Can Metaphysics Discover Surprises? | Episode 606 | Closer To Truth

How does metaphysics contribute to our understanding of the world? It asks the most profound questions: What kinds of things exist? How does causality work? Sound too abstract? How about: Does God exist? Are you a soul? Featuring interviews with Colin McGinn, Peter van Inwagen, Philip Clayton, George Lakoff, and Dean Zimmerman.
Season 6, Episode 6 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.*
#Philosophy #Metaphysics

[@omgsolikevalleygirl]

i kind of like this series - finally an intellectual who isn't cynical about the finer points of existence

[@pikiwiki]

oh boy. This is a home run episode. It hits at the schism between internal and external reality. Big, big idea.

[@farouqAliyu]

It is dizzying !!!

[@havenbastion]

That's not a schism, it's the answer to ontology. The nature of being is a dichotomy between our internal and external experience. Every thing has a related internal state. Every thing is real as a pattern in a mind. Some things also have an external referent.

[@Hyporama]

@@havenbastion "Some things also have an external referent." ?

[@havenbastion]

@@Hyporama God, for instance, does not have an external referent. Although many people make such claims, no version of god has ever been externally validated. An apple is both an internal thing as all things are, but also an external thing because it has external reality due to the fact that we can continuously verify it with external senses and measurement.

[@rabidL3M0NS]

“Are metaphysics for real?!” Lol love that

[@msimp0108]

If metaphysics “takes us on a long road closer to Truth” (a trip that presumably takes”time”)and we move an increment of the distance of that road with each episode then the Truth, according to Zeno, will never be arrived at. Such fruitless seeking only makes sense to someone who is greasing his palm along that road by insinuating that we COULD get there. I’m looking at you Robert Lawrence Kuhn!

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

I can't see why this channel hasn't got 10M subscribers.

[@DrDante221]

Fabulous discussion!

[@tty2020]

I would love to hear Kuhn interviews on issues in philosophy of science (no pun intended :) ), such as realism vs antirealism, theory-ladenness, underdeteminism, can scientific method discover reality etc.

[@_shadow_1]

What's your take on those subjects?

[@_shadow_1]

@Andreaz-64 He asked him to do basically the same thing, just in video form

[@dawid_dahl]

I just realized something. Closer To Truth is Robert Lawrence Kuhn's journey to NOT find out. Finding out the truth would mean that he would have to stop making this television series. Where he travels to all these beautiful locations and has all these wonderful discussions with all these amazing people. Finding out the truth would end his dopamine rush of anticipation of maybe finding something out. End the sense of meaning he probably finds in being a seeker on a quest. I for one hope that Robert will never *actually* want to find out. Because I like this super cozy program so much, haha!

[@mediocrates3416]

Agreed! The brain was a comfort finder for millions of years and a coherence detector for only the last 200k.

[@moonzestate]

Kuhn's journey is all about finding out the truth. But, the more science discovers, the more question arises... The more we know, the more we realize how much more there is yet to know. When you realize this, then you will understand that finding out the truth, just opens the door to another problem, or another things to figure out. This is what keeps Kuhn's "dopamine rush of anticipation". So, don't worry, there will be always questions remaining open... :-)

[@HeliumXenonKrypton]

Peter Van Inwagen is truly great - really wish I could have taken classes from him. Actually everyone being interviewed is truly great.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm glad I finally know the definition of Metaphysics. I think "surprises" are just around the corner.

[@ffmaniac]

I remember i learnt this term back in high-school and what it meant... it's another term for philosophy, at least as i remember it.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@ffmaniac I never knew what it meant until recently. I think Metaphysics can be fascinating. ( I'm not knocking the hard sciences nor religions. I think a correlation exists between all three )

[@stinkertoy4310]

@@ffmaniac I’ve always though of it as another word for spirituality. Sounds more scientific.

[@Crandaddy81]

Metaphysics is fascinating! It is very unfortunate that many people think that it's just a load of superstitious, new-age hooey, rather than the serious academic subfield of philosophy that it is!

[@stinkertoy4310]

@@Crandaddy81 If calling it “metaphysics” makes it more palatable to science and moves it forward, wonderful. Both science and religion trying to explain our reality. Seems to be something in between or both.

[@spacebaby1174]

TY, for another great episode! As Above, So Below.

[@joeclark1621]

Metaphysics having no time nor space is a lot more relieving than one can imagine but for me, it seems impossible to comprehend let alone imagine an existence where you are having a set of experiences without time cause time is technically a motion.

[@phillyg7661]

Great episode! I’m with you Robert! Metaphysics has a place to explore unification from the macro universe to the quantum, as well as consciousness, spirituality and God. A great understanding of math could be indispensable, if Einstein couldn’t do the math, it would have been merely metaphysics. Cheers

[@alalohwhydee]

Very enlightening, extremely challenging.

[@danielzapisek4828]

Would love nothing more than to see Ed Feser on here. I feel like some of the top contemporary Thomistic philosophers would be a tremendous addition to this program and provide Dr. Kuhn with a different perspective-Dr. Feser in particular!

[@philippemartin6081]

Hi Mr Lawrence. Good evening. This is very nice and Deep, and so important question and true fact. I your Biguess fan. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎🎶

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

Excellent..... thanks 🙏.

[@stephenburrows4250]

Thanks for this..., I see metaphysics as the answer to its own question ie. the answer to the question is in questioning itself. The inexplainability of existence is fundamentally unknowable, and perhaps whilst we should pursue knowing that (an answer in itself)..., balance this in parallel that we will never derive an answer - the existential pleasure is in the pursuit itself..., the ‘joy’ is the reality in knowing we can... 🤷‍♂️ 🙏

[@_shadow_1]

Or it's just delusional circular reasoning...

[@stephenburrows4250]

@@_shadow_1 yup! 😃 still cool isn’t it...? (Or lunacy)... 👍

[@_shadow_1]

@@stephenburrows4250 Both lol

[@mindofmayhem.]

Even the newest discoveries get old with time. Maybe make some new episodes?

[@thomasridley8675]

Metaphyisics : The never ending search to imagine every idea you can never prove. With metaphyisics, now I can see, but... I love his back step. A classic !!!🙄 It's not that there may be a creator. It's that everyone thinks it must be the one inside their head. And act like that since their god is special. They must be special too. And they desperately need too feel special.

[@mediocrates3416]

There's been no progress for 3000yrs because it's been about making us comfortable. There was a productive balance between the cynic and the stoic until Alexander occluded the cynic's sun. There is a hard problem (an all pervasive electrotonic field and we electrotonic particles?). There is a mountain of colonialism and misogyny grounded on roman fascism. I'm a cynic👍🍻😁

[@thomasridley8675]

@@mediocrates3416 That's one way too put it i guess.😂😂 But yes, as pagan as the night is dark.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@thomasridley8675 Yes the "night is dark." But Light is coming and darkness will not comprehend it.

[@mediocrates3416]

@@thomasridley8675 Absolutely but, just one truth and all that we see must conform. The war against paganism is politics, pure and simple.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 What light ?

[@Aaerys]

Take a shot every time Robert nods

[@mediocrates3416]

Metaphysics is the hard problem. The *illusion* of self comes from local memory; that's easy problem.

[@catherinemoore9534]

Asking metaphysical questions is a way to acknowledge our human need to connect beyond death and a 'proof' that our emotional inner life has not found what it is looking for: deep emotional peace.

[@comanchio1976]

Perhaps we evolved in such a way that, selected for individuals who are incapable of finding such a state; as they would be much more vulnerable to predation; hostile neighbors, etc...

[@nyworker]

Robert needs to interview an engineer who studies philosophy

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Metaphysics could look into consciousness to clearly describe and define its scope

[@havenbastion]

We are each an embodied being with a unique perspective in place and time. Our experience relies on cognition, which is brain activity. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. The conscious mind is a sub-set of mind that our experience can visit. Our conscious awareness itself is a momentary aspect within the patterns in the sub-set of the mind known as the conscious mind.

[@johnmartin7346]

Of course!

[@donq2957]

Great show. Coming from social science grad student.

[@kallianpublico7517]

How did Einstein discover special relativity? He didn't conduct a physical, empirical, experiment; he asked a question and tried answering it using the terms he was familiar with: the terms of physics, a branch of science incorporating mathematics (including geometry) into observations that provide predictive descriptions. When a metaphysician answers questions using his terms he will have succeeded in discovering something new: surprises; whether or not they agree with the terms of physics or other sciences. Though they will have to offer predictive description to be considered as successful. Predictive description requires linguistic explanation. Linguistic explanation requires coherent terms. The coherence of physics is derived from dividing its terms into measurements, methodologies and models. Methodologies and models involve the metaphysical category of abstractions: logic and math and geometry. Most scientific measurement involves two metaphysical categories: material and mental. For instance weight involves a material object, a measuring apparatus:scale, and a mental, unit of measurent: kilogram, pound. The measuring apparatus, scale, involves engineering a material substance, in this case a metal spring, and calibrating its motion with a standardized unit of measurement: kilogram, pound,etc.. There are two scientific measurements, however, that do not involve only the two metaphysical categories of material and mental. The two are time and space. These two measurements involve all three metaphysical categories, which includes the abstract. How? By leaving out the material object. A scale requires a material object to make a measurement of weight. A clock and ruler have no such limitation. They only require a measuring apparatus, clock or ruler, and a mental unit of measurent: seconds or inches. The motion of the clock is automated, not activated by the presence of a material object. The shape and marks on the ruler are uniform, which determines the one to one calibration of its marks to its units of measurements: inches, centimeters, etc.. By leaving out the material object to activate them their use as measurements become abstract. Unlike scales, voltmeters, and thermometers clocks and rulers do not interact with material phenomenon. Mass, electricity and heat are all observable, time and space are not. Clocks and rulers do not interact with time and space: they do no expose them. Rather clocks and rulers impose time and space. Why are time and space the only two measurements that involve the third category of metaphysics: the abstract? Because of logic. They make logical sense as impositions, like numbers and letters. They do not make observable, empirical, material sense. Though you can see the symbols for numbers and letters they are as whimsical as any clock or ruler: by whim are they so.

[@elgatoconbolas]

Reason is even more fundamental

[@cmacmenow]

Has R.L.K interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet?

[@mikeys7536]

It’s hard to construct a 1000 piece puzzle when you only have about 3 pieces and you’re not 100% sure those are the correct pieces for that puzzle.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

The philosopher of linguistics didn’t say anything that counts against the discipline of metaphysics or any of the ideas discussed in this video (afterlife, God, etc), so I’m not sure why Kuhn was so worked up over the phil of linguistics comments.

[@andrewlucas6214]

It seems to be the human condition to question and search for fundamental truths about all aspects of reality. Surely the answers lie within so silent reflection will unite us with realty. Picture two dogs. One chases it’s tail while the lies sleeping in pure bliss.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Clayton didn’t mention that positivism is also self-refuting.

[@caricue]

Why would you want to believe in anything that had no evidence? What if someone just made it up?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

What?

[@donaldmcronald8989]

Please speak to Bernardo Kastrup about idealism. Thanks a bunch.

[@catherinemoore9534]

To me, the abstract world relates to the mental world. They are, ultimately one world. If there's a third world, I'd put the emotional world in it.

[@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done]

This reality is full of mind-boggling surprises. See: The University of Virginia School of Medicine, Division of Perceptual Studies

[@IronDogger]

Metaphysics is where Quantum physics goes to play - Jackie Robertson Metaphysician

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

RLK still needs to talk to Ed Feser ☕️

[@OlejzMaku]

So, no surprises then?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“Soul seems implausible.” Braude (2003): “hold my beer.”

[@ailblentyn]

I am very ignorant. Can anyone help me? When McGinn says that traditionally we divided the world into physical, mental and abstract, who are the main authors in that tradition?

[@Alex-bl6oi]

Evolution, religion, instincts, the normal human thought process. Don't you feel it, can't you imagine it?

[@ericmoyer8538]

Wikipedia gives a decent explanation under metaphysics

[@ailblentyn]

Eric Moyer Thanks. I think I have found it. Frege, I guess.

[@joshheter1517]

Plato.

[@ailblentyn]

Josh Heter Thankyou. Where in Plato is this three-way distinction mentioned?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

theology about internal existence revealed by free will time through emotional language?

[@Dion_Mustard]

i don't think god of religion exists..but i believe the universe has consciousness...i like to imagine the universe is one humongous brain and we are the cells existing within it.. i certainly think the key to all existence is down to two fundamentals..energy and consciousness.. once we understand consciousness (which I doubt we ever will), then we might understand why we exist.

[@elginjeleel2143]

Closer to the truth is fun. Try it it this way, the key to existence could be down to E=MC2 🤪,

[@danielpaulson8838]

Agreed. Something is there. Many people experience flashes of it. But it's not any god. At least no the God of Abraham. Hindu, Greek, Buddhist, etc gods are metaphoric so they don't claim the reality or literal nature of such a supernatural being.

[@caricue]

We do know for sure that 7billion or so little pieces of the universe are conscious. I have my doubts about rocks.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@danielpaulson8838 I am most intrigued by the out of body experience..so many people have experienced an OOBE and many describe leaving the planet and flying through galaxies etc. others describe leaving the body and travelling to other dimensions..so I believe the mind and consciousness are separate entities.

[@KestyJoe]

“I like to imagine...” Thanks for this succinct deconstruction of all religious thinking.

[@nyworker]

How neurons really do it? Not just the computational cartoons they have now but the deeper level(s).

[@mediocrates3416]

Electrotonics. Ions are surrounded by ordered water; as they move in response to an electrotonic field they might have to shed some associated water. I suggest that's a quantum of sensation when it's bound into a larger electrotonic particle. We are electrotonic particles artificially sustained for about 16hrs a day by our bodily rhythms. Occasionally, the cranial environment becomes supercoherent and the particle becomes self-sustaining; this is a meditative flash, what we understand as the transcendent experience.

[@havenbastion]

I can answer every metaphysics question (the deepest "What is the nature of x?" questions) according to the following criteria; a) no gaps, special pleading, appeal to authority, or woo, b) coherent, cohesive, conclusive, c) compatible with the best modern consensus of science, d) expressible in ordinary language.

[@Marco-wq7nn]

Really?

[@havenbastion]

@@Marco-wq7nn Only one way to find out.

[@Marco-wq7nn]

@@havenbastion is that metaphysics for you keeping it speculative and based on guesswork?

[@havenbastion]

@@Marco-wq7nn The nature of time, space, energy, matter, self, consciousness, infinity, paradox, truth, knowledge, god, etc. Where do you want to jump in head first with both feet?

[@Marco-wq7nn]

@@havenbastion i start with truth.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

metaphysics / philosophy about human reality experienced by conscious energy through rational mathematics?

[@stephenr80]

I dont see it that way. There is reality whatever that means. Maths and Ideas are objects of thought. They do not exist outside of it.

[@_shadow_1]

They can still be used to describe/represent things outside the mind.

[@drtak4512]

Yes, and despite of this, it (math) can describe the outside world accuratly. That's why eugen wigner called it a miracle.

[@robertdevos7]

Hey Robert ... who's "truth" are you looking for? If you're ever in Cape Town let me know and I'll buy you lunch at the classic Mount Nelson Hotel ...

[@jdc7923]

The kind of philosophy/metaphysics your society or culture or civilization (take your pick) has, will have a huge influence on what things are investigated and in what way. In classical Chinese philosophy, one of the core beliefs was that there is no objective reality. Is it surprising that it wasn't China that created modern science? The great philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead noted early in the 20th century that it wasn't until Westerners had for centuries thought of the physical world as the creation of a "Lawgiver", that they began to look for the laws that governed the physical world.

[@siamkarl]

Check out the metaphysics of Dutch philosopher-scientist Bernardo Kastrup. Rigorous, parsimonious, and empirical, his conclusions are remarkable. He welcomes discussion and has proven himself adept at answering objections over many years.

[@gunlokman]

These so-called metaphysical specialists are either too way ahead of the game for the rest of us to understand - or lost in their own self-created thought-forest. The jury's still out.

[@_shadow_1]

not "so-called" more like "self-proclaimed"

[@mediocrates3416]

Numbers are icons for quantity: math is the natural science of quantity.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

science about external objects observed by physical measurement through empirical art?

[@andreaspapadakis2602]

There is an issue that is not getting properly addressed for some reason..it seems that consciousness is fundamental to thought whitch is fundamental to logic..so why do we give logic the absolute authority to decide on reality..as the linguist have pointed out our Time might be a structure of the brain and so does Space..all the paradoxes of time and space and linear thought are indicative of the limitations of logic. How on earth can we understand reality only examining it through a certain filter???

[@cmdrf.ravelli1405]

I'm curious, have you ever tried psychedelics?

[@_shadow_1]

nope

[@purezentity6582]

15:00 is interesting, he got most of it, and that just TIME. the reality is a concept of interpretation by human, which is limited only to human, which lied within Consciousness. hope that help.

[@SpacePonder]

Consuming psychedelics has convinced me that the metaphysical exists.

[@danielpaulson8838]

I was convinced as a kid without them. But with them later on intensified the experience.

[@SpacePonder]

​@@danielpaulson8838 What's interesting is that recently I had a LSD experience where the intensifying of the fractals you see when you close your eyes seems to relate to the the nature of mathematics and chaos theory; and the metaphysical realm where mathematics resides; just as the theory of forms states that as you most likely already know this yourself that these mathematical entities exist independently from us. And also, Closer to Truth episode with Max Tegmark; he states that mathematics is discovered and the mathematics actually is the true nature of things; further supporting a Platonic worldview.. Deeply studying the Mandelbrot set, fractals, and chaos theory for me brings alight a lot of interesting pondering. I was thinking that everything in the universe seems to have its own fractal. Like a car, it goes through a sort of evolution; it is self similar but always stays a car. You can see this self similarity whilst studying the Mandelbrot set. The more you study it, the more it seems to be very relevant to our universe, so it seems that we're actually looking at the universe or the language of it. Recently I was contemplating whilst in the bath, lol and decided to call this "hypothesis" dwell hypothesis" I was watching the bubble bath frothing and more and more bubbles were being made as the bath filled. The more I looked at these bubbles, the more I saw fractalling, self similarity; every bubble mostly the same; some small and some big; but pretty much the same. When we look at the observable universe, things are also very self similar; homogenous they call it. This brings the painting by Esher to mind, the one with the angels and demons. It seems to me that we can use the madelbrot set everywhere, since it relates to a lot of things which I'll explain. The most obvious thing in the Mandelbrot set is that you can see is patterns like rivers and branches. However, I think we can use the Mandelbrot set on a more general scale, like for example a poor town seems to always be just that and self similarities like unemployment . A successful city seems to fractal with success like investment and this doesn't seem to stop when it gets going; Dubai would be a good example or NYC from the general perspective of skyscrapers being built. Maybe even depression is a form of fractals because when one dwells on that depressive thought, it leads to self similarities; and inevitably more depression. From my intensive personal studies of fractals, it seems to me that nature likes to dwell. Like, the universe has dwelled on stars, its dwelled on....deodorant cans. What I mean is, once nature gets a hold of an object, whatever that may be it appears that it'll stay on that path without much change, it'll always stay that particular thing. The bubble bath would be a good example. Or a pen. Although a pen has went through changes in its existence, it has always remained a pen and looking into its past, its fractalling; it will obviously remain a pen, not that you need to study fractals to know that, LOL. But hopefully I explain enough for this to make sense. If its true then we could sort of use fractals to predict outcomes by observing the self similarity and repetitiveness of whatever thing we choose to study; not to a precise extent but close enough. Maybe we could use it to predict the weather more accurately by looking at a storm developing and if it goes on a path of self similarity then that could be a sign that it will continue to do so.

[@ripleyfilms8561]

i end this as a hell and form later create ''absrence'' it's a planet, why i believe

[@rv706]

5:03 - "Has arithmetic made any progress since the ancient Greeks? Well, no" - It may be the case that you meant "elementary school arithmetic" or some equivalent aspect, cause otherwise you seem to be quite ignorant of what _arithmetic_ is as a branch of mathematics and all the portentous progress that was made in it up to the present day. Arithmetic has really two meanings in contemporary mathematics: in *Algebra,* arithmetic is a synonym with number theory, Galois theory and the theory of field extensions (for fields that are, say, not algebraically closed or real-complete), the theory of Diophantine equations, and related areas. The Modularity Theorem by Wiles--Ribet et al., and the so-called "last Fermat's theorem" which follows from it, is an impressive achievement in arithmetic which happened in the 1990s. In *Mathematical Logic,* arithmetic refers to the study of Peano axioms and related axiomatic systems, and their models. In a certain technical sense Goedel's incompleteness theorem is a theorem of arithmetic (though of course it has wider philosophical significance).

[@guff9567]

This channel should be renamed "Closer to my LSD tab".

[@SpacePonder]

lmfao

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

The only one little problem here is that metaphysical realms are not verified, unfortunately ❤️😔

[@caricue]

If you mean scientifically verified, of course not. As soon as a thing is able to be scientifically explored, it stops being metaphysics and becomes physics. What realms do you feel need verification?

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

@@caricue all the ones which say that exists a lot more beyond this reality

[@caricue]

@@kuroryudairyu4567 But with no concrete evidence, aren't you concerned that you might be chasing phantoms of your own making?

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

@@caricue you clearly didn't understand what i meant.... Or i did not correctly explain myself. I only meant that anyone can talk about metaphysical matter but it won't, never ever, be a useful thing, especially for me cause I'm too much skeptical, so we can tell or talk about billllllions of metaphysical "contents", but because of its impossible to be really proved, i find them useless

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

@@caricue and, for answering to your question, i do not believe in ghosts et similia, until I'll see one by myself

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“Philosophers are always arguing.” Yah, but so are theoretical physicists...

[@Sharperthanu1]

But there are SOME things they DONT argue about.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@Sharperthanu1 I wish we could say the same thing about theology.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

This is inspired by the previous comments but isn’t meant to directly interact. Sometimes academics get stuck in a prejudice rut telling them, “these questions aren’t worth talking about.” Sometimes they’re right, and it’s fine, but often they’re wrong, and a worthwhile endeavor is neglected. I find it ironic that some of the anti-philosophy bigots will criticize others for not being curious enough! Yet they wouldn’t be able to summarize any of the controversies in areas of philosophy that matter a lot. Of course, sometimes philosophers get stuck on ridiculous (or seemingly ridiculous) questions, but that also applies to physicists. And, yes, theologians. But theology isn’t worthless IMO.

[@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns what does theology provide that science and philosophy do not?

[@readynowforever3676]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns “Theology isn’t worthless” I think you’re absolutely correct. But it’s becoming obsolete. Theology is what refined Homo sapiens during the transition from Hunter Gatherers to community civilizations. It was our first form of political governing and a way of establishing civility and unity 1000s of years before the advents of modern science. Theology started off as a Homo sapiens’ hypothesis to explain natural disasters, emanating from decadent Homo sapiens’ behavior. We learned that hypothesis was false, but there were still salubrious symbiotic externalities that came of religion or belief in god(s). So we’ve stuck with the man made “god” concept. Some of us have advanced and defenestrated “god”.

[@jesseburstrom5920]

what about the mentally exited metal object climbing like an spider a object like life who reaches self interest and as it looks at me knows it only exist because of me and will die as soon as that connection is gone and looks at me at the same time... Self excitement is consciousness, meta self- hmmm ?

[@Ndo01]

We can only infer metaphysics based on our perceptions. Perception is biological interpretation. Our interpretation leads us to think that there is something beyond the perception. We could never know the true nature of metaphysics because we can never perceive outside the limits of perception, and so all metaphysics and reality itself is just pure interpretation.

[@havenbastion]

Metaphysics subsumes everything you say is beyond it. All of those points have a metaphysical answer.

[@Ndo01]

@@havenbastion I'm not saying anything is beyond metaphysics, just that our grasp of it is interpretation rather than ultimate truth.

[@havenbastion]

@@Ndo01 Yes. Metaphysically there is no ultimate truth to us, only the filtered version.

[@bimmjim]

Listen to what the indigenous knowledge keepers say. Remember it. Go test what they say. .. I've done this and found it to be true.

[@jeffamos9854]

Can cats discover surprises ?

[@somethingyousaid5059]

Well, cats are naturally curious, so I would answer yes. But then it's an old proverb that says that curiosity killed the cat, so the cat better be careful.

[@danielpaulson8838]

​@@somethingyousaid5059 But the proverb continues, satisfaction brought it back.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

@@danielpaulson8838 you're right. I had forgotten that. And a cat's supposed to have 9 lives anyway. Felicitous feline. lol

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@somethingyousaid5059 It's a pretty old verse. I'm surprised a young whipper snapper like me even knows it. Lol (Shhhh)

[@thomasridley8675]

Ever leave a paper bag on the floor. The answer is a definite yes.

[@moonzestate]

5:51 Nice timing :-)

[@CraigGidney]

> [Let me give an example of something not making progress not being a criticism.] Has arithmetic made any progress since the ancient greeks? Well no they sorted that out long ago. Not a good example. There's been a ton of progress on devices and algorithms for performing arithmetic over the past fifty years. In the past 200 years there were a lot of foundational advances too, such as the Peano axioms. It hasn't even been a year since it was shown that multiplication can be done in O(n lg n) bit operations, and no one has managed to prove that's actually the minimum yet. Arithmetic's still advancing.

[@KestyJoe]

I disagree with the conclusion (based on the evidence presented) that metaphysics brings us closer to truth. The theme of this video appears to be “metaphysics poses questions that are interesting to think about, even if we have no mechanism by which to answer them.”

[@havenbastion]

An answer is a framework of understanding. There are infinite potential answers to any question. The best answer can only be determined in relation to a particular use-case.

[@KestyJoe]

@@havenbastion sorry but, how could you expect to be taken seriously when you say things like “there are infinite potential answers to any question”? Pure woo-woo double-speak.

[@havenbastion]

@@KestyJoe I could expect to be taken seriously because you understand me perfectly, because i think you're a fool, because i believe everyone takes people seriously on Sundays... see? potentially infinite answers.

[@KestyJoe]

@@havenbastion Oh - you’re including the 99.999% of answers that are obviously wrong and can be ignored. Got it.

[@havenbastion]

@@KestyJoe Even if you believe there is only one answer to a particular question there are still innumerable ways to phrase it with different emphases, or to add various contexts. An answer could also be won't and still be a valid answer if it was aimed at helping understand the question.

[@user-dj6rk2yv7i]

Sorry Philip but Plato was right all along.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

We have 3 types of consciousness, 1- early ages, started between the age 18-35 2-middle ages, between 35-50 , 3- final ages, between, the ages, 55-70 ! after the ages of 70 the fully consciousness, will not happened! And the size of that is depends on your age .

[@joshuaadamstithakayoutubel2490]

Conditioned responses are accumulated as one ages, in a way making us less conscious as we age.

[@doring4579]

😊🌏⏳🙏♥️

[@kumar2ji]

The more knowledge we have the more destructive we become This is an observable fact. Science has contributed comfort to this world and has also expedited our destruction as a human race. There are more psychological Man's psychology is deteriorating rapidly. More is not the answer. We are in this terrible decline as a human race because of knowledge. Knowledge is entertaining and intellectually stimulating but has not improved the quality of man's happiness as a whole.

[@mediocrates3416]

Spiritually enabled Scientism, see: *dat's* da way to do it, Spiritually enabled Scientism. (Flintstones ref.)

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

No!

[@todd4956]

It's amazing how stupid most of the so-called professionals are. The simple reality is that Science isn't possible apart from metaphysics and metaphysical foundations. Anyone actually interested in Metaphysics must explore the work of the late Philosopher and Historian, R. G. Collingwood. No one in history comprehended philosophical metaphysics as did Collingwood. Collingwood defines metaphysics as the Historical Science of Absolute Presuppositions. And if you think you understand what that definition means in actual reality you had better think again.

[@rafiqbrookins4931]

Metaphysics is an epistemology no different than "science" is. It's "an" approach to trying to understand reality. "Metaphysics is an abstract human invention about the nature of concrete reality -- immaterial thoughts about material things." "..an Idea like the circle pre-exists material beings," The entire universe is full of objects that were obviously "intended" to look and function the way that they do. From this fact alone one can infer an "Intender". We see a universe that obviously has a "Creator" any idea contrary to this goes against logic and reason. The Idea of a Star and it's functionality must have preceded it's creation and manifestation no different than the Idea of a car preceded it's creation and manifestation. We see a universe clearly designed by "Intelligence", "Intent" and "Desire" therefore we can infer an "Intelligent Designer" Who has designed the entire universe. Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 1: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَجَعَلَ الظُّلُمَاتِ وَالنُّورَ ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ All praises and thanks be to Allah, Who (Alone) created the heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. Verse 2: هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن طِينٍ ثُمَّ قَضَىٰ أَجَلًا وَأَجَلٌ مُّسَمًّى عِندَهُ ثُمَّ أَنتُمْ تَمْتَرُونَ He it is Who has created you from clay, and then has decreed a stated term (for you to die). And there is with Him another determined term (for you to be resurrected), yet you doubt (in the Resurrection). Verse 3: وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُونَ And He is Allah (to be worshipped Alone) in the heavens and on the earth, He knows what you conceal and what you reveal, and He knows what you earn (good or bad). Verse 4: وَمَا تَأْتِيهِم مِّنْ آيَةٍ مِّنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهَا مُعْرِضِينَ And never an Ayah (sign) comes to them from the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord, but that they have been turning away from it.