After knowledge | Rupert Sheldrake, Suchitra Sebastian and Tommy Curry

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Should we overhaul epistemology? How? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full debate, head to iai.tv/video/after-knowledge?KZbin&

[@HappyPrometheus]

Galileo believed that Nature was written in the language of mathematics. From then on, science has been using mathematics to describe everything that we perceive. The elements and principles of mathematics do not contain anything that is alive, conscious, wanting to survive or having feelings. Mathematics is made of numbers, symbols, formulas and relationships. The theoretical models made by mathematics are also as dead as its elements, i.e. they don’t offer an ontological basis for the existence of feelings, consciousness and will to survive. Instead of admitting that our models, which are epistemological tools not the truth, are fundamentally incomplete, the present science prefers to eliminate consciousness, feelings and will to exist all together as "illusion". But how can matter have illusions? Isn't it more likely that mechanistic materialism as a fundamental ontology is an illusion?

[@crm_]

Woah

[@michaeljacobs5342]

Symbols are not the thing in itself, it is only a language invented by man, otherwise to have any influence on the physical world, would need to precede the formation of matter that would have to agree with those laws, to be considered as an accurate definition of reality.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

How can a thing such as a Puppet hold the illusion that he can become a real boy? Pinocchio can't hold the illusion or feel hope of becoming a real boy because he only exists in Gheppettos imagination as is true for all things seen in Gheppettos imagination including himself. Rev. 1-5 "I am the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead". The dead is everything which is witnessed because all things seen are made entirely out of imagination. I think a good formula for the process of imagination in the apparent Universe is E = MC2. Of course the reasons for this formula are also made entirely out of imagination which may be why Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. 🙏⚕️🙏

[@ShonMardani]

Humanity owes to that drunk scientist. He also discovered the Mars and then gave it to illan to land on it.

[@readynowforever3676]

Sounds like you are vigorously advocating for a denunciation of the age of empiricism and a return to Aristotelian rationale. I guess we’ll have to forgo all of our modern technologies and live like the Amish.

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

My impression of this “debate” is that each speaker created a straw man for something they call a “western” approach to knowledge (especially scientific knowledge), criticized it without evidence, then claimed that some other vaguely defined approach is preferable-again, without specifics or evidence. It seemed like lots of words much not much content, but the audience seemed happy with it. I hate to be negative, but I invested some time in listening and that’s what I got out of it.

[@monkerud2108]

basically, determinism, has a postulate that applies only to fully known states of a system, it goes like this " for similar experiments you should get similar outcomes". this is fine in principle, and may not even be wrong in the universe, but how do we know that we can do the same experiment twice? the answer is that we cannot know without already knowing the state of the entire universe perfectly, if there is chaos or limitations to knowing a system without changing it, such that by changing a system to learn something you started with an unknown experiment, leading to inevitable uncertainties in the answer, then we can never be quite sure whether we are doing an identical experiment twice in the same universe.. therefore we are sort of forced to say that the only version of the statement that can be known, is that the statement is true if you view the entire universe as an experiment, if you run two identical universes they will give the same result, this is a very different criteria for determinism, where determinism of knowledge is not guaranteed with ultimate precision anywhere inside the universe. it does not necessitate randomness being fundamental, but it means that the knowledge of a person is fundamentally insufficient to know the deterministic evolution of subsystems exactly, this is the more fundamental origin of the uncertainty principle and randomness in the approximate laws of physics.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

In the entire Universe there is only one thing, process or force with the ability to change anything from it's otherwise inevitable position. This force might be viewed as the only force which would be capable of setting in motion the apparent process which preceded it's appearance in the Universe according to science. I've been meaning to Google what reductionism meant. I think the lady spelled it out better than I would have found on Google. 👍

[@dallinsprogis4363]

Consider this, we should gauge all thoughts to revolve around the idea that we will survive the universe and at lest first out live the existence of the solar system. Simply put, the science tells us that solar systems come and go in a galaxy.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Ribosomes seem to have a lot to tell us about the transformation of information from messenger RNA into the building blocks of life as amino acids into the cytoplasm of our cellular Universes. 🙏⚕️🙏

[@readynowforever3676]

😃 You’re being sarcastic right ?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

@@readynowforever3676 I gave up sarcasm several years ago when it became apparent it was indistinguishable in our present environment. I see ribosomes as saying ribs of the body and I think we can agree they reflect the wishes of the cell nucleus in their presentation of requested amino acids. There seems to be a similar relationship between the conscious and subconscious minds. I think there is also a similar relationship between E and MC2 in what I call Einstein's formula for imagination E equals MC2. 🤶🐈

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes Mr. Sheldrake, science works the same all over the world, and I tell you a secret: If not, it wouldn´t be science anymore, because this universality of the methods is the core of the incredible success of science in the last centuries. Your ´method´ of guessing and believing is individual different, and that´s ok, as long as you don´t call it science. If you do ( and you do that indeed) it´s not faith anymore, it´s pseudosience.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Rupert Sheldrake, king of pretentious sophists. This channel disguises itself as an intellectual forum for debate, while pairing legit relevant experts with anti-realist crackpots, or just giving the latter free reign to talk in hyper-abstract circles or make ludicrous metaphysical claims. Discussion and diverse viewpoints are fine, but a lot this is akin to hosting discussions between evolutionary biologists and creationists as if both sides are equally valid.

[@ananthan8951]

Presumptions about what is legit and relevant, of reality being straitjacketable to the material make you rant using double invectives.

[@readynowforever3676]

⁠@@ananthan8951Can you make one salient cogent case point as to how the Scientific Method is unreliable, while simultaneously “metaphysical” (whatever that means) is an upgrade in epistemology?? I’m sure I want hear back from you. You’re likely too busy dealing tarot cards or performing a palm reading. Is séance or necromancy also one of the services you offer ? Again, I don’t actually expect to hear back from you 😁

[@readynowforever3676]

Why did you leave Tommy Curry out of your critique ? As he too is a master of baseless rhetoric.

[@ananthan8951]

​@@readynowforever3676"Out of my way you stragglers! Can't you see that I am off with a whole grain of sugar from this mountain? I aim to transport the entire hoard!" Thus exults the arrogant ant based on an infinitesimal relative view of the infinite incomprehensible and indescribable cosmos.

[@readynowforever3676]

@@ananthan8951 You know that white sugary powder you’re ingesting my friend, it isn’t “sugar”. 😁 I seriously suggest, I highly recommend, I strongly advise, abstinence my friend 😃

[@readynowforever3676]

It is so displeasurable listening to the rhetorical shamanism of Curry and Sheldrake.

[@Tayyib1999]

Please don't be ad hominem. If you disagree with a proposition or argument, advance your view respectfully. With the greatest respect.

[@ziryabjamal]

Well said ​@@Tayyib1999