"*beep*" - Captain Pike

This is so helpful, thank you.

A quick way to infer that moral truth exists is to call attention to the fact our every act presupposes them. If you're denying moral truths to exist then you cannot reasonably justify any action if not by accident. Let's say for example, you're in a business meeting and someone declares selling more toasters is good for the company, you're already declaring something is good, albeit conditionally, this case the business. What moral truth is, essentially is whether or not something is good regardless of condition. So to deny moral truth would be the same as to say it is neither good nor bad that is good for the business to sell toasters, which makes a contradiction in our description that our already declared good is not good. From this we either go for the option that we exist in a logically inconsistent universe, which would undermine our ability to logically dialogue for that same point to begin with, or we concede a universe we live in that has moral truth. A weaker argument I'd like to say that if you can coherently describe something to exist, why would it not exist? Wont the burden of the proof lie in the opposing party to demonstrate why it does not/cannot? Does the same not go for moral truth? We already presuppose Truth to begin with in order to begin the point of this video and it'd only be logical to assume that a subset of truth, moral truth would too exist until shown otherwise? Would it not also the case that if you can know truth to exist in order to arrive at the given premise that truth exists, that we can too know that mortal truth exists until proven otherwise? This in combination with the fact that we can so much as even experience the impression that moral truth exists, whether false or true in their circumstance, should be enough reason to concede moral truth exists and is discoverable if we are to exclude that we exist in a universe where experience and reason are fundamentally at contradiction with one another.

General statements are not without exceptions. At least in sociology, general statements are the norms and counterexamples do not disprove them.

Aside from the content, the lack of blinking is disturbing to me 😅

The sentence itself is not valid it cannot justify its own meaning ...eg "This sentence is false because......" because of what,why . Neither has the logic to contradict itself

Why is rule 8 required, is it not obvious?

Things can get really hairy when we use word describing "Quantum objects". For example, when we say that an elecron hit a screen, what does it mean? It seems to refer to a process rather than an object since quantum mechanics even rejects that electron are "ontological objects". After all, the Pauli exclusion principle is based on the fact that two elecrons are indistinguishable completely.... So referring to "single electrons" seems to be a contradiction.

It's a meaningless sentence. Solved.

finally a straightforward explanation

This word "paradox" itself arises from duality. Meaning of the word paradox is taken as: para - beside, along with, alongside & dox - opinion, belief, idea. Basically the word paradox itself says an accompanying opinion or belief. When you have a paradox, there is no other way out of it but to relieve it. It is nothing but a figment of imagination, a creation of the mind which leads you nowhere but in never ending circles because it is a creation born out of pure imagination or mind fluff which has no other purpose but to keep going in circles, just like the video did. Professional logicians should be knowing about this. It is nothing but pure imagination. Go do something else, because this is what a paradox is

The whole system thing is a fantastic refutation because the mere fact that the people feeding the person symbols also created the rulebook, is all you need to have for the whole system to understand Chinese. Additionally, I feel like this whole thing misses the fact that real world objects and phenomena are themselves a form of syntax, so you would literally have to shove all of the observable universe through the slot, which would inherently allow the person in the room the ability to understand Chinese.

wouldn’t the objective normative law only be that you should believe the empiricist principle because it leads you to truth? the law wouldn’t state *that* believing it would lead you to truth. it seems to me the existence of epistemic facts only suggest there is an objective law stating you should believe what’s true, but no objective law needs to exist for the empiricist principle to lead us to truth.

Related to this and maybe a simpler scenario: If someone has a truly different belief to you, there is no way for you to be able to experience that. You could imagine how certain conditions and facts could change your view. But there is no way for you in your current condition to actually truly believe what the other person believes. You cannot chose what persuades you, you either are or are not persuaded. And there’s no way for you to truly understand how someone else is persuaded.

"Dili man ka gwapa ba?"

too much lebron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your drawings are too good😂

" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

I really think this video should conclude with some sort of reference to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which more or less states that any sufficiently powerful system is either inconsistent or incomplete. Any attempt to resolve the inconsistency requires reducing the "power" of the system, usually by removing the possibility of self-reference. As long as we stand "outside" of the system, we can eliminate the paradox. This is essentially Tarsky's Undefinability Theorem.

i just realized how good you are at writing backwards

Does it necessarily just mean that for the set of predicates that are not true of itself, if it would also be not true of itself, mean that it would have to be true of itself? Does it always have to be completely the opposite of what it is? If so(As in , it doesn't necessarily have to be that way), then we're also probably gonna have to rethink our ideas with identity If X equals X, it would therefore not necessarily mean that X is not equal to what is NOT X. aaaaaand I just stumbled into another paradox. great

You seem smart, and are definitely passionate. It would have been nice to have this video 15 years ago. I might have finished my first year before dropping out.

Nice explanation!

I hate I didn’t meet you while I was at the G lol I made good grades but it was brutal. This helps so much

I *hate* seeing clickbait titles like this. The opposite of "never lies" is "sometimes lies"; so Spock is lying (the truth is Kirk "sometimes lies") and Kirk is lying (he's not telling the truth) ... which is fully consistent, and not a paradox at all.

Tgis boy uses clicks to echo locate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJ-raHR_rM2jn80si=uCOi_ZsleO2syR5b

Masses of assumptions here. For pure philosophy...those assumptions would have to be more considered. He assumes he knows and we must all obviously understand what consciousness is. Kinda puerile for someone determined to exact accuracy imo

Communication in everyday speech was never designed to deal with a paradox . A paradox is someone treading on their own shoelaces and falling over. The shoelace was not meant to injure someone , but only to serve a certain function. When shoelaces are so long that even when they have been correctly tied they have so much unused length that the action of treading on that excessive material can make someone be unable to lift the other foot that then an accident involving bodily momentum, and gravity will be caused . The shoe lace was fulfilling it's design by keeping the shoe around the foot in a way that will allow walking on painful surfaces but in doing so has allowed the accident for which it was not SPECIFICALLY intended. ..A human is now in pain and is now sprawling on a road and that human is now in pain and in danger of getting run over by wheels of vehicles. PARADOX. The shoelace allowed an accident to happen that would not have happened had the shoelace not existed . I APOLOGISE FULLY AND WITH TOTAL CONTRITION FOR HAVING BORED YOU ALL TO DESPAIR.

If we know which frequency is traditionally associated with the color red.....why not send that frequency to people with unusual colour understanding then ask them to pont at objects which are traditionally considered as colored red?

I wonder if GPT proved this wrong, or is GPT considered an Chinese room.

some counter arguments, the meaning or semantics where already there, for example the 2+3 = 5. The machine just response to that info or meaning. If it was fed noise instead however i would not have created any meaning. Same goes for the chinees room, all the meaning was already encoded in the book of instructions before hand and by the people asking questions.

If i have to disect what someone is saying to me. I detach and dispatch

I feel that humes make a good point that morality doesn't exist physically, but I would counter that or expand oupon it by saying morality does exist within the mind. I believe morality is similar to an idea. In how they are created and can come into the world if we express them. I guess a loose example can be a car in how it did not exist until someone thought of it and expressed it physically. Sure, morality can't be shown in the physical world, but the point is in the way it brought about through the mind.

Was simply looking for paradoxes and I find this. Ended up listening to it all. That was tripped out. It's almost like the psyche can kind of understand the idea but we can't describe it because language is linited. We can draw it out, write it out with charts, understand the question. But explaining and speaking the idea is very hard to do because of our language. Like the mind has surpassed the ability to speak. I've hit those levels within math and it still baffles me when I'm doing it. Tutoring college students is interesting because you need to help them envision the subject in a unique way for each student. At the same time, I also become very good than I'd usually been. It's almost an example on its own. Unique problem, shown only one solution, find there are several when you get good enough. And there's a single answer but it can be written in different ways. Just the thought of this going on with each person is weird. Same class, different reasons for taking said class. Agh. I'm rambling. Need to give my head some rest.

Spoiler: the moral Law is the perfect expression of God's holy, righteous nature or essence. It isn't a function of His affinity (the way "love" is used herein) for that which is pious or virtuous.] Love your teaching style and technique and knowledge, very impressed. Also wish I had had you as my college philosophy prof. That said, the moral dilemma you raise with your Abraham/Isaac example turns out to be a strawman fallacy which is easily refuted by simply reading God's word and interpreting it correctly. First, God's words to Abraham: Gen 22:1b. ...God did tempt (i.e. test, cf. James 1:13) Abraham, and said unto him... (v.2) ...Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Not once did God command Abraham to: Kill your child, slit his throat, leave your kid on the rocks to bleed out, etc. He never commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, nor burn him on the alter. God commanded Abraham to OFFER his child Isaac for a burnt offering upon the mountain. God knew that Isaac's life was never in danger since He had promised that His Seed (Gal 3:16) would come through Isaac (Rom 9:7), therefore this command was never a challenge to God's moral Law or God's righteous and Holy essence. God knew that He would substitute the "ram caught in a thicket" (Gen 22:13) for the "sacrifice" that Abraham thought God was commanding. Abraham at the time of the command did not understand HOW, yet by faith he knew that somehow God would "provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (22:8, cf. Heb 11:17-19). God did NOT give an immoral command that contradicted His Holy Moral Law (Ex 20:13). God told Abraham to offer Isaac -- or to put another way -- to not withhold him from God at His command (cf. 22:12). Abraham obeyed by faith without knowing all the details of God's plan. Abraham feared God (22:12) and obeyed instead of fearing the unknown, namely God's inability to remain morally righteous in the face of this command. No dilemma at all. And perhaps the most beautiful OT type of our Lord Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world (John 1:36, Rev 13:8).

brilliant

numbers are invisible

Well, morality is a built-in feature in human beings. So, it either came by chance or someone has planted it in us. Chances don't make precise versions of morality in all humans. So, of course there is a creator and this creator has planted morality in us. Greetings from Syria.

Trump voters, take notes.

Two concepts are muddied together here. One is the use of the label of truth, or what does it mean to say somethings is true, from a definitional standpoint. The other is what can the label of "being true" be applied to, so that it fits with the defined, accepted usage of the term. True is to comport to reality - to be a factually accurate _statement_ about something within reality. You can label something as "objectively" true if what is claimed as being "objectively" true can be independently verified; if ithe statement can be demonstrated to comport to reality. Something is "objectively true" If it is _not_ subject to an _individual's_ preference, ignorance, knowledge, opinion, feelings, belief or personal experience. And the problem is, there are people who wish to apply the label to something that can in no way be demonstrated to comport to reality, objectively. In the case of "morals" some like to claim that there is an "objective standard". That it is "true" that there is an "objective moral standard", however such can not be defined in a consistent manner that corresponds to what either of those words mean, and there is, ironically, frequent disagreement about what it is, and what is encompassed within the concept of this "objective moral standard". I find it interesting that the 'challenges' from religious people who hold to the idea of an "objective moral standard", are not centered around the demonstrable "standard" that is being claimed to exist and be "true" of reality. It is because "morality" is a concept that we have conceived to define, and categorize, a particular aspect of behavior, reason, and opinions that pertain to our intention for an action, particularly those actions that affect others. Morality is a value system of intentions, actions, and consequences of such. How we determine something as being a "moral" act is entirely dependent upon numerous subjective variables of our own- Knowledge, understanding, ignorance, emotional regulation, mental capacity, empathetic capacity, personal and shared ideals, societal norms, opinions and beliefs, desires, intention, and motivation, as well as our perceptions, assumptions or knowledge of those variables in someone else. It is as impossible to demonstrate an "objective moral standard", as it is to demonstrate an "objective humor standard", or an "objective emotional standard" - Because these concepts rely upon a plethora of, subjective of an individual variables, and for social context we factor in those variables that others have (or what we perceive them to have), to derive a value judgement, or determine how we feel about anything that falls under the scope of those concepts. It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, have moral norms or ideals. It is objectively true that humans individually, and collectively as societies, can and do experience shifts in what is considered an acceptable moral norm or ideal. It is objectively true that most individuals and collective societies have a standard regarding actions that - cause the death of other humans, result in bodily harm of other humans, serve to take the property of other humans without their consent, or for personal gain, or cause the destruction of the property of another. It is also objectively true that what exactly is or is not deemed morally permissable and to what degree, within those categories, and what is or is not deemed an appropriate reactionary consequence of actions that fall within those categories, can differ wildly between individuals and societies. It is objectively true that there is no demonstrable "standard" of what is considered moral, and how what is considered immoral should be responded to. If there is an "objectively true standard" it is an empirically verifiable standard, independent of circumstance, justification or consequence. Otherwise it is a "standard" that is _subject_ to specific justifications, a reasoned to subjective standard. It is definitionally, and actually, _not_ an objectively true standard. Invoking perspective, or opinion, for concepts that rely upon personal experience, ideals and beliefs, such as when discussing morality is not an example of fallaciously reasoning about something empirically verifiable, such as a goat. If it was possible to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning as stated, you could have actually used something from the list of things within philosophy that are very rigorously argued to not be something that can be claimed to be "objectively true", such as, I don't know, say, an objective moral standard- instead of using an example of two visual vantage points, temporarily limiting the fully encompassing visual evaluation of an objectively quantifiable, accessible, examinable, verifiable, extant object, that has empirically measurable standards that can be independently corroborated to be true, as stated. As it is, if it's a "debate" within philosophy, that is to say, if it is a claim that gets to hang out, asserting it is, yet not being demonstrated to be "true" of reality, it doesn't get to defeat the view held that - you're going to have to offer up something better than an assertion of divine mandate- by claiming that by relying on, or invoking perspective one is caused not recognize it, as a whole, for what it is in reality. The goat can be demonstrated to match, in reality, the statements made about what is true of goats, in reality. Regardless of someone having limited data, the limited data points will still comport to correct parts of the stated larger data set. Objectively. It is true that an "objective moral standard" exists in reality assertion, not so much.

Great job, young professor.

"The order within a set doesnt matter" only applies until you get a set of all sets that are, by chance, alphabetically organised which is included in the set of all sets. This is naturally included in the set of sets that confound the rules of set theory

Thanks!

Russell was so excited with his discovery, he just couldn't contain himself.

The answer is no. This is a subset of a set that should contain itself but can't. AKA This is a member of a paradox set. Which also is in itself a paradox as that set also can not contain itself. There would also be a set of infinite paradox sets which cannot contain themself, which should be a member of that set. But this is acceptable as maths contains infinities in decimals and wholes. We simply state that this is infinite and move to the next thing.

For the guys next door it was Diablo 2

I’m sorry, who isn’t going into these machines? Wouldn’t it be considered rational to get into the transformation and results machines? They do have an affect on reality.

There is no paradox with sets. The paradox appears from the way that it's attempted to be used without the proper rules to be used in that way. There are two possible definitions missing, depending on how you want to see it. Adding rules for either of those can solve the problem. The first one is about how references to the members of the set should work. The second is how those refences should operate inside the context of time. Let's imagine a perfect set of descriptions, where everything in the universe has a unique universal id. A set would be {cat#1, cat#2, ...}. Replace cats with sets and it's the same thing, the set is consistent and there is no problems. The issue arrises when we try to use more complex ways to describe the content of the set, it's not in the set itself the issue but in our references for the members and how we wan't to use those references later. Point of view #1, the reference issue. {x: x is a cat} also has issues. Does it refers to all cats across time or cats until now? What even is a cat? When do we start counting something as a cat and not another species in the evolutionary gradient? The issue is in the ambiguity of the reference. We assume that the predicate of "is a" must be true, but for that we may need better definitions. We also need to take in consideration that not all predicates resolve to true or false, some just doesn't apply to a true or false answer. {x: x is a married number} is not an empty set, because we can't asign such attribute as marriage to numbers so it's an ilogical reference that leads to no set at all. In the same way that "Blue is tall" is neither true nor false, it doesn't apply, it can't be judge as colours don't have height. Second point of view, the time issue. Are sets build or they just exist? How do we interpret the following set: {x: not eaten hamburgers}? Does it include future hamburgers that we didn't made? If I have a hamburger in my hand and then I eat it, does it get remove from the set? Set themselves are static, they are defined by the members they contain. But with the use of indirect references to it's members, we need to define how this refences should be interpreted. Is a reference meant to change across time? Or it should be frozen at a point in time? What this point brings up is that truth doesn't need to be an universal truths across time, something can be true at one point in time and false at the next one. In this case the references are use to build the set, but the references doesn't reflect the content of such set across all time just at a moment in time. The paradox using this definitions. {x: x is a set that does not contain itself}. #1 is not a valid logical reference. The reference is the issue as it doesn't describe the objetive content of the set in a meaningful way. #2 the paradox comes from trying to use universal time, to use the reference as a way to check the validity of the content of the set. {x: countries where it's sunny} has the same issue. I can build the set with that reference but what I can't do is use the reference to check for the integrity of the set as the truth of it has already pass. In another words, the set may not have contained itself at some point in time, but now it does and the reference we use to define the set can't be used to judge the validity of truth in the now, it needs to be use to validate it with how it was in the past (this assumes sets are built and doesn't just exist, in case of sets just existing #1 would be the answer)

I don't understand --reincarnation , hell, ressurection etc. existed long before Descartes...did this not require a soul?

"on denoting' and 'problems of philosophy' by Russel