Two great minds discussing great topics. It's such a pleasure to hear this!

Great guest

An absolute great discussion! Definitely a must watch by everyone! 💯

Just brilliant incredible talk......

Can't wait really like Marcelo way of thinking, if you can ask him to explain a little about Oscillatons, if I understand he theorized about that kind of Stars.

without human experience, there is NO meaning -- without meaning, life will soon seize to exist

It's nice hearing people speak my language

@Meditation409

2 ай бұрын

Same! It's really awesome.

Wow! This is really a huge mind blow! Janes Webb is apparently doing it's job and extremely well at that. 🤙💕

Currently i am on Proclus commentary on Plato's first alcibiades - long known as the introduction to Platonics. Imploring the ancient old adage: Know thyself. This is Wisdom. Is not most logical to best try and u derstand ourselves before anything else - of course.

I got you all, anyway have a wonderful day

I like to think about the universe as a colloid. Dark matter and energy being the medium in which matter is suspended. But I can't quite wrap my brain around the ability of matter to attract matter in the universe based on size and distance. It seems to be absent in colloids, otherwise my answer would have been nearer.

Is there a topic to discuss about what bachelor degree will be good for humans after the AGI arrives to our life.

@backwardthoughts1022

2 ай бұрын

learning how to construct mental qualities and methods of rigorously observing it...but it doesn't exist quite yet

@benny-schmidt - I appreciate your challenge of what I wrote, that “objective (concepts) are (should be) invariant”. You say, ‘nope, not even implied’ (paraphrasing you). But I think you would agree that ‘most widely agreed upon’ does infer: extensively approved by any assessor … of close to (if not absolutely exact {always} .. a specific information or data. Now, explain to me if you think I am wrong about it … but ‘being exactly the same every time, no matter who is testing and generating a result, or conditions which also generate one and only one … repeated result, measurement or outcome set of relations … such resulting information is correctly .,, asymptotic on: INVARIANT. (counter to your open claim opinion aka -your- definition of ‘objective’). -- “Reliable every time” is the essence of “objective”. … every time … invariably. :-).

I think we are looking too much at the things we see and what they are made of and their processes and are missing something to do with the space between or spacetime or what we can’t see.

Mic drop ...

I'm all for human flourishing but anthropomorphic thinking is holding us back, not advancing us. All to often our experience is telling us wrong things.

I think maybe the universe has been evolving and the way things form now may be different than the past. Maybe the way it forms now is smaller or slower but more efficient towards longevity or some other process in which solar cycles undergo. Or maybe it’s less evolutionary and more the fact that everything is getting colder and further apart. Maybe quantum fluctuations are pushing things apart, causing the expansion.

CTT Kuhn~Gleiser interview 03/08/24 -- The Kuhn-Gleiser conversation, though agreeably thorough, did not really cover ‘new ground’, or venture Closer to Truth. [noting with a wry smile, that the only analysis of Gleiser’s I agree with is, that Multi-verse models are the most preposterous ones, requiring too many untenable conditions. - such as: not just the “amount” of dimensions needed to allow for all the hyper generated ‘mini-verses’, but a perfect universal ‘boundary condition’ is required, for all situations where an incompatible mini-verse buds off and co-destroying properties abutt one another.(!)] - Generally though, Gleiser missed being explicit about Experience. … to wit .. the conventional notions of Subjective vs. Objective are no longer correct. Obj is not the best ‘peer review’ of Subj. New Rationale: If ‘objective’ infers perfect and invariant, then it -must- never ‘change’ or be affected. Therefore, -everything- including experiences, are by default Subjective (being tangible). The only ‘things’ invariant must be INTANGIBLE (never vulnerable to variance). So the only aspects which are Objective in a universe, are the intangible but effable Laws / Rules of Nature. (which are within all subjective instantiations). -. THAT is a Closer to Truth … property of existence. 🌈👏💯😄💫💯. jnrose2 - 03/08/24.

@bschmidt1

2 ай бұрын

You can have an objective science of subjective phenomena (Searle). Secondly, objective doesn't imply invariant nor does it imply unchanging. Like the guest here, you invoke a false premise then argue from that, that's not closer to truth either.

@user-uz8ly4im6n

5 күн бұрын

@@bschmidt1😄. FYI.. a phrase I came up with and first publicly presented 1996 at the major conference [Penrose & Hammeroff] “Towards a Science of Consciousness II” (Tucson, USA). ….. “OBJECTIVITY is not ‘an OBJECT’”. … in other words, even though seemingly rooted with the same historical etymology connection, binding them, that is not accurate, in the best logical evaluation. OBJECTIVITY implies universal truth, irrespective of human… INTERPRETATIONs (plural), or involvement. We are too vulnerable to biases, to incomplete data/information, etc. So, to try and re-anchor ‘objectivity’ as some asymptotic human perception criteria, is doing a disservice to our intellectual capabilities and potential. We need to try and imagine… IF the Universe was a sentient Identity … neutrally assessing relationships not tied to one entity ‘type’ .. or a random species’ perspective … what would be the criteria properties of certain States of Information? 🤨🫢😏🤔😄🙏👍. jnrose2

Among others, Whitehead already made that point (the main point of "The Blind Spot") in "Science and The Modern World" about a century ago. Still, good to see there are contemporary scientists that are aware of and outspoken about this.

The objective truth of the development of Cosmology, the Universe and galaxies exists and our knowledge of it like all scientific knowledge will always be incomplete, fallible, provisional, and subject to change due to future evidence. And if we ever do come to a more specific conclusion or Theory of Everything then what or how would that change humanity?

Don't worry, mathematics and reductive materialism will figure it all out. *smh*