an existential crisis!
+katten elvis last night minute physics had one too.
+katten elvis this one is different than the others. your senses are lying to you.
H
Its still an existencial crisis
Berkeley never developed object permanence.
+Jason_c_o Lmao this is true
+Jason_c_o hahahahahahahhaahhaahhaahahha
Lmaoo
More like, Berkeley argued object permanence was an illusion.
HAHA, crash course is totally in sync with my school schedule
Iam currently taking a minor "philosiphy of social sciences" this makes everything fun. GOD BLESS YOU MANNNNNN
Thats the best looking apple i have seen in a while.
STOP BLOWING MY MIND!!!
7:21 this reminds me of something i learned at the mosque ; ''beautiful things on this world are to have an idea of heaven because Allah made us without such capacity.'' ( this is not a quote from the quran but the explanation of my teacher from a part of the quran.)
Our brains don't have the capacity to imagine things that are not based on things we have already seen. For example unicorns are based on horses and horns.
This is to give us motivation to stay on Allah's path and go to heaven.
This just something i found interesting.
Allah doesn't exist
The best I have seen for Locke and Berkeley empiricism , very well done sir
"Rene what's good"?!!?!?! is EVERYTHING!!!!
Beyond awesome. Thank you for this !
This is basically the tree-falling-in-the-forest question.
Love this series! So fascinating! I have a question though - everything we can sense is not real but simply a perception, why would there be shared perception? If the apple isn't real, why does it weigh 150 grams, no matter who measures it? If our minds were just creating this scenario around us, wouldn't it populate the scenario with what we want to see? Did Berkley address this?
+Kate Parker I feel like scientific thinking and the scientific method have solved a lot of old philosophical dilemmas which were based on faulty thinking or pure rational thought removed from falsifiable evidence.
+edheldude Sure! Plus it really doesn't seem like it matters whether we're "real" or not: we still have to live our lives and be productive, curious, kind, and helpful. Even if this is all an illusion, I'd rather make it count. But I was wondering what Berkley would have said about shared perception, if he really did believe that perception was the way the world worked.
There was a time where I didn't know who Hank Green was. Was he real before I started watching his videos?
Did you even exist before I read your comment? Do I only exist now after you read mine?
SuchADumbUsername Maybe!
***** /)
***** He is the man that lives in the space between spaces.
He wasn't real. Also I paused the video and scrolled away to this comment, so he's not real now either.
ny philosophy teachers shows us these videos to accompany our lessons and it’s so helpful!!
Very lucid presentation. Probably the best I have watched till now
reading is just looking at a dead tree and hallucinating
Thank god we have Google, Facebook and the likes! We are constantly being "perceived" and consequently we exist!
so that's why UC Berkeley is full of pot-heads
mullet_muffins and rioters
UC Berkeley but is it really there?
THE POT IS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE ALWAYS HIGH. shiiiiiieeeeeeet
@Miguel Cisneros Show me why I should believe in a god.
Peter Schorn why do you not believe in God ?!?? Lol
I am learning English and Philosophy wtih Crash Course!
Congratulations from Brazil!
Picked the right time to take a philosophy class, as these are rolling out when my class covers it XD. Thanks crash course, I have something to look back at when studying for a test :)
I love how Berkeley didn't believe in the physical world ... and he still had a job
typo in the title. it's not empricism
+Riya Vyas OOPS! Thanks!
+CrashCourse no problem!
+CrashCourse You actually replied!
+SuperTerryBros. They do that often when someone points out an error
+Bram06 now will you reply to me??
Make me exist, PLOX!
This reminded me of the observer effect
These videos make me use the normal speed again :)
this Berkeley guy seems like my kinda dude.
+Zachery Hall
Agreed.
I'm a little late to this party, but the whole "To be is to be perceived" thing has got me thinking about video games. A computer essentially acts as God in this frame, because nothing that the computer isn't processing actually exists. Even in a game like Minecraft, only portions of the world are processed and observed at once. The rest of the world ceases to exist as soon as the computer no longer perceives it.
I like to toy with the idea that God is a just a programmer who designed the fundamental laws of the universe, amazing AI ( Free will) and an amazing self learning algorithm (Evolution). Pressed start and watches it unfold, unable to alter any of his initial code or the current state of the simulation which would explain why he doesn't intervene . oooo and science is just the understanding of the rules he initially coded! haha just a hypothetical :P
I have always thought the same thing. I like to think God is a member of some advanced society who can preserve the brain in a hyper-realistic simulation after death, so they isolated his in an empty universe. What can he do but fill it at that point?
there is a game about a god that is "observing" timelines and worlds, causing them to be reality rather than illusion.
You are born knowing nothing
John Snow know nothing
Therefore, John snow is a new born??
wait what?
Partial conversion fallacy detected:
All snow is white.
some flour is white
Therefore flour is snow? =FALSE (p.s. anything yellow is no longer snow ;-)
+Reckless Roges snow pee is
Not true, not valid.
Would be valid if it said:
When you know nothing, you are a new born.
Jon Snow knows nothing.
Conclusion: Jon snow is a new born.
The problem here is:
being new born => knowing nothing
=/=
knowing nothing => being born
This is a logical mistake, both in maths and phylosophy, so no, not valid.
you equated sufficient condition with necessary condition.
your are born --- > knowing nothing
And then you made this fallacy
Jon knows nothing .....> Jon is new born.
You reversed it. When you're a newborn you know nothing, but just because you know nothing doesn't mean you're a new born. kay.
that is a different. form of fallacy not conditional. Syllogism.
You lectures are most rewarding intellectually.
What an incredible set of videos!! Just wow!! I watched 6 episodes straight, and then just realized I must comment on this amazing course!
A part of this episode reminded me of Rascal does not dream of bunny girl Senpai (it’s an anime)
"You cannot be sure that anything exists so therefore I'm sure that nothing exist" What kind of logic is this? It doesn't make any sense at all. The argument should be "I cannot be sure that anything besides my perceptions of things exist therefore they either do or do not exist, but I'm not able to determine this"
Yup! I think that's a common mistake people make when they start learning about different forms skepticism. It was not quite what the philosophers were saying. (I don't know about Berkeley, though.)
Not quite: "I cannot be sure of the nature of reality, as I can only experience it through my perception of it, which is unreliable. Therefore, the nature of reality cannot be determined."
Susan Garry I do not see whats the difference between your and my statement
Berkeley was trying to convey that it is physically impossible for anything to exist, not that there is uncertainty as to whether anything exists or not.
Premise 1: Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities.
Premise 2: Secondary qualities are not objectively real.
Conclusion: Therefore, primary qualities, including all matter, cannot exist.
Explanations:
Premise 1:
Primary qualities cannot exist without secondary qualities in the same way an object cannot have a shape (the primary quality) without a colour (the secondary quality), or in the same way an object cannot exist without having a texture or feeling.
Premise 2:
Secondary qualities are not objectively real, but can only be subjectively perceived. This is because humans perceive objects so differently - Some may think that something tastes good, while others may think it tastes bad - and none of those human perceptions are objectively, "more right," than others. This means that there is no, "objectively right," perception, and if there is no objective perception, then the perception cannot be real unless there is someone there to perceive the object and make the perception themselves.
Conclusion:
If one thing cannot exist without another thing, and that other thing does not exist, then the first thing cannot exist either - Because there being primary qualities, and matter as a whole, relies on there being secondary qualities which do not exist, there can not physically be any matter at all.
how do you know your perception exists?
7:38 Not terrifying, but a bit far down the rabbit hole - if there is any, and we both have the same perception of what a rabbit hole, a hole or a rabbit is, ...
+gnhtd1
There is no difference between a perfect illusion and reality. Easy as that
We may not agree with Berkeley's conclusions, but his arguments are intriguing and definitely unique
Incredible video! I have been studying this stuff all semester and this crash course finally brought it all together for me. Thank you!
did he take a bite out of that apple after throwing it on the floor? or was it a different apple
slendy9600 it depends on whether you believe in Berkeley’s “to be is to perceive” philosophy
Maybe, this is the reason why my crush never knew I existed. He does not perceived me.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, not only did it not make a sound, it doesn't exist!
+Jim Fortune That's good because that means if you don't see for example, falling rubble, it doesn't exist, so it can't fall on your head and kill you! Yeay, we can spare money on worker protection! No accidents can happen in the real world! It's so good that philosophy is absolutely not completely detached from the real world, and is actually useful!
+1234kalmar dude! its philosophy! its all about being "detached from the real world"
that is the point. because only when you step out of something can you see it clearly.
also they did not have any computer games back then, so it was either this or drugs, (probably sometimes both)
Nekogami-Crystal :D:D I think for this crap they needed both.
+Jim Fortune If no one is watching over the lost library of Alexandria then it has been lost forever. So sad and tragic.
1234kalmar Only if you hire blind workers. Normally sighted people will peek.
I would like to take a moment and appreciate the timing of my distracted mind. I turned my head to watch a bird outside my window at the exact moment you asked not to turn away from my computer screen.
thanks guys. no matter what i am confused with crash course always helps me. you guys are awesome
but secondary qualitys do exist, color is a light frequency the exists regardless of a perceiver texture is an arrangement of matter on a surface of an object it also exists regardless of a perceiver, so the assertion that nothing can exist cannot be verified through this means, if i'm wrong about something and you noticed let me know thank you.
True
One thing I love about philosophers, we are not arguing to show up the other person or whatever. We truly want to know if we’re right or wrong, and if we’re wrong, we don’t complain or whine about it, we thank the other for opening is up to apart of the world we’ve truly never thought about before.
i winced when the apple was thrown and i heard it land... Q__Q
6:36 Don't blind people hold a concept of shape without colour?
I suppose when they feel something, they also feel the temperature which is a secondary quality however.
There is at least one blind person that can detect shape using echo location. He makes clicking noises with his mouth and can "hear" the shape based on the reflected sound.
+Reckless Roges Yeah primary qualities and secondary qualities are linked and both mind dependent
This has actually been empirically investigated. People who were blind from birth and were able to differentiate cubes from spheres, and recognize them by touch, were *not* immediately able to recognize those objects by sight alone once sight was restored. Look up Dr. Pawan Sinha for more info.
To me this result is not entirely persuasive - the study acknowledges that first sight is really just a confusing brightness in which it is likely that nothing can be differentiated, and it could be that the dulling of this brightness into distinct visual experiences is exactly the sort of "learning" that allows a person who is not blind to make these sorts of distinctions, which would make any attempt at empirical verification or falsification impossible in principle. But it's an interesting result nonetheless.
Yes, I know of this guy. I think his name was Matt Murdock.
THATS WHAT IM SAYIN
Learned =D
- Empiricism as a Response to Skepticism
- John Locke and his distinction between primary and secondary qualities
- Why George Berkeley thinks that distinction ultimately fall apart
"When you sleep you cease to exist" I'm shook, like I handled everything else fine but this one was interesting thanks hank love you
I don't get it.
soo if you´re blind, does that mean the world does noot exist for you?
And this is why you shouldn't ever start a theological discussion with friends (or internet) .... true philosophers and scientists had debates for ages, you and your most likely drunk friends will not find the "truth".
but don't you find it beautiful to have the same discussions that every human that could think has had? it may not be cutting edge intellectual debates, but I think there's something undeniably important about pitting your school of thought against another being's
That's like saying you should never play any video games, because no matter what game you choose, there will always be someone out there better at the game than you. Yes, some of your "debates" might be kinda sloppy and unimpressive, but that doesn't mean they can't lead you to the truth (or at the very least, lead you to less sloppy debates).
+Zeliek Just because I'm drunk and so are the rest of my friends (or internet) doesn't mean I'm wrong! A lack of evidence would mean I'm wrong.
That's why I enjoy getting drunk and laughing at those who fall victom to idea's without evidence.
Don't misjudge me, debating and have conversations is not what i want you to stop quite the contrary ,but like the analogy with the video games that thatguyoverthere mentions play the game don't expect to get the highest score
Primary qualities are from a far, second are near. Two distinct levels of perception summed. When light is considered, the apple could be far, by which color is indistinguishable but shape is not.
I watched this and a short philosophytube video and got a 90 on my test on Berkeley, the highest I’ve gotten on a test in that class and I failed to get through even one of his video lectures. Thanks :)
It's pronounced 'Barkli', not 'Berkelly' :(
+Catfactory They noted that in the video.
Americans
+Catfactory Yeeeaah, we didn't catch that until we were kind of far along in the process. Thought Cafe added a little animation for us to alert viewers of this error, though!
+Catfactory hank got it wrong right
+CrashCourse Arguably, it's just a matter of local accent. You probably pronounce "Mexico" in a way that differs from how they say it in Mexico, and we generally pronounce "Berkeley, California" in a way that Mr. Berkeley would not. English lets us make up new stuff just by using the new stuff, so I've long stopped worrying about it and just say "Berk-Lee" unless I'm talking to someone who says "Bark-lee".