AMA Responses, Part 1

[@jamesoneill7263]

Fair play for putting as much time as you do into these AMA videos Kane. You're visibly tired by the end of them. It's always great to get your thoughts on a variety of different topics. Thanks for making the effort 👌

[@dumbledorelives93]

Dude, I feel like you're way too hard on yourself about these AMAs. Clearly we all enjoy listening to you ramble about various topics for 2+ hours or else we wouldn't be here listening to it. Of course it's not gonna come out perfect, but that's kind of understood going in, no? It's like watching improv comedy or freestyle jazz. If you don't like making the AMAs and/or it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's a valid reason to stop making them, but they're definitely not "awful" by any stretch! You have a lot more philosophy knowledge than the average Joe which is why we enjoy hearing your opinions. Trust me, the vast majority of people would not be able to ramble for 2+ hours about philosophy even close to this well 😅 Cheers mate

[@aaronchipp-miller9608]

He's got the damn AMA hat on. Let's go

[@Izerion]

I appreciate that you took the time to answer the questions, even the ones of which you personally think you did a poor job answering. I think the truth of the answers is not as important as the thought process and the off-the-cuff descriptions of arguments and philosophers which have weighed in on the topic. That is to say, I don't think anyone is going to write a philosophical paper on a couple sentences which constitute your response to a question in an AMA. Rather, there is value in your answers as springboards to direct people in their search for more in-depth discussions and detailed arguments (which obviously include some of your own more dedicated videos). And of course the personal questions regarding your favourite music or films can be interesting to learn about anyway. So, in case you do end up doing more AMA style videos despite what you mentioned here, I think deferring to other sources of information that you know of (or made yourself) is a perfectly reasonable way to handle questions where you do not feel confident in coming up with something meaningful to say on the spot. Maybe that relieves some of the pressure of this type of live reactions. Thanks for your time :)

[@radojevici]

Thank you for doing these, I really enjoy listening to your answers

[@kircheis6117]

Love all your videos man, including this one. Ive given several lectures for my prof's intro to ethics class as part of my graduate assistantship in my master program, and to say that youve helped me is an understatement. Obviously, I cant present the content at the level you do in your videos (since they are mostly freshman students), but your videos (along with the actual papers, of course) have really helped me really nail down some of the content to a point where i feel confident teaching. I appreciate you a lot!

[@siviwejavu8827]

I love your content man! And seeing your thought process in real time is such a valuable learning experience for me even though I tend to disagree with a lot of what you have to say. But I understand if it's not an enjoyable experience for you. If you're worried about how you come across or the quality of your content to your audience, I'm one of those that think you're one of the best communicators of philosophy on this platform, and your thoughtfulness and rigor reflects when you think through things in real time.

[@Latter_broccoli]

The ability and knowledge you have to be able to go on all those different subjects with intelligence and clarity is exceptional. Very interesting to listen to you, as always.

[@real_pattern]

2:40:22 yes. that's 99% why i love your AMAs. "ahh! ghost!" was certainly a peak experience. changed my life.

[@NikolajKuntner]

2:25:00 I'm sympathetic towards your pluralist case. Also because for any formal system we want to apply to a broad semantics, it's such a pain to find a conception of the few symbols it gives us. One of the "paradoxes of material implication" is the statements sometimes called Dirk Gently’s principle: For any two propositions P and Q holds: (P->Q) or (Q->P). The very classical proof is as follows: By excluded middle for Q, either Q or not Q. If Q, then P->Q by implication introduction. If not Q, then Q->P by Explosion. This theorem is on the rather strong end, from a constructive point of view. So this says they either me having worn red underpants yesterday implies you ate Spaghetti last Sunday, or you having eaten Spaghetti last Sunday implies I was wearing red underpants yesterday. I'd say there's even 3 aspects about this system that are icky. Implication introduction sort of makes a farce of the reading of "implication" or "entailment". Explosion is nice for mathematical systems with a transitive operation, like addition, but outside of math it's also weird. Excluded middle is just too strong in some cases. If we striped away all aspects I consider fishy, on the other hand, the remaining system is weak. I don't know if there's anything better, and I doubt it.

[@gabrielrixon6768]

Thank you for the response Kane! I really appreciate your thoughts, even if you don't particularly like process philosophy lol. It's a stance-independent normative fact that all my homies ought to love Kane B.

[@inspectah__]

I really enjoyed what you had to say about the various topics, especially at 26:24 🤣😂

[@f1urps]

55:30 Hands up if you're a woman and you find Kane very attractive 🙋‍♀️

[@davidzuilhof4232]

For next q&a: What do you think of disjunctivism as a response to skepticism? Why is that the only really popular response to skepticism that you haven't made a video about?

[@libertyafterdark6439]

Gah! I missed the QA again, need to keep a closer eye on my notifications in the future! 😂 My mind has been swimming with mechanistic interpretability questions lately! Anyways, I enjoyed this quite a bit, it’s always nice getting to see such a large slice of a fellow philosophers mind! keep up the good work! ❤

[@anthonyspencer766]

Kane, you are one of only a handful of people out there who I'd gladly listen to speak from the top of their heads for three hours about the big questions. I fully understand what you're grappling with in trying to pull from memory, as well as the tensions between your motivations for doing this and the reasons why you'd otherwise avoid it. I don't think there is a strong determination either way. I can only say that I am glad you do these. I thoroughly enjoy them, but if you decided to stop, I couldn't begrudge you for it. I am a person who sees the value in both the more collected, well-researched projects and the more off-the-cuff, conversational things. This is mostly because I tend to think that the latter, insofar as they catch you less prepared, demonstrate what might be called "authentic Kane", to the same extent that eating a bag of chips alone on your couch demonstrates the real you compared with how you eat in public.

[@Bubba17644]

Thank you for answering my questions! What I had in mind with anarchism was actually just scepticism about authority, not any view about how society ought to be organized. I think "philosophical anarchism" might've been a better term, idk. Re the Wittgenstein quote, my interpretation may be wrong but in the relevant passages (OC 608-612) I think Wittgenstein is suggesting that there are no ultimate good grounds for choosing between different epistemic standards (for ex. choosing to guide one's actions by studying physics or by consulting an oracle) and that, when people with different standards dispute, there is at bottom no rational outcome or maybe not even a rational debate ("each man declares the other a fool and a heretic", he says), only "persuasion" or use of power to impose one's own standards on others. Also I think it's the second or third time I unintentionally troubled you with a question in your AMAs (in this case the Feyerabend one), so sorry bout that 😅

[@Ra1ner9]

I think maximizing life and peace should guide one's actions

[@blenderblade]

This is such candid Kane. Injustice befalls the man who ends such greatness. These videos allow the listener to peer into the very soul of humanity. So rich and so raw. This is a treasure beyond measure. Kane is the bane of all who cower behind pale masks. It is these videos which give the great pleasure of peeling back the mask which humanity usually clings to so desperately. There has never been such an appropriate way to diverge from the regularly scheduled program than when Kane spirals into the depths of his own mind. Leave it in, leave it all in. All too human? No, just the right amount of human I proclaim!

[@asphaltpilgrim]

Can I get a quick distinction tw an epistocracy and a technocracy? Is the former a more "Platonic" philosopher-king type situation?

[@inoculatedcity]

Do you have any videos where you talk more about Whitehead?

[@dr.h8r]

Don’t you get bored of answering basically the exact same questions in every AMA?

[@inquiresabound8449]

Will you ever share your book shelf?

[@kaile9968]

I want to know is there a way of doing philosophy entirely without intuitions?

[@KaneB]

What do you think an intuition is?

[@libertyafterdark6439]

@@KaneB Seems to me they are a bit difficult to define ;)

[@kaile9968]

@@KaneBIntuitions are intellectual seemings or presentations (Bealer 1998; Chudnoff 2013). Intellectual seemings are the intellectual analogue of perceptual seemings. I would use intuitions in the sense of Huemer's Phenonmenal Conservatism (PC).

[@Patchowisky]

semantic internalism or externalism, and why?

[@inoculatedcity]

Kane, I liked your point about expecting certain “kinds of bullshit” from certain kinds of people. I will say though the UAP stuff from Sam Harris kind of makes sense under this theory when you consider his involvement in psychedelics etc. Not that I really think most of that is bullshit, but I’ve noticed in those communities there is a huge degree of belief in aliens and a lot of interest in the congressional stuff surrounding that.

[@James-ll3jb]

What does "AMA" mean?

[@micahbelew8129]

Another question, have you recieved my email?

[@thetrikka6]

55:31 I am a bisexual and even though I have more options in the end I get nobody, it's much more frustrating lol

[@alejandroperea98]

is it really cold in your house?

[@Jy3pr6]

If you're still taking questions, do you think 1+1 can equal 3? A straightforward example would be: buy 2 get one free deals. Or is that too much relativism for you? If so, why?

[@halqthedarktemplar]

I think it depends in what context or system or set we are considering the operation to take place. Normally if we use the mathematical notation of "1+1=" we are assuming we are using the rules and logic of mathematics, but in theory we can say that outside of mathematics 1+1 can equal other things depending on the context

[@Hvantmiki]

Buying 2 and getting 1 for free is not equivalent to the mathematical 1+1 tho. Not any more than buying 9 and getting 2 for free is equal to 1+1.

[@TheYahmez]

@@Hvantmiki The presumed context is mathematical, perhaps, but there are other mathematical contexts where such "deals" can be embedded in the ~'field'(i.e. "number line") or topological space over which your particular algebra (of which there can be infinite variation) operates. In a Mod(1) ring (or a boolean algebra) for example either "1+1=1" is true or "1+1=0" can be true depending on the axioms of your algebra. This is of course without mentioning the basic (arguably more "fundamental") context of mere graphical composition, where 1+1= 🪟 That is all to say; 1+1=2 is a higher order consequence of notational convention & axiomatic selection, rather than a fundamental truth about "reality" (or about anything other than the abstract symbols embedded within their own presuppositions). (Also note (with a certain tongue-in-cheek "poetic intent") the distinction between 'the integers' which we can compose & delineate with 'digits' and "the real numbers")

[@KaneB]

Fine with me

[@JohnDoe-jw7cj]

In that sense I'd say 1+1 equals 100 or 1000. Now where do I sign up for that deal?

[@EWOKakaDOOM]

You are literally Henry David Thoreau

[@italogiardina8183]

The concept of a rigid designator seems on the surface to exist on a spectrum within a in-group semantics where you know what the proper name infers when in a comparative reference with a close other which entails intuitive in-group competition, as in I saw the morning star because it's what gets me out of bed in the morning and the term the rigidly designates a even star sense where the other bathes in the reflected glory of the early riser. Once you get past the pungent scent of Durian the taste is pure delight, but not really. Black is not a colour, but grue is. The psychedelic experience has depersonalisation as its subject where truth is ephemeral, as portrayed in detail by A. Huxley in his classic Doors Of Perception. Those very expensive VR headsets from a high cap company purportedly have tangible augmented reality which may have unintended consequences. The theory of electrons may link to the Homeric gods or Indra of Vedic gods through humans getting hold by chance or clever association, fire from electric storms which latter humans discovered they could produce as 'charge' by rubbing certain objects together and the stuck then fell apart like rubbing cloth on a ballon where the ballon sticks to the cloth the drops. Just don't do it. The alien visitation may be in the form of tunnelling based on evidence of dark matter. Dark matter is theoretically strong and supposed to be around 30 percent of what exists compared to the 5 percent science has categorised as solid-liquid-gas-plasma along with the standard model. The point is if for example the MH 370 flight disappeared in 2014 without a trace which seems odd than its plausible the plane and occupants were zipped off into the other side which is not technological remotely possible for humans but who knows other civilisations may exist as dark matter denizens and just into doing a bit of research just as we do on mice.

[@PoorEdward]

I feel like bodily autonomy arguments are sort of comically evil beyond non-consensual intercourse. Sex is a contract with another person that you may very well have a child as a consequence of intimacy and/or pleasure, and playing God by ripping up the papers after you’ve reaped your responsibilities-despite the option and existence of sterilization-is morally reprehensible to me. I am definitely for the existence of abortion pragmatically though.

[@KaneB]

In my view, when a person consents to allow another person inside their body, that consent can be revoked at any time for any reason. So even if a women enthusiastically welcomes the fetus initially, it's perfectly fine for her to "rip up the papers" whenever she wants.

[@PoorEdward]

@@KaneB Is it a person though? Also, that “person” is the spawn of her own body; it’s effectively self-mutilation (unless you view the sperm as a force that has essentially kidnapped an egg). And wouldn’t this allude to euthanizing r4pists, given the fact that the baby is typically killed within the body and not removed and then subsequently helpless; are you saying it’s an act of self-defense? To me the major thing here is the idea of consent, and in my opinion, you are constantly consenting-along with your partner, as long as there is no foul play-to the possibility of a child in your body by engaging in this activity, but it’s more of a contract than a liberty to me, so I guess just fundamentally we might disagree, but my view is definitely not as well-thought out as yours.

[@noah5291]

He's a critique i have with your analysis of race. There are many countries for example, that are homogeneous by ethnic groupings. This is something that certainly comes into play. The connection of xenophobia and racism are hand and hand and help to contribute to the analyses people make on the race front. If people view a country as barbaric because of their policies, and that country is homogeneous, then that is used as an excuse and or as a catalyst for racist tendencies. We can see this with central and south americans in the US and with the Chinese in the US.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

Durian fruit is awesome, the smell is off-putting but super ripe durian is the closest nature has come to evolving cheesecake! Banana and cantaloupe cheesecake (with pineapple). 😂

[@alicec1533]

*raises hand* moral realist anarchist over here!

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

24:00 ooh, you read lesswrong

[@KaneB]

If I were bisexual, I wouldn't have to be open about it (and this is something I wouldn't feel bad lying about). In any case, the reason why I suspect I'd be better off isn't just the raw numbers, but because I've had more interest from men than women.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

@@KaneB What is your general standard for when you feel bad about lying then? I'm not a "never lie purist", but I am a bit surprised this passes the bar.

[@KaneB]

@@tudornaconecinii3609 I don't know. I'm just reporting my feelings. This isn't something that I've derived from some moral theory.

[@James-ll3jb]

Kane B obviously doesn't live in America lol! He'd feel differently about retribution if his sister were rapwd before his eyes😢

[@alicec1533]

Gender abolitionism is transhumanist and sex abolitionist, then. Anyone should have biological capcity to bear children, or not, for instance. And I'm all for that.

[@siviwejavu8827]

I think you're too hard on yourself. There's no person that can expect you to just spit-ball reasonably complex arguments purely from memory, Kane. It doesn't matter whether that's your expertise. You digest so much material that I don't think it's practical to expect that of yourself. I've done a reasonable amount of math, and I use it. But if someone asked me something about calculus 2 right now, I would blank. I don't see that as a bad thing. And math is easier to remember, in my opinion, than particular philosophical arguments.

[@attackdog6824]

Cringe anarchist, become a reactionary conservative like me fool!