Great video!

14:42 says who?

I disagree

Great introduction - as always! Just one question: Where did Musgrave formulate his critique? Thx!

45:56 Then what would be the examplar of knowledge according to the prototype theory of concept?

It is simply rediculous. World does Not mean primarily an object next to Others, or a Part of anything in any Relation. Everything mentioned is dependent on there being simultaneously a world, namely the world. One could think of it as the entire fact about at least one thing (existing). It is Impossible, that nothing is, therefore There Always is (Something) and by that a world, namely the world, since i agree, that there are no other possible worlds then the actual, but that there are No possible worlds is Impossible, since it would imply that If anything whatsoever is and is refered to, it is assumed and with the world where it applies, while also denying it. It would be the Same as saying, that nothing is possible and everything Impossible, which is Not possible, since this itself must be possible and cannot be Impossible. The Nihilist and No one Else can Escape this, and are therefore False, If they Claim it or deduce it. It is really the shady tendency to Play with words and boundries around Things, that can allow someone to happily contradict oneself. Please dont Nail me down to death in the words i used, scince they are, even If insuffiecient, only used to explicate what is really already evident. For If you understand the notion of world and its Relation anything at all, you will get it outright and dont fear for the might of words and tricks Hidden in and needed for the proposal of such a Question or Proposition. All this Said with due Respect.

Of course, scince one can speak of Impossibilities and contradictory Things, i.e wrong things... But Not, If one means by 'there being' to exist, for then the answer then is clearly No, since it would otherwise imply a contradiction. By that, the Question is solved, as far as it is described correctly so in its Most General Form.

Propositions, that are normally prown to be self refuting, are such of General Claim, meaning Expressions of "all". If such a propositions now includes itself, and Rules itself Out, by taking that of which it to mean all of it, and Therefore also itself, it contradicts itself and cannot be true, but is indeed False, but also never Approximatly true, since it is totally False, as the Case cannot possibly be in any way whatsoever, as it ruled itself Out by adressing all. Furthermore, what is false, and shown to be False, hence with No trace of Being in any aspect possibly true, is precisely that, namely False. And scince one seeks the Truth to ones maximal power, one cannot endorse that which is proven wrong, for Else you would Stop seeking Truth. Approximations are in their specific ascpects either true or False, and as a whole true or False. But this is Not the Same, as in saying, that they hold nothing to them, for Well established scientific knowledge holds more then meaningfull to doubt and gives no prevalence to any other Proposition. And If you Stretch Out any Kind of continuum, you must also expect for Some Things to Fall in the Side of the clearly and strongly False. This short comment cannot suffice to examine this appropriately, but i Hope, that i could made clear, why those Things neither Work Nor should be easily conflated, scince it would again be contradictory to allow for anything to be true, as Long as it is seemingly somewhat false. Relativism about Truth is clearly Impossible, scince it contradicts itself and the Nature of Truth, being, that it cannot be False, meaning, that there is no relative point on which it depends, other then the actual and necessary one. Selfrefuting means nothing Else then contradictory in the relevant Respect. So If you denie selfrefutation or praise it, you do it for contradiction. But who does this, does really nothing. There can and will be No debate about this, scince the one affirming that which negates contradiction is in way able to Take Part in discourse, If discourse is Not to be the Show of force, for only so you can convince someone of this. By violating them.

19:26 I don't understand. If we accept modus morons, why would we still say that it is invalid?

15:00 Does the justification of modus morons mean proving that the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true? If so, I don't understand how modus morons can be justified using the truth table because in the truth table, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can either be true or false. In the case of modus ponens in the truth table, if the premises are true, the conclusion can only be true.

Years of Web Planet hate made me assume you were joking when you put it in 'Greatest', I'm glad to see you meant it. And it's totally true that the Menoptra looking "silly" doesn't make it unrealistic, as anyone who's ever watched a David Attenborough documentary knows that there are plenty of "silly" looking creatures here in reality. I also think it's appropriate that you compare it to The Edge of Destruction, as I consider The Web Planet a kind of expanded version of that story, as it starts in exactly the same way, with the Tardis malfunctioning for an unknown reason, but this time it actually gets a proper explanation for the weirdness, as opposed to a switch getting stuck somehow explaning the "possession" thing.

even with no money, I'm fine with just getting two boxes. need more storage space in this economy

4:10 - Can't quite bring yourself to say "The Daleks is bad" can you?

5:07 If the first two promises are accepted but the conclusion is rejected, then wouldn't it run into a contradiction? If so, then even a skeptic of deduction can't accept a contradiction because if a contradiction is possible his rejection of the conclusion could be an acceptance of it at the same time or his acceptance of the contradiction could be a rejection of it.

bro doesn't know how to end a video

It's not clear to me why we should accept the premise that we have reasons to promote our self interest. This is surely a normative claim with the same status as other normative claims - one could just as easily state with the premise that we have reasons to promote the general interest. More specifically, I don't think that personal identity is a mind-indepdent property in the way that it's treated for moral theorsing, mostly for the reasons given by Parfit. What's in a rational beings interests also seems ill defined - it's seems permissible to conceive of this as both the integral of their welfare, and what their interests are at any given time period, particularly if we don't think that there are any criteria of rational action that can guide morality more generally.

A counterargument to the integers, even integers case is that this doesn't hold under different formulaisations of "more" that aren't cardinal, e.g measure theoretic approach. In this case, what "more" means depends on the function that "more" is playing. If I'm using "more" in the context of "if there's more x than y, then my probability of seeing x is greater than my probability of choosing y is each element of the sets of x and y are drawn according to some probability measure" then there are at least as many even as odd integers, and the probability is exactly half (and so there are 2 times as many integers as odd integers) if we use an asymoptoic definition of probability. The larger point here is that this (at least could be) an example of common sense often being correct under a specific permissible formalisaton of the words used in the common sense proposition, and it could be that the formulaisation in which the common sense proposition holds is typically apporopite in the cases that common sense would apply to. Another example of this is the use of infintesiamls in calaclus, or the use of infinity in choice problems (when saying "choose the largest x" this question can be made sensible if defined over a compact set which can be achieved by defining the extended real number like R union +- infinity.)

26:48

38:57 Why does Hume think that the skeptical argument he gave is rationally unassailable or watertight? Isn't the fact that it is self-defeating shows that the argument doesn't work?

Btw there’s an interesting fact from quantum physics that it is actually impossible to create a perfect copy of a state without destroying the original. This is the “no cloning theorem.” So actually the thought experiment where the teleporter fails to destroy the original can’t happen according to current physics.

An actual, real legal contradiction that I myself observed in my direct experience, during my lifetime: I'm gay, and I'm 62, so I came out and knew many LGBT people before sodomy laws were struck down, and long before same gender marriage. I personally knew more than one transgendered woman who had been married to a woman while in her male incarnation. She had had children with that woman while incognito and transitioned while still being married to the woman. No judge wanted to touch the question of the marriage, because they were perfectly legally married, and absolutely no precedent had been created for a perfectly legal marriage between what seemed like a man and a woman, that ended up being actually between two women. Thus, they were both perfectly legally married, and not legally married, at once.

31:13 Well, if you assign a probability of 1 to a judgement, then you are certain that the judgment is true. But after reflecting on your capacity or ability to assign a probability, you become uncertain of the initial probability you made, which is that the probability of the judgment is 1, and assign a new probability to that initial probability. So if you aren't certain that the probability of the judgment is 1, then you aren't certain that the judgment is true. So, even if they were different probabilities, you do become uncertain of the initial judgement.

This video was necessary.

Ah yes, the notion that the qualia in (allegedly) your brain can tell you about the non-qualia geometric relationships between pure... values, I guess? Abstract concepts of numbers and the.. distances between them? Whatever the fuck "matter" is supposed to be. Anyway, you see, the qualia in your brain, somehow stimulated by those abstract concepts in the form of what we call "photons", but what really have no concrete shape, size, or any quality to speak of since the very concept of a quality is incoherent in the physicalist worldview, are, actually, representative of how those abstractions actually are in the REAL world, you see. Which is how we know the world is the way it is, and its purely material in nature! Which is to say, it has no inherent shape, colour, taste, volume or any other quality, since "matter" is just a bunch of abstraction piled on geometry. To believe otherwise is pure cope and woowoo. Also something something, hard problem of consciousness. Totally not circular and ass-backwards. It all makes perfect sense, physicalism. Assuming you completely abandon all logic and reason.

i do believe that Phlogiston is real

You say that "Wulture" can be used in a language (5:56), but 4:06 seems like an example where one cannot use "Wulture". I wouldn't know to use it. Do I put a sticker on it or not? I can't follow the rules. For this you say that the rules are not unintelligible. Sure maybe, but the rules being intelligible is not the same as the word being used. The rules can be followed/ the word can be used, in the cases of Ron, the black Vulture, and the white hat. But when Delia, the white Vulture, is encountered I cannot use the word (or decide to put a sticker there or not). Presupposing that meaning is use, "Wulture" is thus meaningless in this scenario.

0:55 what if the satisfaction i get outweighs any pain that might cause?

18:25 The uncertainty around (1) doesn't increase because the uncertainty of the probability of a claim doesn't make the claim more uncertain. Starting from (3) onwards, it's about the probability values being uncertain and not about (1). If I am uncertain whether the car is in the garage or not because I can't see inside, then even if I calculate the probability of the car being in the garage and become uncertain of my calculation because I'm terrible at calculating or whatever, I won't become more uncertain whether the car is in the garage or not. It just doesn't follow.

The bundle theory and Humean Empiricism in general remind me of the Buddha's words: “All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.”

If Hume is claiming that we can't know all claims with certainty, then isn't his claim itself can't be known with certainty? If so, what's the point of Hume claiming that in the first place? Shouldn't he be skeptical toward his own claim as well? And if we can make an error in every reasoning, Hume can also make error in his reasoning. If so, should we be believing him?

10:26 Not necessarily. Every brick that makes a wall being small doesn't entail that the wall is small. Each brick can be small but all the bricks as a whole, which is a wall, can be big. So each 1+1 can be known with certainty while the whole 1+...+1 can't be.

9:25 Hume is wrong. We can really jump from confidence to certainty. Because if 1+...+1=5000 wasn't gone wrong, then we will surely arrive at 1+1=2 and even further 1=1 during the process of reduction. Then, we will be certain because we can't deny 1=1.

Keep it up

I want you to podcast with Ocean Keltoi

This argument seems like a bit of a deepity to me. The original conclusion is, "Necessarily, I exist," but then to defend from objections, Williamson says this shouldn't be interpreted as implying that any concrete object that's anything like me exists in all possible worlds - it's just an abstract object that is "me." But in that case, the sense in which "I exist" in those other possible worlds is the same sense in which Batman exists in the actual world - namely, as a merely hypothetical being. I don't think that's what anyone actually means by sentences like, "X exists necessarily." After all, no one would say it's true that Batman exists. It conflates the thing itself with the concept of the thing or the possibility of the thing. I also think the argument itself is a bit silly. Why would anyone accept both Premise 1 and Premise 3? Depending on your view of proper names and direct reference, you're either going to think that the proposition, "I do not exist," doesn't depend on my actual existence in order to exist (if you don't believe propositions like that require direct reference, or if you think they can reference beings in other possible worlds), or you're going to think that my nonexistence doesn't require the proposition, "I do not exist," to be true, since there would simply be no such proposition (the rule that P implies that P is a true proposition assumes that P would still be a proposition even if it were true). Williamson's objection to the true-in/true-of distinction also doesn't make any sense to me. If the objection actually worked, it would destroy all modal sentences, not just "true-of" sentences. After all, if sentences being true of worlds implies that all sentences have hidden free variables corresponding to the world, why wouldn't the same be true when it comes to sentences being true in worlds? In fact, modal logic can be modeled by giving all propositions an implicit world free variable, treating necessity and possibility as universal quantifiers over the world variable, and substituting in the actual world for any unbound variables. So Williamson's objection is just a general objection to modal logic, not one against the true-in/true-of distinction.

Excellent

I stopped listening at about the 16 minute mark. That's when personal opinions really started. Not gonna continue past that. I'm disappointed in myself for listening as long as I did. Unfortunately they may get monetization based on the time I listened. And yes I'm probably a misathrop.

It really sounds like the guy was in some way triggered by Anti-Natalism and tried to intellectualize his emotional response.

This is how they poisoned Socrates...

"Don't have kids, white people" "Benatar is ethnically jewish" Imagine my shock!

Most comments barely registered the possibility of an uncontroversial unthinkable. It’s at least a good caveat mentioned in the video. But, like other say, nothing is truly unthinkable. Even Sade’s philosophy. Oddly, the guy’s philosophical perversion didn’t deter him from participating in the French liberalism of his time. So there are basically two Sades. One, the myth of philosophical evil we know. Two, the actual Sade who fictionalized his evil self and acted upon his good impulses. Great video.

It is unthinkable that my life was worth starting given the conditions are complex and situated in an agenda that is systemic within the modern paradigm of the nation state and international interdependencies. Is it worth continuing seems thinkable given the pollyanna principle makes it so until its not. People hack into unthinkability through wishful thinking! Life is worth starting on the basis of personal identity. Although problems with personal identity make personal identity unthinkable unless hacked into through forms of contemporary reasoning that requires years of multidisciplinary conquest of self, therefore, is characterised in these studies as a wholesale conquest of knowledge of the unthinkable as thinkable which links into if any life is worth starting from a state of unthinkable complexity. The role of AI could in this sense calculate the sort of life worth starting as a valance of bliss qualitative parameter that makes pro naturalism a structural functional feature of existence as a post human person. The calculation of positive valance supervenes negative valance states so negative valance is the anti particle as in physical reality and this entails alignment to forms of realism as bio super power. Not to be confused with causal power but the nervous system as a function of pleasure and not pain. The base line pain of platitudes like feeling full or a bit hungry could be calibrated to the Pollyanna principle as mad pain or martian pain and be eliminated as no bad or absence of pleasure.

What if a single neuron is impossible to simulate perfectly?

You are a english. l'am a turkish man! l'am in the depression but it's natural that you're not depressed. Hahahaha!

Donald rumsfield doesnt get the credit he deserves.

Chocolate cake seems to be a recurring item in the world of Kane Baker.

This argument from Korsgaard has got to be one of the most tortured, profoundly misguided philosophical projects I’ve ever seen What a monstrosity of an argument

What is unthinkable ( opportunity cost in thinking about it as navel gazing entails missing out on the good life which is the pollyanna principle at work) is that life is not worth continuing until it really is obvious that life is really bad (body riddled with disease) in which case it is thinkable, and this applies to if my life was worth starting in the first place which is thinkable objectively from the nation state population agenda. So who cares if I could not care about this form of life being worth to start, given non identity, is no one given even parents don't know what they will get, and so unthinkable, or optimistically its wishful thinking as biological determinism is systemic if freewill is false.

Complete nonsense.