Відео

Hi. If I imagine that a finite past rewinds to a primal state of beginning and that this beginning is a hypothetical sphere of potential. Whatever I claim as its nature, it is a presence that begins AND ends ( time, space, entropy ). So, from my vantage point of this present moment, I could claim that it is just spheres all the way down. Does this make sense?

Would a vague notion of anxiety or depression be intentional? It appears people have anxieties that have propositional content the attitude is directed towards, but it seems more obvious that there's a whole other class of these mental states that are not directed towards any propositional content. I know I've had anxieties that you couldn't identify the content of my anxiety. I think Searle makes comments on this but it just seems to be a worthy consideration for this idea that all mental states are intentional.

I'm sorry these excellent videos don't all get comments!

Hey troy, I watched your debate with mason about name the trait. You said that you don't believe that traits are preference givers. What did you mean by that? If someone were to say that the human and animal both have the same propositions true of them while the human has moral value but not the animal. Would that person be asserting a contradiction?

If Lance does not even understand what is meant by stance independence, then how can he be sure that anti realism is true? Seems bad faith. He should be agnostic

Some of these people asking questions are pretty bad

Your channel should have more subscribers. Dr Malpass is such an interesting guest and always has an insightful way of explaining his reasoning.

Thanks

First

i really liked a lot of the questions. many of them i haven’t heard Oppy answer before

I wonder if Graham has read our paper on PPH--we do explicitly discuss the case of the ancient astronomers who wonder about Hesperus and Phosphorous, and he doesn't seem familiar with what we say about it. At the end of the section it seems like he ultimately denies that disharmony is even conceivable, and of course we've always acknowledged that as an option; it's just not one we think is plausible.

Excellent discussion, thank you

Crummett vs Oppy on psychophysical harmony would be epic. Detroyer plz make it happen

I'm not sure that I am fully sold on EI. Also, is this the first time he has commented on psychophysical harmony?

The patience Oppy has for entertaining all of these silly theological/philosophical speculations (read:nonsense) is admirable.

One of the more intellectually satisfying moments in my life is learning from this interview that Oppy thinks about the psychophysical harmony nonsense the same way I do.

i hear existential inertia, i have been summoned from the depths

The GOAT. This is the first time I've seen him speak on psychophysical harmony. Thanks!

There are some things you morally have to do even if you don’t want to do them, that’s trivially true. Extrapolating this to saying that there is a list of objective moral dictates out there in the ether that applies to everyone and that we can right or wrong about based off of the correct normative rules, is insane.

Woof what was tense. Lance - 62% of the philosophical community are delusional Eric - some people are born mentally stunted (in a totally no judgemental way) and without the ability to perceive the glory of truth through their moral intuition I think the debate lacked a lot of substance, what makes “reasons” incoherent besides you not understanding them? Why does having the moral intuition that you should save a drowning child justify your belief in extravagant metaphysical claims? there seems to be no need to use moral realism as an explanation for that intuition. Did the Zoropian objection hold water? What’s the different between normative claims about what you ought to do and what you ought to want? Or even what intuitions you ought to feel?

Reality exists as eternity and infinity & the only way “nothing” exists is because something (the reality that is existence) ordered that to be. Existence itself is without creation. If you think that’s not intelligent after an eternal amount of time to be alone in its singular position as an infinite state of being, then you believe in luck. Have fun with that and good luck. Stephen Hawking said it like this. Nothing is perfect. Without our imperfections, nothing would exist. So either nothing exists as perfection to be available for us, or nothing is imperfect and available for us. And simultaneously “nothing” available to not exist if you order that to be. Either way, we have a lot more than nothing to thank for the present that is the present 🎁, the gift 💝 of life with freedom to Love thanks be to Love itself that is the only Truth to set us free like that.

I still cannot get over the fact that this was the last interview he gave... and it was to Canadian fucking "I had sex with a schizophrenic woman on an episode" 'Catholic'.

Seems really inappropriate to spring a debate on someone like this when it was supposed to be Q&A. That was hard to listen to, Felipe didn't deserve to be subjected to a surprise debate. It's a testament to Leon's nature that he was so jovial and eager to engage gracefully.

He never earned a doctorate. He's not Dr. Kripke.

Swinburne is the most convincing theist I’ve read (his book The Existence of God). He does give Oppy a run for his money. Swinburne will build a cult following after his death.

Grand interview: much appreciated!

Your channel has great guests, but whenever I try to watch one of the videos, I always turn it off because the audio issues make it hard for me to understand you. It's as if the start of each sentence is cut off. Seemingly, the audio quality is perfectly acceptable for many viewers. Still, for what it's worth, if you improved your audio setup, I would watch more of your videos.

Poor Richard suggests his view is simpler because his god has only one property... omnipotence, which is, of course, infinite and hence hardly one property but every property. Not so simple it seems. Laplace and Ockham win again.

Mr. Lance repeats over and over again that the stance independence of moral facts is "gibberish" without adequately explaining himself. Dr. Samson repeatedly answered Lance's concerns, to no avail. This is a clear instance of the invincible ignorance fallacy. Lance seems not to be aware that he commits this fallacy over and over again, and that it becomes quite tedious by the end of the episode.

Crazy that this only has 500 views

Wow, this is possibly the weakest argument for moral realism I've ever heard. If you strip out Lance and just listen to Eric I would have thought he was an anti-realist making a bad strawman...

Excellent episode, especially the part about betting odds and credences coming apart.

Whoa! This is gonna be great (as usual)!

U = finely tuned universe D = intelligent design A = additional hypothesis about the designer (the "rigging" part) The posterior probability that intelligent design be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D|U) = P(U|D)P(D)/P(U) = P(U&D)/P(U) And The posterior probability that intelligent design & additional hypothesis about the designer be true given the finely tuned universe is equal to : P(D&A|U) = P(U|D&A)P(D&A)/P(U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U) The theist wants to defend that rigging the intelligent design hypothesis (D&A) so that it increases the likelihood of the data given the hypothesis, does not correspond to an equivalent decrease in the prior probability of the D&A hypothesis, and therefore that the new posterior P(D&A|U) is superior to the old one P(D|U). To check that we check that the ratio of posterior probabilities between the new (D&A) and old (D) hypotheses is superior to one... The ratio of posteriors is equal to : P(D&A|U)/P(D|U) = P(U&D&A)/P(U&D) = P(A|U&D) The ratio of posteriors is superior to one when P(A|U&D) > 1 Which is impossible, since a probability is never > 1. Therefore the posterior probability of a new, rigged hypothesis can never be greater than the posterior probability of the old hypothesis.

Day 4, halfway through. XD

Great video. Thank you

Great guest. The historical remarks were very interesting

Incredibly interesting, thanks for sharing!

Terrific, loved the explanations at the start!

what a treat! impossible to get enough philosophy of math. Thank you for sharing

Wasn't newton wrong and knew it and just basically said idk god makes it right somehow?

I liked parts of this video and I also liked the whole video.

Awesome conversation thank you

detroyer has baby cheeks

Im surprised that Detroyer has gotten hundreds of academics on his show but not philosophers like Kastrup or Garfield, which are comparatively bigger "gets"

Would ‘Scientismer’ be a suitable noun?

I think that you can make it from point A to point B because infinity is infinite love. There is no contradiction. 9:42

really enjoyed this but his take on fodors criticism of evolution is childish. It wasn't a response to insist he was senile, maybe that was true but how exactly was he wrong? I'd love to see a good critique of the argument, but it's often not understood or just dismissed.

does he still accept real niggas into his ontology?

Alex laid out the grim reaper argument and around the 8 minute timestamp he said something like "now I don't know if you can point out a direct contradiction in this but ..." I think one can draw out a strict logical contradiction. If it's the case that there are an infinite amount of grim reapers that aren't allowing me to move, but it's not the case that any grim reaper will be the one that stops me from moving, then it seems like all you have to do is tie in the fact that in the former, I can't move (because there's an infinite number of these reapers making sure I don't move), and in the latter, I can move (because there is no particular grim reaper that can be the one to stop me). From there, it seems pretty trivial that we will get a statement of the form P&~P. We can even formalize it. P1) If there are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving, then I can't move. P2) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. C1) Therefore, I can't move. P3) If there are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving, then I can move. P4) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. C2) Therefore, I can move. So we can see the two conclusions contradict from P2 and P4. The propositions clearly contradict one another if all of them are taken to be true. Now maybe someone has a problem with P1 and/or P3, but I tried to capture what Alex was saying when giving his thought about the implications of the grim reaper paradox as he laid it out in the beginning. It seemed like he was saying that if there are an infinite number of grim reapers stopping your movement, then it trivially follows that you can't move. And conversely, it seems like a trivially true entailment that if there are no grim reapers that can be the one to stop you from moving, then you can move. So if those entailments are true, I think we can derive a contradiction from the propositions that correspond to P2 and P4: 1) There are an infinite number of grim reapers preventing me from moving. 2) There are no grim reapers that can be the one preventing me from moving. If that's not what Alex was saying then I would like to be corrected if anyone does know what he was saying. Edit: I should have waited to comment because Alex immediately went on to clear up my confusion 😂