The Institute of Art and Ideas creates hundreds of educational debates, lectures, and interviews on Philosophy, Science, Politics, and Arts.
Learn from world-leading thinkers on the big ideas. From Hitchens to Galloway, Penrose to Pigliucci, our experts will teach you feminism to foreign policy, and quantum physics to consciousness.
And if you want even more ideas from the world's greatest thinkers, visit our website at IAI.tv
Or listen to our podcast, Philosophy For Our Times. Links below!
Пікірлер
It's what gives us the ability to calculate weight.
This is a comedy sketch surely?
Some scientific theories are smart and very useful representations of aspects of reality. But they are not reality in and of itself.
Lady Gaga is disguised as a physicist
Day n+1 trying to correct modern interpretation of Penrose diagrams, black holes[,] and relativity 😊 Hopefully before the “goats” die this time like Hawking did before I could meet him.
Oh my lord she kept her temper, I'd have completely lost it by about half way through.
"There's a method my madness..." - Hare
I live in Malleswaram. There's a Sai temple. I sing, recite a chant, and wish children would come to learn M.mala. Government has kindly paid me 30 lakh rupees. I studied electronics. I quit a programming job though I'm good at it and became a teacher.
I am physically incapable of listening to slavoj its just pure sonic torture
Western perception about ultimate reality is too stupid 😅
Lisa is simpleton.
Perhaps it will expand.. such topics as this theologically can cause a big bang. Which creates more space to occupy
Again, correct observation, wrong conclusion. Sorry to mention, as a conclusion this is a simulation. Enjoy hot showers and the taste of sparkling mineral water. Thanks to the ones who created it.
I cannot tell if this man is an enemy to wisdom or sincerity
Tim Maudlin. So the parametric solution for an implicit equation for a circle is 1. The prime number theorem n to infinity = 1. Basically it's concentric circles like raindrops on a puddle all the way around. 'Time is water' - Touareg saying.
I sigh with relief every time I hear K Stock. Sober, but direct; deadly serious, but good-humoured; erudite, but down to earth.
The mesuar sistem betven of light Sped!
Another nut.....
Let's admit: We don't really the nature of the universe. We have theories founded in mathematics, yet such explanation relies on the ability of the mind to rely on time and space as subjective apparatuses. Our account of reality is unfortunately not the only one because of our finitude.
Interesting conversation. Everyone made valid points. But I suppose the thought behind the original question is that reality is seen through the lens of the human mind. We like to think of ourselves as having general intelligence. But isn't it more likely that our intelligence is quite specific? It was trained on specific kinds of sensory information and at a certain scale, for solving specific kinds of problems (i.e. survival). Personally, I think there is a serious risk that our minds are misinterpreting what we experience, because at a fundamental level our experience is a heavily distorted picture. Martin Cohen's point is a good one. We shouldn't be too surprised that humans are good at predicting the behaviour of nature, because that is the data our brains are trained on. It is circular.
Kant clearly said that space and time are mere a priori subjectivity not objective entities. Einstein is wrong.
When absolute Truth is found, science IS religion. Until then, both science and religion are ignorant cults. The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: You will not TRULY understand anything until you have found what is termed "the Philosopher's Stone." I can tell you exactly what the Philosopher's Stone is, but you haven't found it until you have found REASON to believe that it is true, like I have. But here it is: The Philosopher's Stone is the fact that "GOD" is The Mind that is ALL. Want to know more? Seek and ye shall find...
first answer was word salad for "I don't really know"
The most simple answer to that question is that provides James Hartle in his book "Gravitation": gravity is just the real geometry of space and time. Geometry of Einstein's ST involves the relationships between lengths, angles and durations: that is gravity. And with the addition of the principles of inertia and equivalence, we have all General Relativity in the box!
I bet you don't have the temerity to interrogate a gender idealogue like you did with Dr Stock.
Poor interviewing. Choppy and not making sense.
Stunning !!
Science can only shift our perspective but science can never show us the full perspective...
yeah. but Marvel comics already proved this. It's nice when science finally catches up to the comic book industry. LOL
Martin Cohen. Excellent minority report. The rest is sci-l-ence... Incredible how materialistic and mechanistic most of our scientists have become in the past few hundred years. Unfortunately there is a reason behind that. Reading list from contemporary authors: Matthew Ehret, David Gosselin.
Assinations and cover ups veiling the " gnosis" and dumbing us down. Same goes for tech. Hidden inspiration held us back.Deliberate throughout the ages. ❤
Not on board with her reasoning here. Maybe I'm missing some subtle differences. But doesn't every mathematical model require other knowledge?
Dr Randle made the statement,s regarding "over-blown claims" and "good science". You don't get off so easily regarding responsibility. There is a lot of pseudo-science and outright fabrications made under the claim of being "science" that "good" scientists fail to call out. They allow it to be presented in public discourse and to be implemented as public policy. Resources and lives affected. "Good" scientists are silent as a false narrative is spread. Science is a tool requiring proper utilization. a hypothetical that does not address purpose and meaning or simply requiring a good experiment that is replicable is a good and fundamental start. Science is losing trust because money and recognition have replaced orthodoxy.
Lisa is so behind the curve it’s embarrassing! 🤭
I feel the issue is that the difference between Maths and physics is that Physics is an application of Math, but Math is NOT physics... Hence Mathematical speculations are abstract logical theory which may or may not relate to observable events whereas Physics is observation and explanation of those 'events' - one can fit many mathematical formulae / solution to an event described by a set of data however the event described by the data is a singular event so all the varied mathematical possibilities would likely get more and more constrained with better data till ideally there is only one mathematical solution. Hence math is not reality but can become our best description of reality An example is Newtons gravity which varies with 1/R^2... If R=0 then there is a mathematical singularity... but we accept that because most observations show that mass is not a point mass, it has volume, so below a certain radius eg Earths surface... the formula fails/requires more sophisticated interpretation because the mass is no longer 100% below that R value so gravity in fact reduces from the earths surface to Zero at the centre NOT infinity as the simplistic interpretation of Newtons formula would give... Perhaps Einstein's gravity has some similar limiting case where extension of the simplistic interpretation again 'assuming a point mass' is no longer valid hence again singularities though simplistic mathematical extension into the unknown are 'not real' and there is some other physical concept required that prevents the mathematical singularity - ie. the physical reality will not be a simple extension of the math into an area we have no data.... And hence GR perhaps does NOT fail it just has ranges of applicability (like with Newton) after which there have to be modifications due to currently unknown physics in GR's case (as in Newtons case where a new physical regime takes over - gravity 'inside' the mass). An aside is that one should not forget that GR describes what we see as an observer NOT what is as the object being observed... eg if a particle accelerates continuously at 1g towards alpha centauri it would arrive there "before" a light beam would... yet we have never exceeded the speed of light to the observer at take off. So we could theoretically get to alpha centauri faster than light... The particle would find it arrives there after only months... yet never "BE OBSERVED" going faster than light... The paradox of light speed or time would not apply to either the observer nor the particle. So the problem is NOT that Einstein's GR is wrong - it's that we have no data - and so we only have a myriad of mathematical extensions which, though 'logical', lead to apparently crazy speculations - they explain nothing physically/in reality, until we have more data ;) I personally might suspect the black hole is just a region of pure energy supporting the event horizon, with no singularity and with Gravity dropping to Zero in the centre - but I have no data.
Yes, the problems we face are very human. I particularly like Max Planck’s unique insight into this problem when he sad science progresses one funeral at a time. Science is intellectually bankrupt.
This is apparent, when you simply observe the periodic table of elements. The bizarre ordering, arranged increasing order by atomic number. Moving from left to right across a period (horizontal row), the atomic number increases sequentially. For example, hydrogen (with atomic number 1) is the first element, followed by helium (with atomic number 2), and so on. In reality, this is not how things work and has been debated, leading to at least 4 different versions being made. Neon, has no single "Atom", it is in fact made of 3 isotopes and can be used in a reaction phase, in conjunction with Hydrogen and Helium. There have been profound findings, such as cold fusion, completely ignored by science, and many great potentially beneficial advances being simply dismissed, as they conflict with modern academic narratives or the interests of those funding these same institutions. Its no surprise. Not anymore than Einstein marrying his first cousin, or Ghandi marrying a child of his own family, as Egyptian pharoes, such as Menkaure who is well known to have married his sister. I could mention many other such cases, but this isn't a blame game. I'm only mentioning this, to highlight the troubles modern science faces, being similar to the inbreeding of "great people", also relating to our "best science". To say we can and should do better, is obvious. Acheiving this, isn't as straightforward or easy, for the same problems which once existed, still being present today.
Both professors shy away from the economy, one of the main factors for human development. Enlightenment's thinking is not flourishing now, sinister forms of de facto fascism are, even in well organized Western states with relative prosperity. Today's academics are called upon to look out of the ivory tower and confront themselves with reality. What can we do to educate for peace and contribute to the end of wars, that's the question.
Anarchy is no heathcare no universal basic income no universal education no infrastructure and you need someone for an outsider can talk to like the pro palestinian protesters who have a person to talk to media and cops and to stop fascist from entring the camps to undermine and to talk to anyone else acting like you can just self org is too idealistic occupy wall street is what happens when there is not a clear massage and nevermind laws on food and heath its like anarchist are too idealistic its like the outside world dose not exist and organized force will never be good because you need institutions who spend there life training
Oh is it the ghastly Freddie?
Prof. Mearsheimer discusses the issue on a more theoretical level, keeping realism in mind, though. Since Elman Service, serious political anthropologists know that tribes and nations are not the same form of political organization. Some rightist parties would like that to be the case (following some ideas of Romanticism), but it is not true. Just look at the immense diversity within the still most powerful nation of the world, the United States. Prof. Mearsheimer does not mention the reason why competition can lead to wars between nations. It's the economy, the strife for economic dominance. The dollar being the leading monetary unit the US has the power to oversee the majority of the world's financial actions. In case nations do not obey the American currency, they also have the power to settle things using military means.
The ego’s on these kids could clog a black hole.
Isn’t NATO a sphere of influence? And the UK? England’s “sphere of influence”?
To restate a point Dr. Randall makes: Our theories can only address what we directly or indirectly perceive. Does the universe also contain that which we cannot directly or indirectly percieve? Almost certainly yes, although we cannot know that to any degree. Can science present its theories as "this is the universe"? No, and to do so is indeed human bias.
The more real truth is that science maps what humans force in their society (un)intentionally, a real phenomenon[,] or an (un)intentionally forced perspective on the data and real science is done when the real phenomenon is separated out from the others.
The timing is perfect!
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
Interesting argument. What would you have to say about anesthetics which interrupt physical processes in the brain and thereby interrupt consciousness? If consciousness isn't a physical process, how can we understand it's interactions with the physical world? Entropy is an emergent phenomenon and the only law of physics which distinguishes past from present. Would you claim that entropy is not physical because experiencing time is a prerequisite for it's existence and the "experiencing" of time is like consciousness in this way?
Conscious Action explained Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”. Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action. Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future. Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment. In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual. Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: -“Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach”- the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood. Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.
@@175griffin You wrote_”What would you have to say about anesthetics which interrupt physical processes in the brain and thereby interrupt consciousness?” My arguments are not meant to prove that brain processes are not necessary for the existence of our consciousness. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness and that the existence of an indivisible non-physical element, which is usually called spirit or soul, is also necessary for the existence of our consciousness. You wrote:”If consciousness isn't a physical process, how can we understand it's interactions with the physical world?” There are two logically consistent interpretations; the dualistic view and the idealistic view. In the dualistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between the soul and brain processes. In the idealistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between our soul and God, and brain processes are a representation of that interaction; in this view, the whole universe exists only as an idea in God's mind, who creates the phenomena we observe according to the mathematical models he has conceived (what we call "the laws of physics"). This idealistic perspective is essentially Berkeley's view and provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. You wrote:”Entropy is an emergent phenomenon and the only law of physics which distinguishes past from present. Would you claim that entropy is not physical because experiencing time is a prerequisite for it's existence and the "experiencing" of time is like consciousness in this way? “ First of all, entropy can be defined also for a single particle; it is not an emergent property at all. But this is not the point; the point is that entropy is a statistical function and statistical functions never provide exact laws, because statistical fluctuations always exist. In case of an high number of particles, these fluctuations are small, but they are still present. This means that statistical laws never describe exactly a real physical system, but always describe a simplified model of the physical system. Such simplified model is an abstract concept that can exist only in a conscious thinking mind. Therefore, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any statistical law and of any property of a statistical model. Therefore consciousness cannot be a property of any statistical models and no statistical laws represent a valid analogy to explain the existence of consciousness.
@@guillermobrand8458 You wrote:”Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. “ Your statement is nonsensical since you assume that brain create mental representation in an attempt to explain the existence of mental experience. Furthermore, as I explain in my initial message, brain is only a cognitive construct and therefore cannot be the cause of the existence of mental experience. Best regards.
@@marcobiagini1878 Try to survive for a few days in a jungle without using your senses and you will be able to see in person what I say.
Concerned about the up-front premise that AI (created BY humans) could possibly be less human-centric-biased. *tbh, have not listened further, yet.
O dear, where is Cantor or a neo-Pythagorean ✍
Lisa is right, largely. But the amount of hypocrisy in fundamental theoretical physics all these decades ( you guys are just amateur differential geometers with some training in representation theory ) makes her statement fall short.
Is this cyberpunk?!