What a great discussion, this channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites and now I have another podcast I need to start listening to (Nullius in Verba). Lakens' discussion of frequentist vs bayesian helped clarify some ideas for me. You should interview Chris Molnar, he adds Likelihoodsim as a third approach (and even publishes a nifty 3 circle diagram that reminds me of Lacan's 3 circles for psychoanalysis). Also loved the Feyerabend discussion, it sounds like this guy Lakatos guy balanced out Feyerabend's anarchist methodology. Anyways thank you again Sam for this interview and all your thoughtful and thought provoking videos

Hi sam bro my question in regarding hegelain dialectical thinking and critical thinking which one give us more comphrensive understanding and which one is more diffcult to perform and requires more mental efforts? And another question do you regard hegel embrace of contradiction answer of certain metaphyiscal questions like conciousness or regard mysterianism of chomsky and colin mcginn as answer? Thank you plz answer

If those who successfully produced a market worthy idea or technology had to, or were heavily incentivised to do so, gave a portion of successful business proceeds to a foundation that paid for the replication studies nobody else wants to pay for, that could be a good place for students to dip their feet in. And studies get replicated. But is there any will to see this type of idea through.... probably not.

🎉

Jean-Luc Marion !!

Religion has nothing to do with science. It is about a faith in an unprovable concept, science isn’t! No matter what fancy words you use to cover that 😂😂😂 😂

This was very welcome today, i am an artist who doesnt sell my work or do anything with it, but have dedicated my life to it and pursuing what i would like to pursue creatively and intellectually, thats what makes me feel life is worth living and i refuse to give that up even though i am poor. I've been called a loser, a fuck up, lazy, crazy, a grifter and parasite, i call myself these things too (a lot more than anyone else has), but no matter what i cant make myself live any other life, doing anything else is disgusting to me, I just dont want to, and I wont. I have friends who follow this productive life and i see how unhappy they are, i know some of them even envy me, other people use me as an example of what not to be. Its okay, even when i am affected by other people and my self criticisms, this is my life. Though the worst thing about this life is the lack of security for the future, im scared about that, but i think even people who play the game and do everything right can get to retirement and everything be taken from them.

The conclusion is doubtful. Just because something is unthinkably huge or infinite, it doesn't mean we know nothing or close to nothing about it. Our knowledge is not purely quantitative. There are other categories we can use besides quantity to determine whether we know something. Mathematical induction, the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice, however problematic, allow us to work with infinities and get some knowledge about them.

White Christopher Brown Sarah Martin Elizabeth

The only "salvation" that ever was , is freedom from religion ... Because if you actually payed attention to Jesus , you'd realize they weren't his friends ...

Wow wow wow, Absolutely incredible words from Emily. I’ll be getting her book very soon. So many pathways to explore so many fields of thought could be applied. SO AWESOME! Bravo

This is the second interview I have heard with this philosopher and I have enjoyed them both. I will be buying her books and I have suggested to Majesty of Reason Joe Schmid that she would be a great for him to talk to as well. Great interview!

Emily, Your seperation of reality into Methodological and Metaphysical is very unfortualte, because it is unproductive to deny the existence of a Source of all reality. What needs rejection is assuming the creator of this reality to be benevolent, which certainly is a blatent lie. It is immaterial whether that source is within or outside the reality we experience, so long as it permits rectification of evil through our own efforts. The Methodological Science, that you value, is even more systematically destructive than all the religions taken together, because by inventing far more convincing and practically implementable LAWS OF NATURE to explain NATURAL sequence of events with all the EVIL intact, as immutable, inevitable and irrefutable system of LAWS, it only contributes, inadvertantly though, to justify and perpetuate all the EVIL as they exist. Science has only substituted the word NATURE instead of GOD while retaining its capacity as the sole power that determines the flow of all events in the universe, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE OURSELVES DO IN IT intact. It is immaterial whether the Creator is wihin the system of our experiences (what you call time), or outside it, so long as the rectification (= PREVENTION through our own efforts) of all the EVIL is possible. This destructiveness of science is clearly observable in the fact that its raison de ètre is weapons manufacture. All benefits are either leftovers or side effects of that main purpose. Even this internet, you and I communicate through just now, is a leftover from a defense project. All the Nobel prizes, even for peace, are awarded from the profits of the weapons manufacturing company established by the inventor of the dynamite.

The concept TIME, just like that of GOD, is an unjustifiable integration of the sources of two incompatible sequence of events: GOOD and EVIL. Even the great physicist, who declared time as relative, failed to recognize this crucial distinction and formulated a correction to the concept without separating the sources of the two sequences, by retaining "t" as a unified single variable. If we are to overcome EVIL we must separate its source from those of GOOD and deal with each separately: the former must have a unique DETERMINISTICALLY FINITE, but eternally valid set of solutions, while the latter remains RANDOMLY INFINITE and ETERNAL, as positive surprises are more enjoyable than positive certainties. Hence search for knowledge must strictly be limited to derive the DETERMINISTICALLY FINITE formulae to PREVENT EVIL, whereafter life would only mean their application to sustain evil free life eternally. As search for knowledge would be unnecessary thereafter, all intellectual activity after that would be collecting information to prepare maps, time tables and tracing probable evil that require PREVENTION (not PREDICTION) with reference to them, and of course positive entertainments (music, art,....) EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH.

As there should exist some "source" for our own existence and the existence of the environment (natural and social) atheism ~ as denier of a creator of all this ~ is totally unjustifiable. Considering all the evil on this earth, it is far more appropriate to assume the existence of a CRUEL CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF THIS BRUTAL SYSTEM, who doesn't deserve any respect, let alone prayers and subordination to the rules The Cowardly Brute, not prepared to face and inform own creations directly and individually, is supposed to have revealed to some selected individuals. The only reason to search for knowledge is the hope that The Brute does permit our own rectification of her/his/its errors once we derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how the system works. Otherwise there is absolutely no meaning in searching for knowledge.

White Michael Garcia Jason Moore Linda

Mathematics as THE UNIFIER of all knowledge (in all of natural and social sciences) MUST take responsibility for all the evil consequences of its application (wars, accidents, pollution, etc.). Understanding its ALREADY EXISTING AXIOMS and RULES is comparatively easy. But to apply mathematics for PRACTICAL SUSTENANCE OF EVIL FREE LIFE ON THIS EARTH ~ the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge ~ it is crucial that we first find out what particle (electron, proton, neutron, boson, lepton, quark or any other, like hydrogen, helium,..., ununoctium or any combination of them) a DIGIT is? I mean the DIGITs with which we calculate in our minds, NOT the BITs with which the chips are made. Note: EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. It is only after we clarify this we can find out exactly what an arithmetic operation means (hence also all the axioms and formulae) and how we can use mathematics to PRACTICALLY SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE ON THIS EARTH. This is the first question any scientist, philosopher or searcher of knowledge, in general, MUST clarify before attempting to answer anything else. Lack of this realization is the reason why the human race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge. The current purpose free ideal of science, "knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity" along with its misguided criterion of proof, "PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations" is the ultimate source of all wars and pollution. It gives the scientists the very same harlot's prerogative (authority without responsibility) that all conventional religions provide to their priests. Scientists provide all the knowledge necessary to manufacture weapons and polluting industries, but blame politicians for wars and industrialists for pollution.

You might want to edit the title of the video.

Consciousnesses actually discussing that consciousness doesn't exist because this science notion can't measure it? Sounds like you need a double slit experiment in the basement and maybe google amplituhedron. Good luck!

After your Ai pod I found this one...Fascinating even while doing some carving woodwork in my studio...wonderful stuff!

You said woking on understanding christian belief...makes sense!🤣

When God created the heavens and the Earth, He created a block universe. The people who say the universe came out of the Big Bang are wrong. The beginning, middle and end of a block universe all had to appear at once. Genesis 1 needs to be interpreted that way. Each of the six “days” of creation take place along a second dimension of time. It’s as if God has created a huge play in which we all participate. The purpose of it all is for us to learn about good and evil so we can make an informed choice about where we want to spend eternity. Note that while our physical universe is fixed (finished after the six “days”), people have a spiritual component that is free to choose between good and evil. In creating our block universe, God had to know what everyone was going to decide throughout their life.

If there is a disagreement between science and religion then this illuminates a problem with our understanding of one or the other. This is an opportunity to improve our understanding of one or other discipline. It is a good thing!! However, I think there is a confusion between the concept of religion and that of spirituality. Religion is a man made artefact with all the weaknesses this incorporates. Spirituality is an inherent component of our make up. Man is a spiritual being with a series of inherent belief systems. If life has meaning - and I believe it does- then our purpose is to wander that spiritual journey to try to establish what that meaning is. In my life, I believe that this is a journey of discipleship and one that is illuminated by the bible and the life of Christ. The topsy turvey logic brought to light is perhaps best summarised in the sermon on the mount and the knowledge that God is love.

Science fiction is the third alternative ... pagan gods aka von Däniken aliens in the foreground ... but metaphysical naturalism in the background.

I think we are dealing with a rather complex world. Stuff like the universe and brains for instance are considered to be complex systems. That is stuff we do not really understand very well scientifically..and likely never will. Something like mystical experience which is subtle experience is beyond what can be researched scientifically also. So it can very well be that stuff like spirituality is materialistic in nature. We have like fixed ideas about what materialistic is and those ideas might be very wrong.

Larry Laudan's conception of methodological naturalism still advocates that science is a superior form of knowing. So, while it pretends epistemic humility, it drives us towards a kind of ontological imperialism where the import of metaphysics becomes almost unavoidable (evident in the discourse of neo-positivists and pragmatists).

👍👍

Emil Qureshi Hurst's work is very impressive. I massively appreciate the way she is articulating the key difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, the nuances of her atheist relationship to science and religion, and her ideas about how our current understanding of time presents major challenges to certain presuppositions about traditional Christianity, is absolutely creative and demonstrates the necessity of why we need more real interdisciplinary analysis.

has echoes of Ibn Arabi, no?

🎉

Rahul, could you send me the link to this interview? I didn't find it

The God of the demand to enjoy idea where jealousy et al come in to play is very prevalent in the west atm, on both left and right of the political spectrum.

The host needs to stop interrupting and reflect first 🙏♥️

Nice. I think it's worth remembering that *any* scientific paradigm is inherently limited. For example, so long as reproducibility is core to the scientific method (and that's certainly useful to an engineer!), science will be inherently unable to describe real but unreproducible phenomena. Although I reckon even casual observation makes it clear that these must necessarily be very rare or very difficult to observe.

52:10 okay THIS is it! This is what I feel. 56:20 omg. And this too.

Eliot: I dig Hegel more than anyone ever did, even Žižek and the Ljubljana Cartel, and that gives me a free license to straw-man Nietzsche! Rahul: Yes! I agree absolutely. I even have a Hegel mug! Eliot: You know, life can't be formalized because everything is moving. Rahul: Yes! I agree absolutely. Me: But have you ever heard of the differential calculus? Eliot: Who let this Deleuzo-Guattarian obscurantist in? Me: But isn't Hegel daddy for every illuminati? Eliot: Get him out! We need some more lack, dialectically! Rahul: Yes! I agree absolutely. I even have a Hegel mug!

the wash up of utilitarianism and extreme commensurability, no? epistemic blindness ~ see Bojan Radej

"A tepid vanilla discipline where you try to categorise people" is a good way to describe the modern state of psychology.

I do not think it is true that we have new paradigm, we still live in a disciplinary society in many ways and the achievement pressure is not new, part of capitalism competitions from the beginning.

Hi sam i have question what is zizek view on colin mcginn mysterianism from hegelain philosphy of conyridictions lens . Is zizek accept or reject it ? Also why he reject or accept colin mcginn mysterianism from hegelain lens.

I'm late to the game, but check out the work of Jennifer M Silvia: The main idea of here PHD thesis concluded that what she calls the therapeutic narrative, wherein one overcomes past trauma, has replaced unreachable life milestones because they aren't reachable in a neoliberal state. It blew my mind!

Oppy's not taking his monism seriously, and is overlooking the non-dual foundation of analytic idealism. There are no "inputs" to explain. There is only mind.

Hi sam i have question what is zizek view on colin mcginn idea of new mysterianism from hegelain lens. Os zizek reject it or accept it ? Also why

Thanks for another interesting chat. I didn't become interested in cognitive science until I saw John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis here on KZbin. This was the series that made it meaningful for me. I highly recommend this series.

What we were made in to - implies that we had no say to begin with as well. It's as if we just became something because it was required. A type of throwness maybe? So we are free when we are alienated from that which we were made into

There's no "logical necessity" for the sun to rise tomorrow morning? 07:46 Doesnt the orbit of earth and its spin, and the arrangement of our solar system create a logical necessity?

Thinking again... Math based on first principle axiomatic logic can not be complete. Yet, the language built to prove this must then have also been inherently incomplete. Does that bring into question whether or not we can rely on that line of thinking? Or... is the fact that this newly built language, incomplete or not, was structured in such a way that it must, in fact, contain everything from math, sufficient enough to use the logic that did arise from it as contradictory proof of the original question? Is math still useful, knowing it's incomplete? Should that logic carry up to this next order of logic magnitude? Does logic work like math? Are they the same? Is... logic... incomplete? Can we even conceive of a structure, like Gödel's prime language, that could do the same thing for natural language? Does that question even make any sense to try formalizing? Maybe... I don't know. My thinking on this one is, wait for it, incomplete. 😊

Very good discussion 👍, thank you for sharing.

Total caricature of panpsychism, I’d say? Even the Goffian substance version is more nuanced than he’s suggesting, to say nothing of the process-relational version.

He who knows only his own side of the story knows little even of that. John S Mills. The self that knows only itself knows little even of that. Materialism and minds in a nutshell. But usefulness exists... so is it more?