Rationalism Vs Empiricism

[@valsotto27]

"nothing is certain" is a self destructive statement cause its a universal statement of certainty that nothing is certain.

[@Mister-Thirteen]

But that's the core problem. Rationally one cannot make any claim to truth in an objective sense because any observation can be cast into doubt, even those backed by third parties. But Empiricism ignores this problem as the only way to move forward attempting to solve for it collectively. Both strive for truth but neither can escape the limitations of what it is to be human. The propitiation is better put as; "Nothing is certain from the point of view of the human condition."

[@patgray5402]

But the only way we can perceive the statement "Nothing is certain from the point of view of the human condition" is through the point of view of the human condition. So this puts the truth of the statement in doubt.

[@Mister-Thirteen]

Yes, that's the paradox of the absurd in action. Well, thinking on it some more you could argue the Cognito and be certain but that's about as far as you can go.

[@tibfulv]

We can actually prove that nothing but falsehood is one hundred percent certain. All positive theories are uncertain because one datum can come along and disprove them. But disproven hypotheses are certainly false. It follows from that that falsehood is certain, but nothing else (i.e. positive hypotheses, tested or untested) is.

[@cloudoftime]

@@tibfulv That doesn't get you absolute certainty. For one, you are assuming that you can trust reason. For two, you're looking a "proof" from a limited human perspective. The fact that you've been convinced that something hasn't been proven to be true, does not necessarily mean that it is false.

[@WhatAreYouBuyen]

I gain most of my knowledge from watching youtube videos, I learned through my sensory perception, therefore I obtain this knowledge from experience.

[@Element99]

+WhatAreYouBuyen Nice! I suppose most of the immediate learning in our lives is through experience

[@CIMAmotor]

But it's possible that you gained your knowledge of the grammar necessary to understand these videos through innate knowledge.

[@invisiblehand9297]

WhatAreYouBuyen Yes, but certain types of knowledge is deductive, like mathematics or logic.

[@BranoneMCSG]

+David McMullan But at the end of the day, a human would not be capable of understanding this video without receiving sensory data.

[@patgray5402]

Most rationalists wouldn't dispute that. They only say there is SOME knowledge independent of sense perception. Empiricists say ALL knowledge comes from sense perception.

[@Element99]

A lot of people have been watching my Rationalism Vs Empiricism Video recently. Makes me wonder if I should do more Philosophical videos as well as some science ones. If you have any suggestions, leave a comment below :) Rationalism Vs Empiricism

[@limejuquartab3999]

Mi piace questo commento

[@marianacardenas2246]

Good video.... very knowable.

[@kyleaudette3776]

Element 99 yes i agree more videos on philosophy

[@khothatsosibasa3544]

Element 99 Yes please, that would really help

[@Alex-nk3nz]

could you put your resources in the coments or at the end of the video? that would be really helpful if you wanna do further research.

[@TheMrDudeWTF]

so many spelling mistakes.. I read 'Empirisim' and 'Solipism'..

[@pugsly4523]

And "Bonjorr"

[@TheThenattv]

"a piori" "a postori" fucking hell

[@BryceBro3]

Things like this always make me think both are true, and everyone is just trying hard af to be an absolutist.

[@Element99]

*Did you already know this?* Now that is the question. But did I already know what? This video is about Rationalism and Empiricism. Two concepts to do with Epistemology. They both deal with how we learn and both have there disadvantages and advantages. I will leave it up to you to decide which is better. Did you already know this? This is my first video on Philosophy and as I found, it is incredibly hard to explain well. I hope you like this little video on Rationalism and Empiricism. Enjoy

[@RDrewDavis]

Not *all* triangles. Just all *right* triangles.

[@Element99]

R. Drew Davis I realised after I posted it... wasn't very happy with myself

[@JorgeBarraza]

R. Drew Davis Every time I hear someone complaint that the internet is an unreliable source of information because anyone can post anything, I like to argue that it's not completely unreliable because anyone can also post counterarguments and corrections. :)

[@14KroshTV]

i juggle them both to guide me in my decisions to gain better experience in the path of my life.

[@learnwithmuhammadshan1182]

I believe that all knowledge is neither priori nor a priori. We are born with knowledge and we also get knowledge from experience. So both approaches are valid.

[@raazbabbar5499]

What I believe is that Intuition is a direct conclusion from subconscious, which cannot be trusted and it's like a hypothesis. Deduction is the real measure of the truth and can validate if the intuition is true

[@monkeyjacket]

Assuming you still check this video from time to time, can I get a source on the music/mother's heartbeat thing?

[@jlupus8804]

Nah he left you bro

[@maryam4259]

@@jlupus8804 LMAO

[@TheThenattv]

"solopolism"

[@noctislucis1099]

God, I love every aspect of Rationalism to the very core. They were right, knowledge is indeed all the experience you will ever need.

[@henbenharris]

you are fully incorrect

[@brentwhitley7590]

that's how a true debater replies to an argument. No logic or rationalism needed, just state that they are wrong.

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

​@@brentwhitley7590 While your reply is funny, he is right though. I'll take a dip into why using epistemology. How do you know that you have innate ideas? What tools did you use to come to this conclusion? What evidence do you have? As far as I can tell, you have none and this too is just an invented idea in your mind.

[@agracefulfox6252]

​@@brentwhitley7590 Rationalism is always at the forefront of knowledge because it's foundation is pure logic and pure facts. It takes mathematics as the core and it is universally imprinted. It outright rejects the existence of a second truth. It's the same for everyone everywhere and people don't need to experience facts to acknowledge them. Empiricism is the second rationalism and is essentially a backup for logic and reason based on our own experiences. Or "our reason and our logic" concluded by us but knowledge is always factual. Either you know it and have it or you don't.

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

@@agracefulfox6252 Yet, ironically rationalists typically do believe in God. They just can't bring conclusive evidence as to their claim that a god exist.

[@Tamer_108]

The one example of an innate idea (music taste) you just showed to be empirical - derived from the experience of the mother's heartbeat? What is a less flimsy example of an innate idea, or a priori knowledge?

[@Element99]

Tamer Sadek Yet an innate idea is something you are born with. Now if you listen to your mothers heart beat after you're born then yes, it is empirical. But if you are in the womb, it is an innate idea therefore rationalism. However, this could be argued against with the idea that your mind and body are born at different times. To which when is the mind born?

[@Element99]

Andrew M. Sheppard No need to get nasty... It was the counter argument to my own argument, obviously I don't think you can separate body and mind.

[@CIMAmotor]

The existence of the 'soul' or 'anima' has occurred in most every culture in the world. I could argue the position that duality is a universal innate idea. It's not a great leap from 'mind' to 'soul', in fact some philosophers have used those terms synonymously.

[@swifterbator8355]

This video was really helpfull and helped me get a good start on making my presentation on Rationalism Vs Empiricism which pre-vid was a very big topic. After watching this, it became easy to select the right content, and I ended up with 5- (equivalent to a B- I think). Thank you.

[@Element99]

Glad to hear it! That is what I aim to do.Hope everything goes well in your presentation

[@swifterbator8355]

Es Einsteinium If I was unclear, I got 5-, which is about a B- in the US school system I think (IN MY COUNTRY 6 is the best grade)

[@Element99]

Swifterbator Where could I have done better? But well done for a 5-, probably better than I could do

[@swifterbator8355]

Es Einsteinium Your vid was perfect for it's purpose. My problem was that I had to have a certain angle to it. Your video wasa perfect introduction to this topic, and I can't just copy everything you said

[@Element99]

Swifterbator Well thanks for the kind words. Hope everything goes well for you with your exams and essays. I might be doing another philosophy video soon so do you have suggestions on something interesting?

[@ummulaimmah294]

This helps me a lot ! regardless the spelling mistakes , I'm still able to understand this clearly!!

[@Element99]

*Rationalism vs Empiricism* Wow, in a mere 3 months, this has jumped to my second most watched video after Should we Shower? with over 3,000 views. Life never fails to amaze me Thanks Everyone :) Link Rationalism Vs Empiricism

[@JorgeBarraza]

I think this speaks to a very real thirst that exists for genuine and open dialogue and understanding. Thanks for the video!

[@Element99]

My pleasure Jorge Barraza, there is nothing I like more than an educated discussion on things like philosophy. Just wish I knew more about it

[@some11121112]

Es Einsteinium you should thank philosophy classes given in spring terms :) Thanks anyway for uploading the video, you simply explained the whole course in under 7 min. I hope my instructor learn from you the value of time!!

[@Element99]

Mozzen Gh You're welcome. Ha, maybe I should actually take this course then

[@rylandtappe-inglis6325]

+Es Einsteinium we should most certainly shower

[@extinctionistrecordsblackm6380]

the music in this video is insane. what were you thinking?

[@123456sickofcounting]

Question: Would the act of thinking to come to a conclusion count as experience? So wouldn’t all thinking be A posteriori?

[@laguanhayes214]

solipsism. not solipism.

[@BonesofGoldSkateboarding]

I'm going with both ideas :) although Empiricism looks more appealing to me :)

[@Element99]

I like to take a bit of both. I use them all in day to day life, and I really love the idea of innate ideas. I was reading a book on Empiricism the other weekend called "The Ultimate Distinction" by Matt Mullen. Its an interesting read if you want to read a little more into it :)

[@piushalg8175]

Kant has made some kind of synthesis of both which is appealing.

[@griswold3006]

I thoroughly enjoyed the music. :p

[@mebeasensei]

I am an English teacher to mainly Japanese college students. When my students make sentences up like, "Which do you like chocolate?" , and I get that 'jarring" feeling, would it be more useful to think of this empirically or rationally? If I suppose they wanted to say something that I would say in the form of something like, 'Which chocolate do you like?", is my knowledge or perception recalled from a rational or empirical process. Are my intuitions empirical? Is my knowledge faulty when I , upon repeating the process change my mind about either the speaker's intention or the way I would reform any sentence to align with what I suppose to be a 'natural' or 'standard' form?

[@syakirharis2778]

Good explanation but I think the background music is just too loud.

[@dubble.]

A priori and a posteriori are not opposites, they are just two different philosophical ideas on the same subject. One cannot say that one point in time is opposite to another.

[@MelaninSweetie]

Saw you video in my Philosophy class! Very good summary! Thank you!

[@Element99]

+Breeana Prayon Really? Haha, that is awesome!

[@MelaninSweetie]

Can you explain Kierkegaard and Marx: Two ways to "Correct" Hegel? It's in my philosophy book called The Great Conversation.

[@Element99]

Breeana Prayon I'll have a look. No promises though

[@FreneticZetetic]

I'd argue rational consistency, being reason, is the key. How can nothing become something? If humans are conceiving these concepts in their consciousness to map the "external world", why do we contradict our own definitions? Paradox, mystery, and contradiction are not explanations for the universe!

[@lowereastsideastrologist7769]

It's actually empiricism vs reasoning. Empiricism isn't anti-rational

[@kyrank.4321]

This was absolutely great, thanks a lot!

[@stephenkirby1264]

The preeminent goal of philosophy should be that of encompassing a maximum of epistemological concepts through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. That is, to take all of the philosophical isms out there and create the understanding of them all by the usage of one hypothesis or axiom, don’t you think?

[@stephenkirby1264]

Pretty good guess. I think that I took an Einstein quote, and expanded its paradigm to include all philosophical endeavors, not just Scientific endeavors Here's Einstein's quote; ‘’It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory, [not just scientific theory] is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.’’ Albert Einstein, The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933)

[@JuiceboxesForSale]

why is the background music so obnoxious

[@Element99]

Because I was really bad at mixing the levels together properly. Arguably still am bad at it

[@alibabashero]

I like all music. From, Rap, to Dance, Chill, to Rock, Pop, and Classical. I do not see how it relates to my mother's heartbeat. I'm beginning to think this is Bolloxology. Also Reincarnation is a religious or philosophical concept. Where is the factual evidence that we are all reincarnated? It's a supposition belief held without any proof or certain knowledge. That does not give a rational reason to explain why some people are better than other people at certain things. That's nonsense. We're all different and possess different attributes, so it's completely logical for people to be better at certain things than other people.

[@SimonObirek]

+alibabashero There is something to the heart beat thing: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759965/

[@ganondorfchampin]

"Also Reincarnation is a religious or philosophical concept. Where is the factual evidence that we are all reincarnated?" So you just outed yourself as an empiricist (albeit not a very intelligent one) and fundamentally misunderstood the point of this video.

[@alibabashero]

And where did I do that brains? Tell me where have I stated above that knowledge only or primarily comes from sensory experience? Your problem is you don't like my comment, but you still can't provide any evidence, and you don't even seem to know the meaning of the word empiricist. How about you come back with some evidence instead of insults, because it says more about your intelligence than mine that you have to resort to throwing insults, than providing any evidence. .

[@ganondorfchampin]

alibabashero The way you are talking about what constitutes evidence makes it obvious that's the view you hole. I know perfectly well what an empiricist is, you're just a moron.

[@alibabashero]

And I think you're starting to talk out your "hole". Didn't answer my question, and Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. And where did I say that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience above? Have a nice day dumbo.

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

"bonjorr" ya pretty good learner he is LOL

[@joe_zupko]

Good information and drawings but the music is killing it. Are those supposed to be power chords on a guitar? Too distracting, imo

[@johnvictorvelacruz2587]

I think Rationalism and Empiricism meets somewhere in the middle, I have a thought going through my mind after hearing about this. I never thought that the idealism I uphold in high school was called Rationalism, but it is also a bit Empiricism. "We are all born with wisdom, experience is needed to exhumed that wisdom that is inside us"

[@Element99]

+Richard Garnache You seem very closed minded about Rationalism which might suggest that Epistemology isn't for you.

[@Element99]

Richard Garnache I prefer Einstein, it fits the name better. But isn't that what a hypothesis is before you test it? You are testing to see if you assertion is correct or not? Which would suggest that some of science comes from rational thinking then empirical evidence.

[@Element99]

Richard Garnache Fair point. What are you opinions of innate ideas? Like if you are born with ideas let's say, would you change the definition of birth or would you accept rationalism as having a certain amount of truth to it?

[@Element99]

Richard Garnache I would agree with you that having an idea in life is not rationalism. I would say the way you think is determined by your experiences of life therefore your ideas are based on experience therefore Empiricism. But these are ideas you are born with, like a natural fear of spiders,tigers, even some plants etc. Things that would have been dangerous to our ancestors thousands of years ago but aren't now. So without the experience that a tiger is going to kill you, how could you have this idea without being born with it? Yer, you could argue that you are taught that these are dangerous but you can also look at Trypophobia. Nobody taught me that holes are a bad thing but they freak me out anyway. Now this could be due to the fact that one very harmful plant had holes in it. This I would argue is Rationalism as I have no reason to be affected by them, I was born with it. You can't argue that the process of thinking is empirical therefore all ideas are empirical, as that is the point of Epistemology. P.s I wouldn't say love is an idea as it is chemical reactions in the body and therefore you can induce love in someone else. P.s.s I really enjoy this conversation. Thank you

[@Element99]

Richard Garnache I think underscore is italics? _italics_ Feel like you have got me on ropes here. Trying to google examples of innate ideas.... (just so we are clear, I am empiricism to the end. Just like being devils advocate). The only arguments I can find are about God and that isn't going to help what so ever. So I bow down to your greater knowledge. Haha!

[@markysng]

besides the discussion of flat earth, are there any other examples of situations where reason and empericism give you contradictory claims

[@cara_rima]

you pronounce and spell so many concepts (solipsism), and even names (Descartes) wrong

[@maybach300c]

Empiricism (U.K) Rationalism (Continental Europe) All of famous philosophers were Europeans : Rene Descartes, John Locke, George Berkley, Immanuel Kant, Hegel... Can you make the video about American philosophy ?

[@Element99]

Will have a look for you

[@lukebruce5234]

Jeffersonians - Empiricists Hamiltonians - Rationalists

[@agracefulfox6252]

@@lukebruce5234 Hamilton THE GOAT.

[@CHRISHADDON1010]

back ground music is to loud , its hard to follow this

[@gabriel_kyne]

Good video but the music and your voice competing for each other ruins it, I'd be thankful if you re-uploaded with just the speech!

[@shrimpfry880]

It's 12:45AM rn I'm to tired for the comments

[@freshgarlic9371]

I'm an empiricist because if the sun were to explode, our silly brains would notice that after 8 minutes.

[@kevinburns8473]

The only certainty in the world iis this guys voice grating on my edge of sanity.

[@CIMAmotor]

The example of the mother's heartbeat (in my opinion) is incorrect. A foetus has sensory apparatus and is empirically experiencing the heartbeat. This is not an innate idea, innate ideas are not attained.

[@Element99]

I guess the problem is in the definition of innate. If like you said, they aren't attained but ever-present then you are right, but if it is anything you are born with then it would count.

[@CIMAmotor]

In my (and the rationalist tradition's) opinion, innate ideas are forms of knowledge which have not been received empirically. A foetus experiencing a heart beat is certainly empirical I reckon mate.

[@Element99]

Maybe you're right

[@katlegomolefe4507]

The videos are incredibly helpful, keep them coming!

[@Element99]

Working on one for Capitalism and Socialism right now

[@matthiasmuscheid6485]

Thanks for the great video. Do you have a link to the study that shows how the heart beat of ones mother is correlated to taste of music? Cheers!

[@johnconstantinegrey7793]

Empiricist cultures need to changed that's why I support evangelical and Baptist missionaries because they put more effort in evangelization ten Catholic do.

[@000JMTIZZLE000]

Also, ive subscribed out of curiousity, to see what direction you take, the folly of youtube or a genuine paradime of educating.

[@Element99]

For reference, what would count as KZbin folly? I am just sharing my knowledge with everyone who cares :)

[@Guitarinthewild]

Great video but you need to turn down the background music...it’s semi distracting to the listener

[@fergoesdayton]

RATIONALIST: 5, 10,15,110,115, what comes next? EMPIRICIST: Who do you think brought those numbers together?

[@noctislucis1099]

Incorrect , Rationalist relies heavily on maths so he wouldn't have to worry about solving what's next to come whereas the Empiricist sees maths as second class knowledge. Rationalism beats in nearly every aspect if not every aspect in every argument.

[@Rudi361]

As a rationalist you dont even know if math isnt an illusion or it isnt.

[@jiinglesgreen3869]

Thank you, Loved it all.

[@luftim]

jesus chrit, You explained this so good! thank u man!

[@simplace44]

Innate ideas, although born with them A Priori (Rationalist) would have been knowledge gained through Experience past on by DNA or previous life (Empericist). "Thought experiment".... If you made a clone of yourself and your Emperical knowledge, would you class your clone's knowledge as Innate idea's or emperical knowledge?

[@Element99]

Hmm, I don't know. I guess Innate Ideas due to the fact that the clone, now a separate entity hasn't experienced it. However, being your clone, it has experienced it. What are your thoughts?

[@simplace44]

Es Einsteinium Yes well i would say the same. The knowledge appears relative, Innate ideas to the clone originally gained through your Experience...I believe we gain knowledge Emperically and Rationally but all rational and Innate knowledge is based on some type of experience. However, So what if we tap into a "universal big brain" maybe kinda like "Sheldrake's Morphogenetic field" or something and gained knowledge that was not previously reasoned, experienced nor based on anything we had previously conceived of by any biological "being" but just is, what do we class that as?

[@lavyateja1544]

Great video..but please remove the background music

[@francoisleclerc112]

A bag of rock is more creative than rationalists, the army of generic stormtroopers XD

[@maybach300c]

Can you make the video about Immanuel Kant ? Kant mitigated the debate between rationalism and empiricism which created the whole view to philosophy. "Critique of Pure Reason" which is extremely difficult to comprehend, if you can make the video which facilitated the understanding of the content.

[@Element99]

I will have a look into it, if I can do one, I will :)

[@maybach300c]

Es Einsteinium Thank you very much !

[@PONTIANGOD]

Okay This Was An Excellent Bite Of More Good Information! Yes More Good!

[@elementsofentertainment5493]

Wow, that music is distracting...

[@marcosalim1436]

Helps me a lot for my history revision!

[@Element99]

Good, hope your history exams go ok :)

[@marcosalim1436]

Big thanks!

[@shSonyStuff]

Like the video but the music is too distracting

[@tutortutor]

Did he just spell Empiricism like the name of a mini market in SimCity " EmpiriSIM "

[@cristywebb8351]

What is "Solopilism"?

[@bris1tol]

On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the Church. The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice, by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world, and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today,with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime. In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it. This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity, giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical materialism. Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent. Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum. Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent, meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both move and continually change. An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously others might be able to do better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The three levels of reality in platonic physics FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the topdown, cybernetic realm of Plato's Mind. It is in fact life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) Relational. Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." On the other hand, Meinong referred to such mental objects as “sosein”. Being as. Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies. Our personal minds (small m) are made up of intentional objects (Secondnesses). Similarly, Russell did not accept the importance of Mind and its cybernetic, topdown control by thought of all knowledge into two forms: a) Public or descriptive knowledge, of Mind, and b) Personal knowledge, expiences of individual minds (small m), which is knowledge by acquaintance. Both of these forms are inherent in Leibniz's metaphysics. Thus Russell's analytic philosophy only treats of a) the larger, public knowledge of Mind, while all of our individual contents of mind (small m) are type b), personal knowledge, experiential knowledge, knowledge byacquaintance. In contrast, both Brentano and Meinong, no doubt because they were psychologists, were more interested in and studied b) rather than a). The objects of b) are objects of personal intention, as is all thought. So Secondness might be said to consists of two two types of mental objects, i) nonmonadic intendeds and ii) monads. According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then apperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be though gt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: [e-mail]/RogerClough For personal messages use [e-mail]

[@uia797]

I don't think music taste is innate

[@VenusLover17]

Thanks!!

[@robert1702]

Great video. Thank you.

[@hm.connect]

background music is so annoying..... couldn't concentrate on the content.

[@LuisGonzalez-227]

Can you cite your sources? I need to add them to my research paper lol

[@shaylong8683]

I normally don't comment, but I feel it is noteworthy to give my opinion: Subtitles would be a great improvement over adding more videos. I'm watching because I am required to for class, not out of interest (sorry). Since I am here, I want to learn, but I am having a very difficult time understanding you. Also, "existence" is spelled incorrectly in the video. Otherwise, the quality is great and the background music is not disruptive. Thank you!

[@Element99]

Thank you for your suggestion :) Sometimes a few more errors slip but thank you for pointing it out. I hope you do well in class

[@eh9deux]

Descartes is pronouced "day cart."

[@releasebooster81]

Es Einsteinium I'm really curious, do you think Immanuel Kant is a rationalist or an empiricist? I cant really decide cause I can see both sides in his philosophy.

[@Element99]

Rolland Wang I would say that Immanuel Kant was both. A transcendental idealist if you want to put a name on it. I would say that he recognized the limits of what reason could do on its own. And said that only reason working on the basis of experience could be trusted to tell us something important

[@johnconstantinegrey7793]

Sense experience is sinful.

[@Islamic-world-04058]

اللَّهُـمّ صَــــــلٌ علَی مُحمَّــــــــدْ و علَی آل مُحمَّــــــــدْ كما صَــــــلٌيت علَی إِبْرَاهِيمَ و علَی آل إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِنَّك حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ♥ اللهم بارك علَی مُحمَّــــــــدْ و علَی آل مُحمَّــــــــدْ كما باركت علَی إِبْرَاهِيمَ و علَی آل إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِنَّك حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ

[@johndonwood4305]

Rationalism is cool.

[@brechelt1]

Good video, but the music is distracting.

[@thesmithsmaf]

great but stop the music..it gets in the way of accessibility

[@wheresmary]

I’m sorry. The music sucks and is a distraction. I nonetheless appreciate the content though. Thanks.

[@cloudoftime]

Poast-ear-e-or-eye or poast-ear-e-or-e; day-cart; sol-ips-ism

[@Beyhive004]

I need help

[@polyceph6295]

OMG. Apparently KZbin is awash in simplistic, rotely learned, extolling of philosophical thought. The equivant of your explanation of rationalism would be like limiting your knowledge of cosmology to Aristotle's exlanation of the heavenly spheres. Please look at my prior two comments tosimilar videos by Anna Raven (?) and Philo Notes. Thanks in advance

[@MOSESTUDU-bs2pc]

Thank you

[@hitheshpeter5792]

This is a good video, but the music is terribly annoying

[@tongmaa]

A blind person can't perceive color, but they can have an abstract concept of "seeing" and that colors have a difference, a priori.

[@Element99]

That's a good point. Hadn't even thought about learning about colours really. Interesting though

[@tongmaa]

It is interesting to note that, "a priori" has evolved into a kind of quasi-insult, and like saying, "Duh!," or "That's understood." I didn't do that, but just copied the lesson :-)

[@itsdevgarg]

Very helpful!

[@suchasasong]

Thank you very much! Very helpful One little tip.. please slow down a little bit, my first language is Dutch, so sometimes I have to rewind the clip to understand a word you´re saying.. but thanks anyway!

[@Element99]

+Anne Pretorius You're very welcome! When I made this (and my earlier videos), I didn't even think about reaching the international audiences. So hopefully, my later videos are better. Hopefully. Is that you playing guitar in your videos?

[@yvrelna]

Do you have citations/researches that provides supports for the claim that you made: "Your music taste ... there are links to the speed of the beat in your mother's heart beat for when you're in the womb. So people whose mom has a faster heart beat, generally like faster music."

[@Element99]

Hope this is what you are looking for :) Benbadis et al., 2007 DeCasper and Prescott, 2009 Panneton and DeCasper, 1984 Spence and DeCasper, 1987 Salk, 1962 Moon and Fifer, 2000

[@yvrelna]

Es Einsteinium I can't find any related paper from Benbadis from 2007, only some seeming unrelated papers about epilepsy. However, I found a 2013 article from Benbadis (Linking prenatal experience to the emerging musical mind, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759965/) where he specifically refuted that there has been any study that establishes that maternal heartbeat affects music preference. To quote: - no studies have systematically examined whether specific maternal heart rates or beat ratios predict newborn listening preferences - no studies have systematically examined musical tempo preferences among newborns as a function of the maternal or neonatal heartbeat - It is unclear, however, whether or not these preferences arise because of exposure to the heartbeat in utero or due to experience with periodic structures heard after birth I can't find freely accessible full texts for the rest of the authors you linked however looking at the abstracts of DeCasper and Prescott, 2009 (Lateralized processes constrain auditory reinforcement in human newborns, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19563874), Panneton and DeCasper, 1984 (Newborns prefer intrauterine heartbeat sounds to male voices), Spence and DeCasper, 1987 (Prenatal experience with low-frequency maternal-voice sounds influence neonatal perception of maternal voice samples), Salk, 1962 (Mothers’ heartbeat as an imprinting stimulus, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13991116), Moon and Fifer, 2000 (Evidence of transnatal auditory learning, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11190699), while they did make various researches about newborns and infant preferences to various sounds, the effect of various sounds (including heartbeat) on fetuses and newborns on various aspects of development, they don't seem to specifically make claims about the effect of maternal heartbeat to later musical preference either.

[@Element99]

yvrelna It would seem that you are right as no specific tests have been performed but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I can still hypothesis using the information I have on the subject. Reading the first article you referenced it does say no tests have been done but it also suggests links between your own heart rate and the bpm of the music you listen too. To quote: -The decrease in preferred tempo with age is particularly relevant given that the resting heart rate is also known to decrease with age. -Further, when asked to control the tempo of pure tones or musical pieces, adults pick a preferred tempo closest to their own heartbeat. To me, this seems like an interesting topic but obviously needs more research. I would research it myself but I am not in a position to do that. I am sorry that the others didn't make specific claims, maybe I just connected a lot of dots in my head.

[@yasmineelaish1220]

Useful video but music is v interrupting

[@veritustheodora8448]

thank you so much!

[@ffusk]

Thank you!

[@sohilgupta2009]

Great summary!

[@Element99]

Thank you!

[@sarahsong4908]

Awesome video

[@benyamin6085]

Why u put religious symbol on th video

[@mariaraimondi1333]

Amazing video thanks

[@Element99]

+MARIA RAIMONDI Thanks! Means a lot to me that you think that

[@soumonism]

Wouldn't the mothers heartbeat be an example of empirical learning rather than innate ideas? Prenatal learning at best :p

[@lizasolomanchuk4012]

Solipsism is an idea of nationalism, not empiricism. Cogito ergo sum - these are Descartes’ words translated as ”I think therefore I am” which means his own existence is the only thing he can be sure of. It is called solipsism. So solipsism is not an empirical view. I would have written my essay for philosophy with such a massive mistake if I hadn’t double-checked!!!!!!! 😡

[@lizasolomanchuk4012]

Rationalism. pardon my spelling

[@Rationalific]

You have some cool videos, but there are some major problems with this one, such as rationality being a bridge between science and religion. Rationalism uses "reason", but religion uses "faith". There is no overlap.

[@Element99]

Thanks, its a very small link but a link none the less. Rationalism's third principle is Deduction. And deduction is concluding using particular instances by using principles. Now this means that using a set of rules, and a certain starting position. I can conclude something and this is Deduction. This works in maths, as you don't test every formula to know that it is true. In Religion, Descartes used this idea to looking into God. The the starting situation is that he knows what a perfect substance is. The rules are that something that is imperfect can't have perfect ideas and Humans are not perfect. So he concluded that they were put there by God. Its a weak link between them but I put it in there because it would cause a reaction from people. I hope that makes more sense about the connection :)

[@Rationalific]

Es Einsteinium Here is my thinking. Descartes (someone who was living in the 1600s in Europe, we must remember) used that reasoning, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, he says that he knows what a perfect substance is. Does he? How can we be sure? If he is imperfect, then he can believe that he knows what a perfect substance is but also be wrong. For example, the god of the Bible condoned slavery, and someone in those days might have still thought that that was "perfect". So how can an imperfect being know what is perfect? If we say that perfection is omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent (which would thus exclude the god of the Bible), then those are only concepts. It's hard to really fathom what those mean in practice. And even if you can, it doesn't have to be true, but can be chalked up to imagination. For example, I can imagine unicorns in a general sense (even though they don't exist and even though if they did, I wouldn't have knowledge about their exact DNA structure...i.e. I would never have perfect knowledge if it were true and if it were false, it's just imagination). Also, even if something had ideas of perfection, that doesn't mean that the thing imagining it is itself perfect. For example, I could imagine a perfect sphere. That doesn't mean I am perfect, nor does it mean that I can draw a perfect circle. (Nor, for that matter, does it mean that an imperfect mind is truly capable of imagining a perfect sphere. Everything is an approximation. A perfect sphere would have infinite detail, and thus would be beyond the capacity of any brain or computer.) If someone knows that a perfect person wouldn't kill, that doesn't stop that imperfect person from killing...or even stealing. So an imperfect being can in fact have perfect ideas. So Descartes might have had some interesting ideas in the early 1600s, but we have moved on (about 500 years) from those days. It's not common to burn witches now, and there have been better thinkers after Descartes who have disagreed with him.

[@Element99]

Rationalific You're right. Things have moved on. But it could still be true. I know this example is different but, 4000 years ago, they knew if you dropped something, it would fall to the ground. Now, we have moved on, we know more but the core concept is still correct. The Bible is a group of peoples opinion of God, maybe Descartes had his own opinion. Of a more perfect being. You don't have to believe the whole bible to be a Christian. I get what you mean with the whole not know what is perfect and if someone else can even come up with it. But I guess we'll never actually know the answer until we find some way to wire a brain to a screen. To me, this idea of perfect is truly personal. So you can imagine a perfect sphere, but you can't create one. I can image a perfect video, but I can't make one. Descartes claimed he could imagine a perfect being, but he couldn't be one. Its all the same to me. I hope this is making sense, not sure I totally understand it. If you want, I'll pass on your point to a Philosophy teacher I know to see what he says. Then I can feedback :)

[@SaraheffinQ]

Thank you for this

[@Element99]

+Sarah Quinn No problem!!

[@SpidermanInLondon]

Surely, it's not one or the other. Why would anyone box themselves in so stupidly?

[@Element99]

To me it is obviously not one or the other. If it was, there wouldn't be evidence for both. But it is up to you what you believe and if someone wants to believe in one or the other they can.

[@sparkdebate7378]

I guess we are not born with innate spelling skills...

[@Element99]

Correct, you're good at this... maybe you should take up Epistemology full time

[@jommydavi2197]

And this helps anyone because?

[@Rudi361]

Jommy Davi its the basics for making an ai

[@march9177]

It helps me pass my test lol

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

It helps you determine for yourself what is true or false, of what you disbelieve and what you believe.