Autistic people sense animism

Too fast

best teacher on yt

top g of logic

1.If "reparations for slavery" will ever happen in capitalist USA, then likely because they would be used by the ruling class to sow discord between workers, turning white workers against black workers. 2.Practical usefulness of CRT is questionable in my opinion, as if racism resulted in poverty, then addressing wealth inequality is much more sane than making merit-based systems racist against currently dominating races. If anything, such "racism against dominators" looks more like an instrument for struggle between races, to make the current underdogs new dominators.

Any other scientists laughing at silly philosopher man who thinks word games challenge observed facts?

This is just Aristotle's "On Interpretations" translated into Boolean Logic. It's the "Anglo Brain" version of something already known in the Medeterrianian thousands of years ago... The purpose of Aristotle's Interpretations book is to clear up the problem of universals and to build in a notion of *falsifiability.* Tensed logic allows universals to *have* existential import *after* the causal chain of events causes the statement to become definitively true or false *then.* This truth or falsity can change if something changes. This is meant to solve the problem of induction by simply *falsifying* the prior reault which *was* true (to our best knowledge then), but which is discovered now to actually be untrue afterall. This may mean that the original statement was *always* mistaken and we just didn't know *or* that something actually really did physically chnage to change the actual ontological status of that thing. For example, the first ever white swan in all of existence could have been born thus falsifying the prior knowledge that all swans are white. It also seems reasonable that we couldn't know for sure whether or not the first ever discovered white swam was the first ever white swan in existence. Either way, Aristitle's On Interpretations deals with either scenario equally well. Bottom line is that we update our new beliefs according to the evidence -- and we never stop doing that. Whether or not we can know everything without the need of updating our beliefs in this way is irrelevant as it goes against the very foundation of logic itself -- which is actually the Posterior Analytics, aka. the inductive scientific method. Contrary to popular belief, then, the true nature of Aristotelian logic is marrying Bayesian epistemology with the inductive scientific method. And *that's* the *real* Aristotle. That's how Aristotle truly thought, and saw the world. All knowledge, then, is purely descriptive -- it cannot be inferential. In addition, Lorentz invarience provides us with an objective order of cause and effect -- accounting for relativisitic *vision* of certain events due to the speed of light not being infinitely fast or "instantaneous." And so, relativity theory does not undermine tensed truths. And, in addition, the very non-infinite speed of light *also* makes *possible* the Priorean concept of indeterminate free will resulting from "loose packing" of causal events. In other words, every causal chain has a "sphere of influence" and that sphere is *non-infinite.* Thus, it is perfectly possible for both causality and indeterminate free will to coexist in the real world, because there can be *independent* events not affected by any other events, and events for which decisions can be made *independently* from other events which lie outside the causal sphere of influence of those events.

I'm very late to this, but I'd like to say that, though both parties are anything but optimal, I believe you did a relatively good job at pointing out some of Trump's flaws. However, I greatly disagree with you and anyone who casts a vote for Harris, for the simple fact that, not only has she given very few policies to try to fix the economic and safety issues brought by her and Biden's administration, but the few that she has proposed are either *terrible* (such as Price Gouging, which is, at its core, extremely flawed) or directly stolen from Trump (like the construction of a Wall at the border with Mexico, which she wasn't criticized for, despite one of the arguments against Trump being that "he's a racist" because he wanted and started to build said Wall). The Democratic Party has simply moved too far to the left (which has, historically, been much more prone to bringing poverty and government corruption), which is why I'd advise against voting Blue in most occasions. Also, I'd like to mention that, in my opinion, it seems hypocritical that you are pointing out government corruption (which is a very valid reason not to vote for a person/Party, don't get me wrong) while also admitting to voting for a specific candidate based on your chances of keeping your job in the State (which is a very corrupt thing to do). With that being said, I'd like to clarify that I am not, under any circumstances, defending the Republican Party (I am very much not a Republican), but I believe it to be the lesser of two evils (especially from the economic standpoint). That's all, and I hope you're not too upset at Donald Trump's victory. Let's just hope he keeps his word and actually Makes America Great Again.

Question: is it possible for a fallacious categorical syllogism to have an I Form (Particular Affirmative)? I can't seem find a name for a logical fallacy in which a distrubution in the subject and the predicate in a Premise and/or Conclusion is attempted :/ (I'm trying to win an argument, lol)

Be careful what you say on youtube. Creationists won't like it that you said the firmament over the earth is not true. LOL!!

Nonsense...God explains nothing....we Invent Gods and Religions

The whole world works like recycling center if you are ok knowing you have 0 worth to the grand scheme and one day everything will end anyway , if you can see pain and suffering and continuing living without a care then you will be ok to procreate, the thing is most people have a false image of how this world works and how important they are giving themselves and their loved ones more worth than actually have ! We are unimportant !Life means nothing we live to procreate new humans and to recycle to dust !

have you got over the fact that trump got elected?

Building off of what was said at 37:04, suppose we were attacked by aliens more advanced than us. Would we be ethically allowed to use "unethical" weapons like chemical weapons, bioweapons, nuclear weapons, etc. against the aliens? What if that was the only way of preserving life native to the Earth? What if these weapons risked harming life on Earth in the process of defeating the aliens? Also, as an aside, I think there was an accidental error at 51:00. Andromeda is about 2.5 million lightyears away, but that is about the time when some of the first species in the genus Homo (like Homo habilis) appeared, not before eukaryotic life was created. At 1:35:47, I think that this may confuse different types of infinities. For example, if I select a random real number a countably infinite number of times, the probability that I select the number 0.123 is exactly 0, even though 0.123 is a possible outcome. Similarly, depending on what type of infinity we assign to (1) the number of multiverses, (2) the amount of time the multiverses exist, and (3) the infinitesimally small probability of an interaction between the universes occurring at any given time, the probability of a possible interaction happening could be 0, some finite number between 0 and 1, or 1.

All philosophies are 100% Man-made nonsense

Space is finite. It is an aspect of a substance. Existence monism is true. Life is a physical event. It is metaphysically possible that life happens beyond our observable limitations

excellent video

I like space. It's where I keep all my stuff.

There is such embarrassing conflation between the quite clear distinctions but also links between metaphysics and physics. Either interlocutor, whether for or against the First Way, concedes that there is some involvement of physical principles. The affirmer (theist) would have to say that physics is distant to the argument, as the demonstration is metaphysical, and not physical. Yet metaphysics does not exist without physics, this is a foundational truth. Though the denier (atheist) who is supposed stress the use of physics ignores metaphysics and breaks the stool they try to stand on with this weight. An objection with physics as a first principle, or starting point falls because it not as relevant as one from metaphysics, which is why your responses on some apparently superseded Aristotelian ideas, without specifying how they are inconsistent beyond a simplistic description of their claims, all fail in the end of this discussion.

You misunderstanding of aristotle's and Thomas aquinas Metaphysics is so sad, it almost disgust me.

Ahhhhh the cyrenaics were the hedonists.

Wrong. Atheism is the absence of a RELIGIOUS belief. Somebody who does not believe in God is an ADEIST.

Thanks for the info on this topic. William James' question as to how the small units of consciousness are able to make larger units I find intriguing. No answer, just a question looking for reason.

Five topics to fix society via discussion: -Anti-natalism vs Natalism -The 3 basic needs/prenatal needs Three things necessary for human evolution that are provided while in the womb which are; food, shelter and medical care. -Platinum rule Do whatever makes one happier unless it interferes with another persons ability to do the same. -MBTI (research yours and connect with others) -Art (pick one and get better at it!)

on problem 4: p12) ~(pvr)v(qvs) (p11,DM) (reverse DM II) p13) (pvr)>(qvs) (p12, impl) isn't this more direct and still valid? if you reverse DM II first you have the impl straight to the conclusion. am I missing something why this does not work?

I worked it completely backwords until i got both the premises. I guess this would be a totally separate problem, and does not work... hmm... had the right idea to work backwords but took it too far... :D It does show the general path to get there though, but there are non reversible steps like simp in it so it would not be a valid proof. bummer i saw the answer already when checking. its not that easy of a problem going backwords either :D

The “strong executive” is tyrannical by nature, and somewhat fascistic. It’s a top down government forcing change on the people, rather than government by the people. This feels very fascistic.

10 years later... got the first step on last problem right, but was bingeing on this and brain was fried and could not find the next step of simp, after i saw that from you paused and it fell out. I distribute the s through and had svq so was able to just use that when i had ~s and DS that, so was minor differences but works. my brain is fried now... first 40 days in one day... with doing all the problems... Great lectures, but man you go fast lol...

In the case where there is no law against the immoral action, we can argue that potential vigilantes should advocate for legislative reform rather than resort to vigilantism. Of course, that assumes it is possible to change the laws through advocacy. This is not possible in an authoritarian government, and it could be the case that an otherwise democratic government still fails to reflect the will of the people on one particular issue. In those cases, the vigilante may have justification again. Add that to the list of things the vigilante can't know before committing their acts.

Your definition is slightly off. Christians can't even prove there religion is true, let alone that such a thing as a "True Christian" even exists, or even which version out of the 45,000 denominations is the correct one. Regardless of whether a religious person is homosexual or not the fact remains they are indeed Christians and they don't stop being one just cuz another group of Christians say so. Also considering how religion doesn't own morality, and the fact that all Christians cherry pick the bible when it suits them it doesn't matter what the bible says on the subject because all of them pick and choose what parts they like and ignore anyways.

Kuhn 1: "Theories can only be true in comparison to a paradigm (relatively true)." On what basis do you make this statement? This is a grand statement with no evidence given. You are essentially assuming the conclusion with no evidence. 2. "Absolute truth implies a statement is true regardless of paradigm." No, it doesn't Absolute truth implies that a statement and the actual truth of the matter match perfectly. 3. The statement "absolute Truth does not exist" is relatively true under Kuhn's paradigm. If you take as an assumption that everything is relatively true, yes. But when you assume everything is relatively true you are already making a statement about absolute truth, which you already have expressly denied exists. 4. A statement may be relatively true without being absolutely true. Sure. So what? Some things are relatively true and some things are absolutely true. The argument here is that at least something is absolutely true, not that all things are absolutely true. I don't agree that this is a refutation at all.

Here is the resolution. In this paradox, there was a town in which all men were required to be beardless. In this town, there was a set of men who shaved themselves and another separate set who did not shave themselves. For that latter set of men there was a barber who posted a sign which instructed that he only shaved men who did not shave themselves. The paradoxical aspect becomes visible when considering who would shave the barber, there being only two sets of men to which he could be a member by virtue of whether or not he did or did not shave himself. He had to be beardless so he had to shave himself but his sign instructed that he did not shave men who shaved themselves, thus the paradox. Though confusing to some, the resolution is clear and simple. The two sets of men were defined as such by virtue of only one, unique criterion, i.e., for the one that they shaved themselves and for the other that they did not but rather visited the barber. Each set of men shared three other criteria for membership which were identical. In each they were men. In each they lived in town and in each they had to be beardless. The only means of the definition of their membership into the two separate sets of men (the deciding factor) was the inclusion of their respective relationships to shaving. That being the case, the barber would necessarily have to be defined as a member of a third set of men, i.e., those who shaved others. Consider, he too was a man, lived in town and had to be beardless and like the first two sets of men, if the same logic were to hold throughout the paradox (which it must), was designated a member of a separate, third set of men by his unique relationship to shaving, the only defining factor in the first two and thus necessarily for the third. Deny this and you deny the very means by which the first two groups of men were defined as members of their separate sets and the paradox fails. Accept this and the paradox fails. That is because it is not a paradox and should not be or have been confounding to anyone. Frege was correct and Russell wrong...the set of all sets which don't contain themselves cannot contain itself. Comments? Opinions?

Truth, Goodness and Beauty are objective, but the taste and perception is subjective.

It looks like all your uploads are suffering from the same issue, sorry to say!

Check your upload -- there's an issue with the audio levels jumping suddenly and sporadically.

The inherent concept of a good or bad person is something I don't like most of the time. Good and bad are actions, not a state of being.

Belief is often interpreted as if there is a Choice to Believe or not to all possible propositions. In formal systems, there is no choice except that made by the Person that set up the formalism.

I find western philosophy wrought with intellectual hubris. Western medicine too. It’s all a farce.

Just define f_n(x) = 1 if [x] is in the vase after step n and 0 otherwise. Now the number of balls in the vase after step n is equal to the integral of f_n(x) from 0 to infinity. I would argue that the function f(x) = lim n->inf f_n(x) describes the contents of the vase after an infinite number of steps. Clearly f(x) = 0 for all x, so the number of balls in the vase after an infinite number of steps is 0. What this shows is that the order of integration and taking the limit cannot always be interchanged. Which everybody who has studied analysis knows.

Dang I'm lost

Seems like a category error is going on. Fallacy is on the realm of logic. Art on the realm of aesthetics. But what do I know of philosophy. I'm just a dumb engineer

A bit offtopic, but any sufficiently powerful individual makes life and death decisions on the daily. Any powerful enough individual will make mistakes that will kill people on the daily because they didnt take the optimal action. What to do about it?

When there is even a doubt if the actions of a vigilante are justified, it shows a massive failer of the state. Each time vigilante is seem as legitimate, the legitimacy of the justice system and the rule of law is diminished a little bit. Vigilante and rule of law can't co-exist. People shouldnt rely on vigilante for justice. They should fight for social change. Vigilantism is at best a bandaid, not a solution

Hmmmmm......most people that claim to have a personal relationship with their god don't seem to have a sense of morality.

Thanks

Aren't the stockholders people resposible for the denials of coverage instead of the CEO? If the CEO made his choices based on ethics instead of profit stockholders would change the CEO to one that considered profit only. Maybe both are resposible, i the this view as preatty reasonable. putting the guilt exclusively on the CEO seems wrong.

Thank you so much for making playlists on logic, I don't know where I would be without you.... Looking at your channel, I fell like you already did pretty much everything you could do with short videos in terms of courses for certain topics, so the switch to longer videos seems like a great idea.

banger videos

Affirmative Action For Low Income Families is much much better, CRT is purely targeting White People of all income levels.