What appears as substance is in reality continuum. Continuum is process. What appears as objects are the nodes of intersection between the poles of the dynamism of the continuum. Perception is projection. We experience the qualities of our perceptions. Our perceptions are representations of the perceived. Our representations reflect not reality in itself but our interpretation of our representations. Our interpretations in turn reflect whatever we are convinced of. Our life is a story or narrative. Therefore, interpretations that inspire, enlighten and empower us are preferred. The law of cause and effect is reliable, observable and repeatable. Throw a stone, break a window. Go back a few minutes later, the past confirms the broken window. We do not experience what happens, we experience our perceived narrative of what happened. If our narrative is isomorphic, close or true enough about what happened we can keep up with Reality in the same way as the old sailing ships which were off course 99% of the time. It was the 1% of the time the steersman could make the necessary corrections to keep bringing the ship back on course that brought the ship and crew safely to their destination, by maintaining the optimum between the extremes of too much and too little. What appears as opposites separate from each other are in reality the poles of a continuum. Concept and percept are the poles of the continuum of the human psyche. The other two poles are conscious and unconscious. This is the Cross of Life.
This may have already been stated but I was under the impression that when you burn a piece of wood the mass difference between the ash and the block of wood is lost as smoke and only fission or fusion could cause a change between mass and energy.
with referring to the talk (time stamp about 51 minutes) about the loss of mass in a wood after it is burnt, the equivalent of mass lost due to heat energy released (E = m time c squared) is far too small account for the mass lost. The mass lost is due mainly to the carbon in the wood being burnt and converted into carbon dioxide. I am here assuming that the wood is perfectly dry, thereby ignoring the mass lost due to water converted into steam.
Did you really just “quote, unquote” Descartes in the 17th century on “Microsoft Word” and “a priori processing words on a computer” ? I didn’t know they where running and bumping out treatise and meditations on Microsoft Word back then @28:35
I understand,let me put it this way, let's say we are characters of another consciousness, like a dream, and in this case the characters are advanced and can think . what i am saying is this, we are part of the devil genius and those parts are deceived by the devil genius into thinking they are separate entities. what are your thoughts on this? thank you
I'll use your words here: "we think because we ARE the thoughts of someone else" --> we still ARE, we still exist, even if only through the mind of someone else. something that is to be deceived needs to BE in order to be deceived. That's what Descartes would have said
I do insist that it is a brillant lecture but the title speaking of "a priori..."looks stange to me because Kant is involved here:l don't see Why?Can you help me?Kant within Descartes,is it necessary?
There's a slight difference in your explanation with that of my own teacher. He said that Descartes proved the god's existence by saying that he exists because God is a perfect being, and it is better to exist than not to exist. This difference doesn't really matter, I suppose, but I found it a little curious. :)
+Richard Brown thank you so much for your help through these videos! you have no idea how much you helped, i have gotten A's because of you! thank you so much.
@@onemorebrown I was about to ask the same question as Danika Kersten, then spotted this comment. What do you mean by main argument? Is the argument you present around 33:30 an interpretation based on D's general philosophy or did he actually write this argument somewhere? Thank you very much for these excellent lectures. Understanding the contrast between an Aristotelian world view of necessary deducible truths as opposed to the more contemporary view of contingent truths has been very eye opening for me. Still many people in science who have a lot of Aristoteles in their thinking.
What if you think mind/body dualism and physicalism are both false? Are their any other options? P.S, what about self-theism (believing that you in fact are God) how does this play into mind/body dualism and physicalism? I'm taking I2P @ RSU in Claremore Oklahoma. I'm not sure if you have covered physicalism yet, so if you want, message me privately if interested in answering this question.
So... for Descartes, if I can conceive of anything infinite - say, a ribbon with a start but no end, or something infinitely hot; however hot you get, this thing is hotter (which is physically impossible; heat is a description of how fast particles are moving, and they can't move faster than the speed of light, but I'm breaking the laws of physics in my mind :P ), it *must* exist? That's... that's bollocks. Descartes, you're appealing to an absurdity. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Brown.
Please reply to this statement. Maybe we are just an illusion of that Genius Devil and we dont really exist. Therefore we cant say" I think therefore I am" because we think because we are the thoughts of someone else, Just an illusion of another consciousness. basically I am doubting my thinking.
Informal Causal dyslexia. It is manifest by cause and effect being interchanged. Those who have the condition tend to keep their heads upright while those that do not tilt their heads to the side.
I'd disagree with you on what is thinking I would call emotions experential aesthetics not thinking, it is a very specific generation construct. You probably use to. He is basically assuming you are watching a movie then he won't take you seriously that your brain works like this so you are explaining an autism percept sort of everything we experience is just an idea of what it is meaning what Its not, it's a form of negation I don't like it. Stop it.
so our existence in this case will be an illusion, of course there is something that exists im arguing that , that something is not us, w are deceived into thinking that it;s us
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Brown, you are by far the best at giving a concise explanation of different philosophers and their thoughts. Thank you, very much.
I studied philosophy for nine years and I have never heard it explained so clearly. Well done.
Totaly brillant and convincing:Richard Brown is a very good philosopher. Thank you Richard.
I have to keep coming back to this lecture !!! Excellent work
What appears as substance is in reality continuum.
Continuum is process. What appears as objects are the nodes of intersection between the poles of the dynamism of the continuum.
Perception is projection. We experience the qualities of our perceptions. Our perceptions are representations of the perceived. Our representations reflect not reality in itself but our interpretation of our representations. Our interpretations in turn reflect whatever we are convinced of. Our life is a story or narrative. Therefore, interpretations that inspire, enlighten and empower us are preferred.
The law of cause and effect is reliable, observable and repeatable.
Throw a stone, break a window. Go back a few minutes later, the past confirms the broken window. We do not experience what happens, we experience our perceived narrative of what happened. If our narrative is isomorphic, close or true enough about what happened we can keep up with Reality in the same way as the old sailing ships which were off course 99% of the time. It was the 1% of the time the steersman could make the necessary corrections to keep bringing the ship back on course that brought the ship and crew safely to their destination, by maintaining the optimum between the extremes of too much and too little.
What appears as opposites separate from each other are in reality the poles of a continuum. Concept and percept are the poles of the continuum of the human psyche. The other two poles are conscious and unconscious. This is the Cross of Life.
So clearly explained. I'm real glad I found this channel.
YOUR LECTURES ARE AMAZING! WOW I felt so pumped up listening that it launched me into a 2 hour long daydream about Descarte haha
Thank you Dr Richard Brown, I learned so much.
Thank you. Your explanations are clear, understandable and accurate.
Sounds pretty much same thing Schopenhauer is talking about in his book "The World As Perception and Idea" great videos, thanks for sharing!
Thank you for uploading these, love learning this stuff!
My response to Descartes has always been: "I think, therefore I think I am"
This may have already been stated but I was under the impression that when you burn a piece of wood the mass difference between the ash and the block of wood is lost as smoke and only fission or fusion could cause a change between mass and energy.
with referring to the talk (time stamp about 51 minutes) about the loss of mass in a wood after it is burnt, the equivalent of mass lost due to heat energy released (E = m time c squared) is far too small account for the mass lost. The mass lost is due mainly to the carbon in the wood being burnt and converted into carbon dioxide. I am here assuming that the wood is perfectly dry, thereby ignoring the mass lost due to water converted into steam.
Thanks a lot for both vids part one and two... has helped a lot with my revision :D
Thank you for posting the lecture ! I found it was helpful and useful.
I liked your analogy!
good one Dr. Brown
Thank you for sharing both videos (((:
They are amazingly helpful!
Please make a video on Plato: knowledge and opinion.
Great class thank you
I love rationalists
"Cogito ergo sum"
You answered it yourself.
Only things that exist can doubt.
You are doubting
Therefore you exist
Did you really just “quote, unquote” Descartes in the 17th century on “Microsoft Word” and “a priori processing words on a computer” ? I didn’t know they where running and bumping out treatise and meditations on Microsoft Word back then @28:35
Hey, i see you uploaded this video in 2011! have you read the latest book by physicist Michio Kaku "The Future Of The Mind"?
I understand,let me put it this way, let's say we are characters of another consciousness, like a dream, and in this case the characters are advanced and can think . what i am saying is this, we are part of the devil genius and those parts are deceived by the devil genius into thinking they are separate entities. what are your thoughts on this? thank you
I'll use your words here: "we think because we ARE the thoughts of someone else" --> we still ARE, we still exist, even if only through the mind of someone else. something that is to be deceived needs to BE in order to be deceived.
That's what Descartes would have said
I do insist that it is a brillant lecture but the title speaking of "a priori..."looks stange to me because Kant is involved here:l don't see Why?Can you help me?Kant within Descartes,is it necessary?
Is this series a part of any particular college or university?
There's a slight difference in your explanation with that of my own teacher. He said that Descartes proved the god's existence by saying that he exists because God is a perfect being, and it is better to exist than not to exist.
This difference doesn't really matter, I suppose, but I found it a little curious. :)
That is known as the ontological argument and Descartes gives it as well, but the one I present is his 'main' argument
Ah, I see.. Thanks. :)
+Richard Brown thank you so much for your help through these videos! you have no idea how much you helped, i have gotten A's because of you! thank you so much.
@@onemorebrown I was about to ask the same question as Danika Kersten, then spotted this comment. What do you mean by main argument? Is the argument you present around 33:30 an interpretation based on D's general philosophy or did he actually write this argument somewhere?
Thank you very much for these excellent lectures. Understanding the contrast between an Aristotelian world view of necessary deducible truths as opposed to the more contemporary view of contingent truths has been very eye opening for me. Still many people in science who have a lot of Aristoteles in their thinking.
What if you think mind/body dualism and physicalism are both false? Are their any other options? P.S, what about self-theism (believing that you in fact are God) how does this play into mind/body dualism and physicalism? I'm taking I2P @ RSU in Claremore Oklahoma. I'm not sure if you have covered physicalism yet, so if you want, message me privately if interested in answering this question.
That sounded confrontational. It wasn't meant as such. Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong, I want to know. :)
So... for Descartes, if I can conceive of anything infinite - say, a ribbon with a start but no end, or something infinitely hot; however hot you get, this thing is hotter (which is physically impossible; heat is a description of how fast particles are moving, and they can't move faster than the speed of light, but I'm breaking the laws of physics in my mind :P ), it *must* exist?
That's... that's bollocks. Descartes, you're appealing to an absurdity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Brown.
Please reply to this statement. Maybe we are just an illusion of that Genius Devil and we dont really exist. Therefore we cant say" I think therefore I am" because we think because we are the thoughts of someone else, Just an illusion of another consciousness. basically I am doubting my thinking.
CASUAL closure??!!
Informal Causal dyslexia.
It is manifest by cause and effect being interchanged.
Those who have the condition tend to keep their heads upright while those that do not tilt their heads to the side.
All is best
Anyone else have homework at De Anza?
Prof Hanson?
@@yamchimovits3074 Yep.
800 words for 7 points aint worth it
@@peternguyen4726 Lol. Might want to hide your name!
I exsist because i don't want to write it.
Ash + energy - what?!!! Somebody needs to be doing a bit less philosophy and a little more science...
I'd disagree with you on what is thinking I would call emotions experential aesthetics not thinking, it is a very specific generation construct. You probably use to. He is basically assuming you are watching a movie then he won't take you seriously that your brain works like this so you are explaining an autism percept sort of everything we experience is just an idea of what it is meaning what Its not, it's a form of negation I don't like it. Stop it.
so our existence in this case will be an illusion, of course there is something that exists im arguing that , that something is not us, w are deceived into thinking that it;s us