呢種講法會面對兩個問題： 1. Can a reductionist approach explain emergent properties? Scale effects are real. As mentioned in the clip, some events only make sense when we explain them at a social level, which does not necessarily translate well to personal behavior. 直接用soical trump personal好似有啲unsatisfying. 2. At what point does science end and opinion begin? Evolution informs us about events that have a higher probability of survival, but it does not imply causation on its own. 我覺得普遍好多好強既claim都有呢個問題，然後就發現前因不足，根本sustain唔到個claim，倒果為因更是常見 另外演化係唔會處理到本質呢個問題，at the end of the day it is just a grand description of probability distribution.
@tomjoestar The question is whether we can predict events on a larger scale from small-scale events. In physics, superconductivity and turbulence are good examples in which, at least at the moment, we cannot predict the outcome by looking at the microscopic property. Translate that to a biology, the classic debate would then become mechanism vs organicism. We cannot predict social behaviour from personal behaviour, thus implying causation between the two would not be comprehensive.
@@tomjoestar3361 My first point concerns whether science (in this case, the theory of evolution) can predict such causation. My short answer is no, as evident by the gap between the events of different scales. Mechanically speaking, that's not how gene selection works either; we can see because we have eyes, not that we want to see, so we evolve eyes. The helpful trait persists, that's it. We can make interpretations based on science by incorporating narrative, but such interpretations are still opinions. I am not an expert on organicism, but the takeaway is that organicism proposes both top-down and bottom-up causation, whereas mechanism is more or bottom-up. This view aligns well with emergent property, which is why I think it could be a helpful term to box our thoughts.
等出精華等到心淡了😔
+1😐
好認真好有養分嘅精華
幾時再開返live ah🤤
會唔會「道德」對於人類黎講，都只係功能性嘅存在。道德存在嘅必要性就係為咗分別人類係人類，動物係動物。
字幕good job
爱情disabled
人類只係 為了生存 非常不合理
如果人類只係 為了生存 咁人就應該淨係 追求生存 任何多餘嘅嘢都唔需要 一切娛樂 搵嘢嚟搞 體驗生命 經歷感受 藝術音樂追求 任何學術討論 想自己覺得更好 生活質素 都是多餘的
情緒搞到人抑鬱 自殺 人嘅野心 係宮廷入面自傷殘殺
要嘅只係活著 咁應該壽命要長 生命週期長 好似tree 不是其他生物的天敵 生存要求簡單即可
為了繁殖 每秒繁殖就好了 好似細菌
諗起之前啲片講過如果一個行為被命定嘅話，係咪就冇自由意志呢？四哥果隻愛情觀就係要stipulate個愛出嚟，如果加埋個被命定位（就當係生物演化），但係我仍然Embrace呢個選擇嘅話，咁既話呢段愛情就已經比我賦予咗價值，而我亦不必介意個initial cause係因為生物本能?
11:45 愛情有佔有 霸道 排他性？ 而友情同親情冇？例如見過拍拖唔想自己另一半接觸任何異性(朋友) 要斷聯 要求另一半同晒所有異性(朋友) 絕交 唔可以有任何方式的聯絡 但朋友同家人唔會 友情同親情接觸異性唔會覺得有問題？
如果後設d咁睇
社會學/生物演化進路解釋 vs 神聖化獨特化既具不能解釋性的愛情觀
就好似一班大數據萬能既忠誠信徒 同
相信人類具有有別於人工智能既獨特創造力既信徒
嘈交既感覺
係心靈已經愈見圚乏既年代
如果再愈來愈多證據反證人心靈-行為不過某腦神經科學某某xx解
人本身萬物之靈優越感又何去何從
人工智能會否為人類帶來多一次上帝已死
不過這次會是心靈已死？
ps 純ff 不喜勿插大大力謝
演化心理學唔係科學, 也不是心理學
which live?
臭味相投
道德道德大家找一個共同認同的定義先。
如果愛情本質係生物為繁殖後代而產生出嚟嘅現象，咁同性戀愛無後代點解會出現好似解釋吾到？
因為人口飽和到「繁殖後代」唔再係first priority?
個解釋會唔會可以係；
1. 可能同性戀嘅基因亦需要某啲環境條件先可以express，令到一個人就算擁有同性戀者基因都未必會呈現出同性戀嘅傾向。
2. 性取向同時由多個基因組成，而嗰啲基因各自有自己嘅功能，要咁啱同時擁有先可以呈現出同性戀嘅傾向
@@tobeornottoby這樣即係同性戀是為了自己國家黨定是為了別人的😂😂😂
@@oneofthepassersby 點解大家嘅討論方向咁唔一致？ 宜家問題係如果愛情本質係繁殖後代嘅產物，同性戀愛無法繁殖後代都仍會存在。會唔會其實，當繁殖後代已經被滿足，或者繁殖已達到飽和，人類先可以更自由地去追求異性或同性戀嘅愛情？（我估生物學家會諗為同性戀係變異行為？）我有呢個想法係基於「第25號宇宙」嘅生物研究所得出。
非讀生物,只係我一些個人思考. 我覺得生物一直都允許存異同變態(因為有其自身功能,例如反社會人格存在會令到人類保持警惕性etc), 同性戀都係一直存在在生物本能中,雖然非廣泛現性,但係存在的. 類似呢種不具備繁衍功能的伴侶關係, 其一個對族群發展利處就係當生物族群數量過於膨脹時, 幫助控制數量增加. 算係一個社會自我修復嘅機制
分分鐘連［本質］都是不存在的，是人類構建出來的幻想呢。🤭
@@SamYip-x4c 咩意思?
@@JohnLoke_Hk 你有冇諗過何謂［本質］？是粒子論？是能量論？還是陰陽論？動植物本來就沒有任何統一的既定概念，但就會發展成族群，團隊，甚至是社會。你看看中國文字的演化，就可以知道每個人所寫的都不一樣，但就能彼此知道是什麼意思。那又是為什麼呢？是意念？是想像？還是學習？無論如何，所有理論和思想都是［假］設出來的，而我們又集體認同，慢慢才會出現統一性。所以回過頭來，我們有本質嗎？
@@SamYip-x4c你撈埋咗好多個唔同嘅概念一齊講，首先你講緊何謂本質，但係提出嘅例子就變咗世界嘅本質係啲咩，跟住又跳咗動物喺冇統一既定概念之下，有能力發展成集體。之後又變咗人類係點樣透過文字溝通，之後又跳咗去點解就算文字不斷演化都可以理解當中嘅意思，但係最後又無啦啦得出個總結係所有理論同思想都係假設出嚟，然之後有集體認同先至可以達致統一。
但係呢啲point最後都係同事物嘅本質存唔存在冇關係，所以其實唔係好理解你想講啲乜嘢。
@tomjoestar3361 我懶得打咁多野嘛，反正你地都有相對既知識，我就無需講得太深入。如果真係要講晒啲關連就可以寫成書啦。我只作回應而已。加上，概念這些都不是固定的，就算撈埋一齊又好，混合一齊又好，都可以算是一種概念。
至於你話冇關係就算啦，各花有各眼，唔明就唔駛明，反正我預左你地跟唔到。冇貶意成分，只係我不是追隨特定的理論和學說，你get唔到point好正常。😉
@ errr 你開心就好
剪片果度有無得唔zoom大個人，或者唔zoom咁頻密？睇得好眼花
@@polardust3602 其實還好。應該話精華就係為咗給更多的非fans認識，所以需要更加多剪接上面嘅技巧/效果（放大縮細），去潤飾哲學這個比較難入門的課題
呢種講法會面對兩個問題：
1. Can a reductionist approach explain emergent properties? Scale effects are real. As mentioned in the clip, some events only make sense when we explain them at a social level, which does not necessarily translate well to personal behavior. 直接用soical trump personal好似有啲unsatisfying.
2. At what point does science end and opinion begin? Evolution informs us about events that have a higher probability of survival, but it does not imply causation on its own. 我覺得普遍好多好強既claim都有呢個問題，然後就發現前因不足，根本sustain唔到個claim，倒果為因更是常見
另外演化係唔會處理到本質呢個問題，at the end of the day it is just a grand description of probability distribution.
但至少就第一點嚟講，生物嘅演化的確唔可以從一個個體嘅角度去諗。因為有好多行為其實擺起一個個體嚟講係唔合理嘅，會減少佢嘅繁殖機會，但係的而且確可以令到族群嘅生存機率提升 e.g. 一個推崇利他嘅社會入面個體嘅生存機會未必係最高，但係呢一種行為可以令族群嘅生存機率比起推崇利己嘅社會更加高。
@tomjoestar The question is whether we can predict events on a larger scale from small-scale events. In physics, superconductivity and turbulence are good examples in which, at least at the moment, we cannot predict the outcome by looking at the microscopic property.
Translate that to a biology, the classic debate would then become mechanism vs organicism. We cannot predict social behaviour from personal behaviour, thus implying causation between the two would not be comprehensive.
@@theo16s 但係而家應該係比較難預測個體嘅行為而群體嘅行為比較容易預測，e.g. 我哋可以透過生存機率去估計群體會作出點樣嘅選擇，但係我哋冇辦法透過同樣嘅model去估計個體嘅行為。另外想問咩叫mechanism vs organism。
@@tomjoestar3361 My first point concerns whether science (in this case, the theory of evolution) can predict such causation. My short answer is no, as evident by the gap between the events of different scales.
Mechanically speaking, that's not how gene selection works either; we can see because we have eyes, not that we want to see, so we evolve eyes. The helpful trait persists, that's it.
We can make interpretations based on science by incorporating narrative, but such interpretations are still opinions.
I am not an expert on organicism, but the takeaway is that organicism proposes both top-down and bottom-up causation, whereas mechanism is more or bottom-up. This view aligns well with emergent property, which is why I think it could be a helpful term to box our thoughts.
點解會唔講同性戀
@@WuArg-s7n 咪係