Beyond the reality illusion | Hilary Lawson | Full talk

[@TimoDcTheLikelyLad]

i hope for a grand discussion about consciousnes and reality with him, Roger Penrose, Donald Hoffman and Nima Arkani Hamed

[@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x]

Plus Rupert Sheldrake! That would be a dream. Although this many intellectuals in one conversation would mean a multiple hour long discussion but I'd and most would watch it.

[@keithtomey5046]

Yes! 👍

[@davidmacaart953]

Iain McGilchrist

[@techstuff3409]

I don't think Nima Arkani would say anything about consciousness like Hoffman's theory. But if he says yes consciousness is fundamental then I would 100% believe it, that guy has 200 IQ

[@mackroscopik]

Can't leave out Bernardo Kastrup.

[@wolfgangbudde2737]

Thanks a lot for this phantastic framework, it really triggers a world of new thoughts in me. I was coming from the neuroscientists' concept of predictive processing (brought to me by Philipp Sterzer), then was amazed by the concept of reality being created by conscious entities ("Irreducible" by Federico Faggin"), and now following this presentation I'm finally ready to give up the concept of reality and ultimate truth below our closings. I share the enthusiasm, @HilaryLawson, you showed at the end of your talk, because this framework has the potential to counteract this ever-increasing polarization in society. I really enjoyed listening, thank you again!

[@fellsmoke]

Simply because your view is incomplete doesnt mean it is wrong...or right...it is mediated by our understanding.

[@hmq9052]

It must be more wrong than it is right though. By definition. Since it's only one view.

[@PetraKann]

@@hmq9052in science an incomplete theory is either provisional or incorrect/inaccurate.

[@fellsmoke]

Understanding and words create universes...time and space allow infinite possibilities, as does entropy in its infinite possibility...a rock from the sky or or time played out, ends in dissolution of the universes, one by one...

[@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x]

​@@Wokewookie But it's not a shared view. There are multiple ways of seeing it. That's the point he makes. And it really isn't! Just see what theoretical physicists do with each around. Shouting and cursing to each other. How many strong theories are there? And strings just one field. Nowadays more and more scientists claim neither of it is true but once of it's competitors. Holographic universe, dark matter and energy comes and goes. Etc etc . Theories are redefined, sometimes long discredited ideas come back from the dead. Plus there are flat Earthers, creationists, etc etc...

[@PetraKann]

@@fellsmoke it’s a large number of possibilities but not infinite. The big bang dictates that the universe in finite in space, time and energy-matter. So where does that leave your rather outrageous and ridiculously unfounded assertions my friend? It’s clear that you need to withdraw your commentary and apologise

[@axle.student]

4:10 We as biology do not directly interact with the world. It is mostly second hand via our senses, and then our brain constructs what it want's the outside world to look like in a way that is useful to us. 4:44 see above. 5:38 It is what is native to us. It is how our biology has evolved to function in what is otherwise a very noisy, unstable, chaotic world. We need this created/recreated internal reality to be able to move. 29:41 I see this as an emergence of complexity (Where complexity is more than the sum of it's parts). Orion emerges from nothing (more) as a new form. 33:14 I call this uncertainty. We can get infinitely close to a a real value, but an infinite amount of uncertainty always remains (0.0...1%). This is a fundamental component of complexity above. It is what allows the universe to exist, and also why it appears irrational. 33:34 Higher orders of complexity arise out of the evolution of stability/persistence. 33:59 I can see both, but I have trained myself to do this. Natively we see one at a time. To understand the outside world (esp in physics) we need to be able to hold conceptually conflicting ideas at the same time. It is like an overlay of conceptions, or an overlay of realities. 35:02 This is why I make point of not holding fast to any one concept of subjective reality or paradigm. I have a native/personal paradigm, but it is not concrete as in an "unquestionable belief". I can change paradigm any time that I choose. 35:54 At best we can peer past the human veil, ignore the human "closure" as you say and attempt to view the world as raw sensory, but it is a very chaotic place for the human mind. Doable, but chaotic. 38:38 This is why I attempt to differentiate between subjective human reality, and universal objective reality. Subjective human realities are infinite, but some are more functional than others. 42:17 Thank you My Lawson. That was a brilliant presentation :)

[@Wokewookie]

We need realism to catch a bus on time and successfully attain a refund. Realism provides a shared basis for cooperative activity. But, Realism has a tendency to limit the viewer's perception of what's possible. Realitivity expands horizons by creating temporary moments of gestalts, linking us from what is to what can be.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

Yeah, realism has a way of limiting what's possible in the world that's fundamentally inexplicable to idealists. If reality is just an illusion then why can't I fly in the real world like I can fly in my imagination?

[@360.Tapestry]

@@JerehmiaBoaz because i imagined that you can't and my imagination is much stronger

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

@@360.Tapestry How old are you? 15? 16?

[@danremenyi1179]

This should be viewed a number of times by every post-graduate student. Hilary thank you very much indeed.

[@chrisgreen1514]

Clear introductory talk on the philosophy of science and reality. I’m a bit surprised he didn’t talk more about ancient mythology... However, starting with an accepted developed scientific model that suffered from a huge paradigm shift made it very powerful to a general audience. He is not against science, if anything, he is explaining it.

[@ciampayesce2718]

I think he is discovering what buddhism is telling since more than 2500 years

[@axle.student]

Taoism?

[@Mindfuluser2024]

Advaita Vedanta

[@HTNT-z4x]

Ikr, The very definition of a truly enlightened mind. This was 2,500 years ago, long before the advent of science, so it couldn’t have been simply a product of logical reasoning alone.

[@rodrigodiaz5003]

@@ciampayesce2718 😂👍

[@agnelomascarenhas8990]

Buddhism has not told us anything useful about the world, just well meaning fantasies. I'm not clear of the speaker. It appears he is criticizing science with the purpose of improving it.

[@Jan96106]

I don't have a strong sense that I can describe reality, but I'm a philosophy major.

[@ArjunLSen]

I found Lawson's talk very interesting. He showed how scientific observation and calculations can be accurate, be refined and applied successfully to technology and yet be inaccurate completely about how things really are. We could turn to the idealist post realist model explicated by Bernardo Kastrup ( screen of perception) and Donald Hoffman ( brain evolutionary dashboard model) to understand how observations can work extremely well without providing any deep explanation at all. He shows how models are useful and do work without ever fully disclosing reality which is ineffable. That, of course, is what mystics have always said. Its time fot us to grow up. For physics and metaphysics to shake hands once again .

[@eduardoaraujo8174]

No thanks. Mysticism only makes matters worse. Not welcome to science. Lets just focus on making the most factual theory of reality. When we are not guided by facts not much progress is made or we even regress such as when Christianity ruled and in WW2. Facts however led to the best descriptions of reality and to the best advancements in technology by far. Let's just leave mysticism in the past it just sets us back

[@ArjunLSen]

@@eduardoaraujo8174 facts died when strong objectivity went off the map with the quantum. Rather like religious people, you are stuck with your dogma. You didn't understand Lawson.

[@eduardoaraujo8174]

​@@ArjunLSen I would like to understand how quantum makes everything subjective.

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

@@eduardoaraujo8174 Bravo. When science leaves physicalism and empiricism behind it simply is no longer science but mysticism. What Lawson proposes is a veiled return to alchemy and astrology.

[@360.Tapestry]

@@JerehmiaBoaz that's what you currently have with incomplete theories and data

[@monkerud2108]

There being a reality out there is not so weird to assume, existence in some form is real, the details of what exists is just something we cannot determine in absolute terms. The relationship between existence and our perception of it is also structured by the answer not the question to put it that way. For practical purposes it is fine to guess at what exists and try to build models of it, but our models can never be verified to be what exists or to exactly correspond to it, only to more or less give predictions of experience that turn out right.

[@havenbastion]

•Actuality - the universe as it is beyond the perception of a mind; undifferentiated stuff •reality-to-us - a filtered perspective on the universe from a unique position in time, space, and scale •Reality per-se - the consensus version

[@aditya.sedhai]

Ofc u can

[@donotteiroz2419]

Great talk! Loved the last minutes. Inspiring

[@OfraFan]

Thank you for the lesson on the Buddhist philosophy of Emptiness.

[@excelsior999]

Aha! I see. So both Hurricanes Milton and Helene were just illusions. Siddhartha Gautama (a/k/a/ Buddha) was right! Wow. That's deep.

[@williamnelson4968]

@@excelsior999 You probably voted for Trump since your response to @OfraFan is completely infantile.

[@paulborneo7535]

This is valuable information. Thank-you.

[@michaeldallas]

This isn't anything new. Science is about creating models. What a model ceases to be useful, it's replaced with another one. This is quite different than religion.

[@fefxqm7122]

The truth depends on what's your model. Good disagreement here is the fuel of openness😊

[@Vlatka211]

Wow, I know now why I feel like a failure. I'm just a neuron that got nowhere.

[@illomens2766]

Isn't our capacity to hold the world in different ways kind of necessary to hopefully some day arrive at the correct conclusion?

[@nawzadjamal]

I think it is necessary to rethink about the reality philosophically. We are in era of artificial reality that demand to be understood in a different terms and definition that dominated philosophy, science and spirituality.

[@kianurobertson3858]

For anyone interested, I really recommend you looking into the ‘two truths’ teachings of Buddhism. The idea that relative, consensus reality ‘realism’ is true relatively, but the ultimate reality is beyond all categorisation.

[@neanderthal40k]

Very intriguing ❤

[@jerrymuns]

It seems that people all live together while experiencing different truths, but in reality there may only be one single undeniable truth even though each individual may be interpreting and describing this truth in different ways.

[@joseffirmagemiyasato]

If there are even only 15,000 other worlds and 35 different substitutes for gravity, etc. we are literally only seeing in part. I agree with Lawson there. This is why scientism fails. But I don't think there are endless explanations for everything. I can see both the rabbit and the duck at the same time. What no one argues about is that they can also see a car, an elephant, the library of babel and a homeless veteran at the same time. In this sense, his argument seems like an argument for post-modernism in science. He's lost me there. However, I am on board for his argument for epistemological humility when it comes to describing the world that we can only see in part.

[@paulierymenko4411]

Our explanations of things in reality change as we improve our knowledge. Reality however, remains exactly what it is. It seems to me he wants to confuse our explanations of reality with reality itself.

[@excelsior999]

"For now we see as through a glass, darkly; but then, face to face. Now I know in part; but then, I shall know even as I am known." - 1 Corinthians 13:12

[@Skaterboi-k6d]

Ever know when an assumption is wrong but you can't prove it? I got that feeling on his discussion of enclosure. I know there is a problem with it but I can't consciously identify what it is. I will think on it more.

[@stephaniej5848]

Thank you- I needed to hear this because as I get older I think I begin to confuse closed systems with how things are. And it's depressing me- it doesn't have to be that way.

[@elmastoras1]

One can imagine a more advanced civilization where the usage of language is severely, voluntarily restricted as a possible source of confusion which at best leads to waste of precious time. In the case at hand the scandalous word is REALITY, an 'ex constructio'' STATIC concept aspiring to grasp the ultimate, i.e. the timeless FLOW. Good luck to us with that! The talk is a useful reminder albeit it didn't contemplate the linguistic side.

[@scalefrog2]

"It's not that the world is not real, it's just not really real."--Robert Thurman

[@walshamite]

An interesting topic and presentation. The concept of "holding" and "closure" took a while to emerge. Is our need to close our models of reality learned through our educational system and language, or is it an inevitable neurological outcome? Do other sentient life forms understand their reality through similar constucts? I've become used to slick scripted YT presentations, so can barely tolerate the inherent hesitancy deriving from a speaker constructing language on the fly, so found this talk works best at 1.5x speed.

[@adityakharade9868]

The talk was great. The theory is quite good and solves some deep epistemological problems. I truly loved how at the end Hilary became poetic.

[@yoso585]

Always have to end with what people seem to want: Hope.

[@hireality]

What a brilliant talk and what a brilliant and engaging lecturer Lawson is ✨

[@HowManyMore]

Excellent talk! "Truth is a function of the model, not of reality" is my favourite takeaway. Goes very well with the teachings of the Buddha in regards to interdependent arising of phenomena.

[@Garybonn]

Thank you! Absolute brilliance. It is this sort of paradigm-shifting and challenging (or more, should I say 'adding to reality') which I cherish. It is more 'Pararealism' in this sense (adding to reality) rather than post-realism (may be inferred as a slur on realism which is a perfeclty useable paradigm - if a little limited and constraining). Bravo, sir, and thanks again.😀

[@Etlelele]

If we can make our models better, doesn't that mean precisely that they are moving closer to what one might call "reality"?

[@OctatonicFlat13]

Literally. I haven't watched the whole thing, but from the first 5 minutes, it seems like there's a catastrophic error in reasoning - just because our perceptions limit, distort, colour and ultimately approximate reality, doesn't mean the input to that perceptual system isn't a reality that exists outside of ourselves.

[@deanodebo]

@@OctatonicFlat13the point is that from the standpoint of science, you cannot have knowledge of what is actually real

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

@@deanodebo On what basis can you state that scientific knowledge is not actually real? From what standpoint _can_ you have knowledge of what's actually real?

[@deanodebo]

@@ilikethisnamebetter scientific method 101. All theories are subject to falsification. They are provisional strictly. Never proven, That’s not controversial. That’s basic science

[@InsectElfMachines]

For others out there interested in these topics check out Rupert Sheldrake, and Donald Hoffman

[@monkerud2108]

The truth so to speak is what actually exist, out there and in our experience. Our theories, are best viewed as naive guesses, thats the place of realism, concrete guesses. We assume there is something that exist, we try to guess at it, and as long as we don't take our guessing to be literal, it doesn't produce conflicts vased on our misunderstandings, just missed details. The real ontology of existence just is what it is, we should not try to imagine our knowledge as directly reflecting it, they are just attempts at capturing details of existence.

[@havenbastion]

Trivial realism - things are more or less as they appear to be from our unique embodied perspectives

[@JayeshPatel-ct5ps]

Great presentation, broadly of Plato's Shadows on the Cave Wall.

[@SeanCannon-x6v]

The culprits that broke the world beyond repair or redemption have one last scam to pull off. "Nothing you perceive is real." Because on a sphere, there are different views of space? LOL

[@richardatkinson4710]

I think Lawson falls off his bike quite early on. It is a key truth that within the nervous system there is only one kind of impulse; but what is worse is that, unlike digital signals in a computer, the neural signals are not patterned or coded. As Émil du Bois-Reymond (who discovered this 150 years ago) understood, the signal is only important for its destination - the appropriate sensory area of the brain. The eye is connected to the visual area the ear to the auditory area and the hand to the tactile area. But if you hold your right arm out and snap your fingers your sensory areas are all coordinated - they all register an event on the right. And so we begin to construct a theoretical exterior world which corresponds with the perceived world closely enough that we can use the same vocabulary for both. Realism survives.

[@ThoughtsAreReal]

So - the complex of illusions that are made by our body and brain, which are made of 'stuff' that the more we try to define it we fail to find any 'real' stuff there and even the illusions of things at each level (molecule, atom, electron / proton / neutron, quark) are >99% empty and can only be said to statistically seem to exist... this is a solid basis for a single definition of reality, i.e. realism? In your example - the eye doesn't really report what it sees, nor the ear what it hears, nor the hand what it feels, in any way that is closely related to what we think we perceive. What we think we perceive itself is a mass of hallucinations. You see that blind spot in your vision? Of course not. You notice the colors that your brain makes up that don't really exist? Of course not. Do you feel the empty space that is most of all 'physical' things? Nope. Do you feel the quantum jumping happening throughout your body and brain? No, but it is "real". Do you see / hear / smell / taste what the many other lifeforms on Earth do? No, they might think you insensate for missing out on so much. This talk is good philosophy and it can help us to free our minds from "closing" on a particular perception and closing out countless others that have value in countless ways. I think your idea of "realism" is just the blind men feeling an elephant and determing it is "really" various different things - all of which are both valid and incomplete. Our perceptions are necessarily incomplete and so is our concept of 'real'.

[@deanodebo]

So you think the mental models models the brain creates - the theoretical world - is equal to what’s actually real? If so, why?

[@richardatkinson4710]

@ For want of any alternative.

[@dinosoho3762]

Beautiful, thank you for sharing ❤

[@marcherm]

The theory explains why beauty is such an essential characteristic of knowledge, as well as that beauty consists in imperfect symmetry, aka “openness.”

[@Ludifant]

I'd say he's stating the obvious, but it isn't is it? In talking to people about it there are three possibilities, they agree, disagree or are indifferent. Percentage wise the 'agrees' are less than 1%. Most people are indifferent and some (+/-10%) disagree strongly if I happen to hit a nerve, so the number depends on how strongly Inword my view, how entrenched they are and indeed I am in not being entrenched at al.. which is another closure. But obvious..? No. So let me just agree then, vocally. This openness is how I experience the world. He managed to get some examples completely wrong. I can see the duckrabbit as two things (or three or any number), how else could I have made my new version.. how could the original duck rabbit have been drawn, if people were actually unable to see it? And I do not agree that we cannot see the sky as green. It is quite often green at sunset. I can see it as green with slightly tinted glasses, after just staring at intense purple and I can think of another ten thousand ways.. I know what he means, but this is the other thing. Language itself is a form of closure.. so . To use it to describe opennes.. is kind of silly.. fun.. but silly..

[@Etlelele]

Saying we don't have a mechanism for dark energy is factually wrong. It can be explained by the cosmological constant, which was already part of the framefork of general relativity. It would be nice to have a deeper explanation, but science takes patience.

[@mjja00]

the illusion is the reality!

[@gordonnosworthy]

absolutely brilliant - how to describe what nobody can

[@simka321]

An excellent appeal to the need for philosophies of scale, or perhaps ad hoc philosophies that do specific jobs of wisdom-realization in specific contexts for the particular sensemaking needs at hand.

[@Aluminata]

Between past, a trillionth of a second ago, and there for gone and non-existent, and a trillionth of a second in the not yet existent future; how narrow is the slice of "now" in which we apparently do exist?

[@homewall744]

True, but Orion's belt isn't real, just a way to talk about otherwise fully unrelated stars we see. That's less true than for a chair or glass of water. Extra details about atoms or the like don't help. But interpretation is real for each mind.

[@Blurbler]

The polarity of on the one hand gravity and the other repulsive expansion seem like a legit way of balancing entropy and dystropy . Opposite vectors, no two constellations ever alike

[@Blurbler]

What may be regardless, the gift of inmagination does not need empirical proof. its pass-time.

[@qorilla]

Yep, nice argument but it's a reductio ad absurdum. Instead of concluding that reality is an illusion, we can just say this kind of philosophy isn't working very well.

[@havenbastion]

Reality continuously replicates and is therefore the furthest thing from illusion.

[@360.Tapestry]

it doesn't appear that you understand how to use "therefore;" therefore, i'm revoking your _therefore_ card

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

9:58 "We don't get any closer to how things ultimately are." Yes, we do. If it was actually the case that the earth was the centre of the solar system, not the sun, the Voyager space missions (for just one example) wouldn't have worked.

[@chrislloyd5415]

You quote Derrider as a serious philosopher??

[@PedroHenriquePS00000]

I see what he is trying to say. Its hard to express in words. As i understand i think he is saying the world is 4 dimentional and we need to rotate in the w axis... Not move, thats time, rotate. Another way to think about it is, that reality is procedural onto whatever we look onto... but how do we change the procedural rules (or rotate in the w axis) i have no fkin clue... and he hints at the end that feelings may have something to do with it... This needs to be taken seriously and may be another field of studies. As in if science was heading 42 this is more like heading 33 in the w axis...

[@boazsaraf]

Whatever this illusion is,it's genius 😊

[@felixvandriem1515]

The ads must go. They destroy the presentation.

[@flaneur5560]

Use an ad-free browser then.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

1D-4D = not locally real, or "less real". 0D = locally real, or "more real".

[@youtubebane7036]

What language is capable I'm describing everything and that word I just used is what does it and it just not very detailed. At the opposite end of the spectrum you have mathematics which is another type of language but it is a computational language and it to describe the minutest of details but I can't describe the overall story and it takes both of these to give you reality to give you computation and qualia

[@thomastepfer9861]

"It's not How the world is that's mystical but That it is." Ludwig Wittgenstein - Tractatus l. p.

[@ronhudson3730]

The idea of a “Theory of Everything” seems like a fool’s errand when viewed through this lens.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century: S+O = ∞BCP : The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace (“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit). Alternatively, and more parsimoniously (as well as somewhat more elegantly), expressed as: E = A͚ : Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness (“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit).

[@simonhibbs887]

This is just empiricism. He's not saying science is useless, or theories are useless, just that we should withhold a certain kind of commitment to their 'truth' or 'reality'. A theory of everything would still be more accurate, in terms of being predictive, than any theory we have now or have ever had. That's worth having. Also, everything he's saying, applied to science, also applies to any other system of description of reality that e have. It's a general issue with how we perceive and interpret our experiences, full stop. No other system of inquiry or interpretation other than science has an end run around any of this.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

His gravity/opposite-reaction-force argument is nonsense. You can _see_ the reaction in a branch when an apple falls. We need the force generated by our muscles to resist gravity and remain standing upright. If our muscles stop working, we collapse because of gravity. Whether or not this represents the "ultimate" nature of gravity, it's still true/real.

[@GabrielBourke]

I think that if I'm "open" to different realities when driving a car, is a potential a recipe for a disasters. Doesn't have to be but is more likely...

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

I've not yet watched the video.. if all he's saying is that our view of the world is _incomplete_ , that's fine (and obvious) but - unless _my_ experience is the only thing that's happening - the fact that there are things out there that people _agree_ on means that they must be, in some sense, real.

[@sjain8111]

people in your dream could just as well say your dream is real

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

@@sjain8111 People in my dream might say all sorts of things, but my experience (whether you describe it as consciousness or a dream) is the only thing ultimately that I (and you, if you're actually an entity having an experience) have. Once we assume (as we must, for the purpose of gaining any knowledge of an external world) that there are other entities that experience the external world, then the experiences we have in common must be - in some sense - real.

[@thebernander]

Dark energy is not a new force. It's still gravity (within General Relativity). Dark energy is either new stuff, or a nonzero constant in General Relativity.

[@Ludifant]

After a stroke. This sense of reality disappeared for two years. Now it's back, but like an optical illusion. I can see it, but I know it to be wrong. Seen too much of how reality is made as it 'grew back'. But people, even doctors, will happily declare you psychotic and not know how ridiculous they sound. I lack an illusion they all have and I'm psychotic? That was one of the side effects of having no sense of reality, everything seems quite absurd and I laughed for a year. Especially things like pain were so absurdly urgent. And just about everything people are drawn to discuss with you is wrong.. the comment section here reads like a joke book.

[@buddhabillybob]

Interesting talk, this chap needs more careful terminology. There may be a "truth" about reality, but we have no way of getting there, or we have no way of knowing what theory about it may be correct. Also, our biological perspective frames Lawson's ideas as well as metaphysical realism. Part of our biological perspective is to figure out that our biological perspective may not be true in terms of representation.

[@fpvmaniac]

While i agree with a lot if wha is being said i think the speaker confuses truth with reality and assumes that reality can be described in words or equations. That is not necessarily true.

[@Zagg777]

Try reading Kant.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

It's not an accurate analogy to say Aristotle's model was wrong in retrospect and therefore the current lcdm is equally wrong. There is a lot more data supporting the current model of the universe. The other thing is we know dark matter and energy is a placeholder. No one thought that way 2000 years ago.

[@jonanon8193]

Science is a metaphor - brilliant. It can also be said that Science is Prototruth.

[@yoso585]

I don’t believe that he said what you are saying.

[@jonanon8193]

@@yoso585 9:24

[@richardderekadams5926]

Hmm. Hold with me. One of my legal beagles got his Ph.D. in law by analysing the implications of various science fiction stories. Which ones, as a thought experiments, pointed out the complications or failures of particular narratives in relationship to law, its development, and consequence. It would seem a philosophers would be wise doing similar. Let us start with various amusing viewpoints, including pointing out that standing in front of an audience and spouting nonsense for money, reputation, and tenure does after all indicate a shared reality and language that might starve off the unpleasant experience of hunger

[@scoreprinceton]

I am of the opinion nature ultimately is all intelligence and we perceive that intelligence with any Lense we choose, and it doesn't matter as long as we don't get entangled in the mirages of our perceptions

[@georgesamaras2922]

Between 2 equally good models we pick the simpler one. Between 2 equally good products we pick the salesman we like,.

[@simsixzero]

True is false, false is true

[@axle.student]

Except for when it is not.

[@tedmd5893]

Unreal.

[@samsuttie3713]

Brought me to tears. In a good way.

[@ABWIP]

empiricism in a nutshell..there is no causality, none we can ever have a grasp off!

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

I'm finding it hard to get through this video, because nonsense succeeds nonsense. I'm now at the point where he's describing constellations, and the fact that different cultures see different constellations. I'm not sure that the description/shape of constellations was _ever_ considered a part of science. If it ever was, it certainly hasn't been for hundreds of years. The fact that knowing the description of constellations can be helpful in navigation is, again, not science.

[@deanodebo]

If you’re looking at stars, are photons affecting your optical nerves, triggering signals that are processed in your brain, where mental models of the world are created, which you experience? Sounds like science to me

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

@deanodebo You are missing the point. The shapes of _constellations_ are subjective and determined by cultural history. They don't have anything to do with the scientific nature of stars, or light, or anything.

[@deanodebo]

@ and you don’t think subjectivity involves brain science?

[@justme-wh5li]

I'm not sure this is helpful... fundamentally I disagree with his representation of science, which at its root questions it's own assumptions rather than dictating the correct answer..... Nobody "invented" dark matter. It's just a term for the undiscovered part of the universe that math/logic suggests exists.... And by the way, the firing of neurons are a measurable electric response to a measurable stimuli.... So yes we model the world, and it's called "shared understanding"... I mean what's his point?

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

I think that this is an example of a philosopher lashing back at science, because some scientists, in recent years, have been quite scathing about philosophy. You're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I've not watched it all - I'd already found several mistakes when he started talking about different cultures having different constellations. Talk about clutching at straws..

[@deanodebo]

But “neurons firing” is based on mental experience. If you buy the theory that neurons are firing, then it follows that the brain interprets those signals and creates mental models based on those signals. Why would those mental models be an accurate representation of reality? Why would you believe that? Have you ever thought about what it means to “see” something?

[@georgerevell5643]

"we have no idea even of the mechanism of how its (dark energ) pushing everything away" thats not true, general relativity explains energy as a a scalar property of spacetime itself, constant throughout the universe which is elegantly modeled simply by a single number for the whole universe. This causes a "negative pressure' that expands not objects, but spacetime itself. Energy is basically just the potential to do work which is essentially to accelerte objecs made of mass, which is just energy confined. See how its al just maths?

[@fellsmoke]

Death is escape from closure.

[@ntang99]

What is the criteria for us to choose between competing models? I agree eith the speaker that we should be more tolerant towards all different models. I disagree with the speaker the winning model, the scientific one, does not reflect reality. The scientific model may not be able to provide values for human life, as what a religious one or an artistic one might be able to. How we can reconcile those conflicting models?

[@svendtang5432]

Lookout for your language.. we are not creating the reality, but A reality .. what I mean is a Deer and us still flee a falling tree or a landslide… how we interpret it may be different but it’s stil there.. the metaphor if you will is different Our metaphor is still being refined but perhaps it will never be very correct just good enough

[@joseleon8235]

Reality and realism confution, such as religion and teleology. Nothing else. Matter of scope.

[@martinkaufmann4067]

Kopernikus is written Kopernikus and not Copernicus

[@simonhibbs887]

"During his studies and when entering into academic and ecclesiastical circles, Copernicus began to use a Latinized spelling of his name. This was common practice among humanist scholars at the turn of the 16th century. ... The evidence in favor of this version of his name includes the fact that it is present in writings by Copernicus himself." - The Copernico Glossary

[@ingenuity296]

❤

[@svendtang5432]

Lookout for your language.. we are not creating the reality, but A reality .. what I mean is a Deer and us still flee a falling tree or a landslide… how we interpret it may be different but it’s stil there.. the metaphor if you will is different Our metaphor is still being refined but perhaps it will never be very correct just good enough.. the scientific model

[@jaimeberkovich]

the ideas that Lawson proposes here seem to resonate with Stephen Wolfram's notion of 'pockets of reducibility' within otherwise computationally irreducible systems

[@esorse]

Metaphor evokes intuition-emotion fo meaning, by contrast at least with perception and reason?

[@fellsmoke]

The word creates the universe and beyond.

[@andrewwilliams8986]

The mind a product of the brain till evidence for the contrary discovered. Some of this might prove true but without proof’s it’s all hopeful explorations and sometimes wonderful use of language. Though “sort of the same” not a very convincing argument.

[@juanfelipegarcialuque924]

To understand reallity, you need to have e real consciousness. To know reality you have to acquire consciousness and apply it to knowledge, because consciousness without knowledge is something abstract, it is pure consciousness with nothing to apply it to.

[@axle.student]

True universal awareness does not require knowledge, Knowledge is the human realm that limits our awareness of the whole. No human knowledge can describe the universal reality and awareness of all things.

[@georgesos]

"we dont need truth to explain the success of scien e"? science is successful exactly because it searches for truths. dont just swallow what 5his guy says, analyze every sentence, he is full of it.

[@stefan24georgiev]

think about what he says. What is truth? Its reality conforming to our beliefs. I believe he doesnt argue against that. He argues that we can never know ultimate reality, and that the usefulness of our models is what matters. He is just saying this in his own convoluted way.

[@havenbastion]

Science is rigor.

[@jonnyleeg4058]

This guy offers nothing but word salad

[@deanodebo]

Science makes no truth claims. Theories are provisional. That’s basic facts

[@balasubr2252]

Wonderful escaping every one!!🎉❤😢😮😅😊😂

[@sbenkimmie9579]

incompetence in everything is pretty freaking ridiculous...

[@bradmodd7856]

No way of getting to the underlying reality, can we have a collective sollipsism and just say it doesn't exist?

[@yoso585]

Nope

[@KurtVanBever]

An introduction to the consequences of labeling.

[@kevconn441]

I often wonder what anti realists think would happen if they stepped in front of a speeding bus.

[@simonhibbs887]

Empiricist here, and thus an anti-realist. In this sense, anti-realism isn't against the idea that there is a reality. It's against the idea that observation, or science, tells us ontologically true facts about the world as it really is. I do think there is a world that we live in and are part of. I also think that science is clearly the most powerful and useful approach to understanding the world we have come up with. Nevertheless the story Lawson tells about the progression of science from crystal spheres, to Newton, to Einstein is correct. The problem is that he dramatically over-sells this view, and says nonsense such as that there is no evidence for dark energy. The question is, what is dark energy? We have a model of gravity and the phenomena in the cosmos, expressed mathematically, and we find that it doesn't actually predict exactly what we observe. We introduce a new factor into that description that corrects for this discrepancy, and we call that change to the model 'dark energy'. Clearly this change has evidence for it. This is how empiricists such as myself view scientific theories. Attaching labels to mathematical constructs. That in no way weakens, or invalidates or contradicts science, or our experience of the world. It's just a rigorously neutral way to interpret it. Take quantum mechanics. It tells us there's no such thing as an actual solid object in the intuitive sense. They just don't exist. Everything is fields and potentials, and probabilities. Are our intuitions and everyday interpretation of the world therefore 'wrong'? I say no. They're just very generalised and simplified, but in useful ways that make it easier for us to engage with the world and reason about it. So, they'r not 'wrong', but they're not 'true' in some fundamental sense either.

[@kevconn441]

@@simonhibbs887 I agree with what you say. Thanks for such a thoughtful reply, I was being a little bit sarcastic in my post.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@kevconn441 Sure, it's all good. Lawson definitely goes way too far and makes claims and statements I don't think even he actually believes or can back up, just for shock value. If we have 'no evidence' for dark energy, technically we have 'no evidence' for the bus either, and I think if we put that to him, he'd backtrack or prevaricate rapidly.

[@kevconn441]

@@simonhibbs887 He'd probably want to backtrack from the bus as well. Could you expand a bit on the first sentence of your first reply? I'm curious why you would say you are an empiricist "thus" an anti realist.

[@georgesamaras2922]

99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of time they get squashed. There is a non zero probability they would quantum tunnel through the other side of the bus.