ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #d3c1c9 (color 2)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 8ab4a2578f502aa70f5c17e13ada48f4b7f560366c3abb84e07514f035a772bf25d91aee0a1ef6e319a9210600c03bfe
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1715924310367 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : Z205TzFFclFBTW8gaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
17,553 Views ⢠Dec 2, 2022 ⢠Click to toggle off description
I offer private tutoring in philosophy. For details please email me: kanebaker91@gmail.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/kanebaker91
Donate to my PayPal: paypal.me/kanebaker91
My Discord: discord.gg/RUjwFdDDtK
0:00 - Introduction
3:18 - The explanatory argument
14:11 - Causal closure
31:01 - Simplicity
37:47 - Methodological naturalism
-- Melnyk, Andrew. (1994). "Being a physicalist: How and (more importantly) why." Philosophical Studies 74(2): 221-241.
-- Papineau, David. (2001). "The rise of physicalism." In Physicalism and its Discontents, eds. Carl Gillett and Barry Loewer: 3-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-- Russell, Bertrand. (1913). "On the notion of cause." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13: 1-26.
-- Norton, John. (2003). "Causation as folk science." Philosophers' Imprint 3(4): 1-22.
-- Seager, William. (2014). "Why physicalism?" Mind and Matter 12(2): 143-195.
Views : 17,553
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Dec 2, 2022 ^^
Rating : 4.871 (20/599 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-15T17:14:17.188029Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 318 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Thank you for making this concise introductory lecture on physicalism.
2 |
physicalism is reductive to absurdity. language, thought, abstract cocepts such as "freedom", etc, all are so ingrained in our lives we take them for granted.
Not that we should take them for granted, but to demonstrate how pervasive non-physical things exist within our world.
I feel it persists due to the natural sciences, which, although have shown great success, is not much more than a collection of collective experience (information) passed down (via language), that describe the mechanics of (only) the physical aspects of our world.
It's also funny that mathematics, the least natural and physical field, is considered the most "pure".
6 |
First of all, I thank you for the effort you put into these videos I love them as a non-philosopher. so can you do the next video on a topic called process philosophy? I have read them on the stanford philosophical encyclopedia but cannot get the idea of it
10 |
I love it every time Kane begins a video with his contagiously whimsical "What's up, dogs"
1 |
I think I've developed an autistic passion for your videos. I owe you very much, thank you again for your great quality work.
8 |
22:10 Thinking takes more energy from the body than the physical act of sitting (while thinking). Ergo, thinking takes up energy. Thinking is not the process of brain neurons firing, and in fact think can cause physical changes in the brain which would not have occurred by brain neuron firing alone. Consciousness has efficacy.
As Roger Penrose wrote in Emperor's New Mind, the neurons cannot add up to the required needs of consciousness. It's physically impossible that the brain is consciousness, it's just a memory storage for consciousness.
4 |
Sometimes I'll go onto YouTube and it will be between 14:00 and 17:00 in the day and I'll scroll through the videos on my feed to look at the choices and find something for entertainment purposes or something more informative like philosophy content. Often I will see the odd video from this channel, Kane B, and I will look at the title and see if it is a topic that appeals to me. Typically it is philosophy content and so it overlaps with my casual layman interest in philosophy. For this reason I will often "check out" one of your videos and will do my best to understand the content, although I can't always sit through the video because I will sometimes be distracted or won't have a great attention span for it. This isn't because of anything particular to your content specifically but can happen generally. It doesn't matter if it happens though really because I am not required to understand and no one is overseeing what I'm doing as far as I know and hope. This means that I can pick it up and put it down as I wish, it doesn't really matter. One of the main reasons I watch your content on YouTube after I scroll through other options that appear in the feed between 14:00 and 17:00 is that in the images that pop up for the video there is an image overlaid by the video title and so I don't have to read the title but can just look at that image and make the decision.
2 |
awesome video mate
|
But what is a physical property precisely?
11 |
âWhatâs up dawgs.â 0:00 - already off to a good start
1 |
Yeah but what is a physical property in the first place? /s
1 |
"Whats up! doggs?!??"
I was somehow more confused than you slightly sounded. Maybe me almost laugh/ smile. So that's coo.
|
Could the definition of physical be that it must be possible for one thing to interact in any way with something else that we agree is physical? Then many of the weird, advanced and complicated things like fields are physical. Whereas things like angels would be physical if they could interact with physical things, and if not, then they are not physical. Feedback would be much appreciated.
5 |
When you say that physicalism has reached consensus, does that imply that for example mathematical platonism and theory of abstract objects are almost entirely abandoned?
|
11:11 When you mention that Idealism doesnât rule out the success of any explanatory project and provide voodoo, faith healing (placebo), and coin tossing as equally possible explanations, are you assuming that logic and order donât exist on Idealism? What best explains the existence of logic and order: mind, or matter? đ¤
1 |
Honestly I have trouble distinguishing the kind of idealism (subjective idealism) you describe from solipsism. How does idealism explain two people perceiving the same object? Surely there must be some sense in which that object is mind-independent, for there must be something apart from the two people that causes them to have the same experience (the same impressions/appearances). What gives the world its enduring, independent âstabilityâ?
It seems for Berkeley the âmind-independentâ world is just the perceptions in Godâs mind. That way everything is still mental yet objects donât depend for their existence on any particular humanâs mind. So basically God saves him from solipsism worries.
But without God how does subjective idealism not just amount to solipsism? I find Idealism utterly bizarre. Please someone correct me if Iâve misunderstood idealism (or Berkeley).
4 |
I thought this was presented very well, č´ĺ
|
10:30 While physicalism is associated with reductionism, that doesn't preclude the existence of other kinds of physical theories, that are non fully reductionist.
There's always a conceivable possibility for physicalist strong Emergence, e.g.
Physicalism is associated with reductionist approaches but that doesn't mean that the former implies the latter...
|
26:25 Causality is the law of identity in action.
|
@KaneB
1 year ago
Challenges to the coherence of physicalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0HjvNHkhx4 Underdetermination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Hmdvs7dmU Causation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyHiGdlIFU
19 |