Відео

Thanks, also, glad to hear someone read the description 🙂. Yea I realized after a while that, math, as a formal activity, deals with these constructions. The amount of complexity these constructions have is entirely derived from how they were constructed. Like how some mathematicians take the natural numbers to be the "same" as the set {0, {0}, {0,{0}}, ...} (because all the same logical rules apply), but those things aren't really numbers at all, but a kind of construction set up on an 'empty substance' or something like it. But yea, glad you found sympathy with the idea.

but yeah, logic is a whole 'nother can of worms. Since once logic has become formalized now it feels like a kind of arithmetic on symbols. The idea though is that all of our rules (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) are "truth-preserving" so its okay to just apply them blindly to predicates. But yea, logic can get pretty crazy haha

Partly it was meant as a tip to people who are learning higher level math like topology, and like me would get caught up on words like "compactness" or "connected", when in reality all that those words point to is a kind of analogy within the imagination of the dude who invented the definition. It need not have any real connection to such things. Essentially what I was saying was a version of "to the things themselves" (that famous quote from phenomenology), but this time its "to the definitions themselves" haha

Let me try to clarify maybe, since the point I made is slightly different than that. The point was that, mathematics studies only 'constructions', and the true nature of these constructions is to be empty objects without any real natures of their own. We don't want them to say "excuse me, there's some real element to my nature that you are not respecting. I can't let you just blindly apply logic to me like that." So the things we are actually dealing with are almost nonthings. Their whole being is to be found in the way they occur in our axioms. And in this sense, they are not circle or squares but mere things that live only for those axioms. Therefore, they only are LIKE squares or circles, because the truths we imagine we can say about squares and circles is to squares and circles as our axioms are to these constructions. Basically this is the formalist's view, I think. People like David Hilbert (see his book "Foundations of Geometry"), or the Bourbaki group (Dieudonne) did math this way. There are other views on math, so this is just one possible extreme (emphasis on extreme) among others. I like it because it preserves that "clean" feeling I get from doing good math. but yea, all your points are good. They point to some big problems in the philosophy of math, that I've heard of. Frege's pretty good, you might want to check out one of his books as well ("foundations of arithmetic" is one I'm thinking of. Its a real short book).

@@Ryans_Science Can't say anything with any amount of certainty, however I do count my money before paying and after receiving change. If nothing, that serves at least a useful purpose, in my humble opinion. 😍

good point. It does seem counterintuitive, however I think it justifies by this idea that if we all have to coexist in the universe, and since gravitational fields extend off infinitely in every direction in space, it seems like all things are connected, and selfishness goes against the "general peace equation", so, idk, at that level it kindof rationalizes out at least.

Thanks for saying so, as mentioned in my description I'd been on the brink of psychosis this month but its finally starting to calm down a bit. I like that. I always feel, the best ideas are our own, and if I can stir up the ability in someone to conceive of something for themself even if its through a "i dont quite agree with that guy. To me its more like this..." I feel like i did a good thing.

never really studied him. I'm usually suspicious of psychologists given how much I've had to deal with them, and how i've been treated by them.

but to be fair, I may be able to come around to Lacan. Just the thing that annoys me about psychology often, is this sense that its trying to totally enframe me (kind of like Kierkegaard's criticism of Hegelian-like systems). Sometimes to the point of me feeling like i dont even exist anymore beyond being a sort of idea in someone else's mind. But I do like some of early Freud, so maybe if Lacan takes a gentle enough starting point I could be persuaded towards accepting some of his ideas.

@@Ryans_Science​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠I’d love to hear more of what you have to say on this topic. About being “totally emframed” and more with criticism of Hegelian like systems if you ever felt like making a video on those

@@CamClapsCheeks I would try to make a video about that, in fact I had recorded a couple, but they felt almost too controversial, so i ended up not posting them. The word "enframed" is actually not a real word haha, but it can be found in Heidegger's essay on technology. I think the idea is very offensive to psychologists because it points to the possibility that what we have been doing with psychology to a large extent may be unethical. There is a violent force to suppress even that QUESTION. So, idk if i'll make a video about it, but to those who get it, you know 😉

@@Ryans_Science I assume it is best for you take a breather and when you once again feel strong ground, then you could post them. Your channel is all about fighting the Discourse, if you were to cut the ideas expressed into even smaller chunks, it may be easier for them to take in. Like giving a small teaspoon to a baby instead of a large one :)

Hey, surprised to get a comment 🙂 Ummm, yea, my current view on philosophy is simply that it is like science but without removing spirit from the equation. To me spirit is like the "in-filling" aspect of life. Heidegger's late period is what I've been interested in lately. I got his book "Contributions to philosophy". It gets very weird. Unlike anything I've ever read. If you can find it anywhere, just read a few lines and you'll see what I mean.🙂

@@Ryans_Science Sure. That's very close to my understanding. I have been actually reading Heidegger recently, especially Being and Time is one of those books which seem to have a 'spirit' inside them (or enclosed within them,) I physically interact with the book to get it to speak to me, sort of. 🙂

@@SeventyFive-gn9kh Bergson also gives off that vibe if you ever get a chance to read

Hey thanks. as to whether a lack of sameness can be the seed for some shared sameness, I think yes it can. Only, if the lack of sameness is so profound, that may be impossible, in my opinion. Also, a society would have to be organized for such people to meet and interact, but now it feels like the types of interactions people are able to have are usually mediated by technology, which could make it hard for those who find that not to be their style. But I think there's always possibility as long as there's us humans 🙂👍

it can also be isolating and scary. but i appreciate that idea

@@Ryans_Science so the sense of operating under a shared reality breaks down because your participation alters it so much that you cant even see where the communication breaks down among two participants?

@@nicbarth3838 sounds about right, i think (given the eye contact example, since eye contact seems to be one of the first levels of sharing some sameness imo)

@@Ryans_Science I cannot imagine how someone would cope with that kind of alienation not just from others but of knowing reality from the overlap you inhabit perceptually. Your perceptions become a point of alienation as they cannot be affirmed by others and produce an episodic cognitive dissonance between what is perceived and knowing it to be unreal.

@@nicbarth3838 yea its been pretty rough. appreciate the words of understanding.

sounds rough. I know i have to deal with some of that in my family as well. Where they stare at me blankly and say "I'm trying to understand you, but I just can't". Can give one the sense of being very alone.

i understand that aspect. Sometimes there's a dark aspect, as RD Laing talks about, where isolation can lead into a psychosis. I've actually been dealing with some of that lately, its definitely not fun (i went to self-admit myself into a hospital, meanwhile thinking a certain person who sat next to me in the waiting room (with a tattoo that said "numb" under his eye, humming a song about death) was sent there to kill me, by undercover checking himself into the same hospital. one of the worst experiences I've had in my life actually).

​@@Ryans_Science Could perhaps have something to do with processing trauma too. Can be hard to differentiate sometimes between psychosis and acute symptoms from CPTSD.

@@gelidsoul i see. i'll have to research that. thanks

those are some good thoughts. Yea, I just recently encountered this concept of "Same" when reading Deleuze. hmmm, I wonder why people "other" each other. Maybe its political, idk, that'd be an interesting thing to investigate (or maybe someone out there has a book on it. Cygnusvideo commented about this book "Expulsion of the Other" by Byung Chul-Han. Maybe that'd be a direction to look into. or maybe Girard's research into the "scapegoat mechanism") yea, definitely an interesting topic. thanks for sharing that

thanks for all the good conversations and making this channel more interesting. 🙂👍

yep, to me, it almost seems to be THE problem. One of RD Laing's strategies I liked was actually believing the schizophrenics words as being true, even if not literally, but on some symbolic level or something

except if the other has nothing to associate with what one is trying to prove to them, it may turn out to be an impossible task imo

what should cause one to not behave in such a way? My attempt to answer that question was, harboring a pain that could not be believed. It'd be like being asked to walk on a broken leg, but not being able to explain to others why you can't since unlike a broken leg the pain could not be believed.

Ted K though really?... dont really get the fascination with that guy...

@@Ryans_Science People respect his goals. He was a man who sought to take the matters in his own hands and bring back humanity to the times before the Industrial Revolution and materialization of man. One of more interesting influences on Kaczynski was French philosopher's Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society" where he argued that society is run by advancement of technique. Ted rather quaintly radicalized the ideas. In sense how Ariosophy was turned into a political religion.

@@nasikla I mean...but aren't there better ways of accomplishing such a thing? I'm more of a Ghandi respector myself

@@Ryans_Science You can respect man's goals, but critique his methods. Most people don't desire half of US population to be dealt with in such a non-compassionate matter. The methods used are direct and measurable as well. Even if not as productive as non-combative alternative, they are at least more tangible. Which is an issue with the Discourse, as it refuses consider what it can't observe or visualize. Say metaphysics.

cool! I have not much read any Heraclitus, but I remember hearing he was quite radically different from the other philosophers of the time. As if he presented a real alternative to the tradition of Socrates and Plato. Deleuze also has some radical thoughts about becoming (in his book "Logic of Sense"). In there he calls it "a veritable becoming-mad" or a "becoming unlimited". I have tried to live out such a way myself before. To avoid stagnating identities and such. It may actually be possible to fully take on that view.

Interesting, sounds like a person I would probably agree with. I personally think we were too quick to discard rationalism, but then again, I'm kindof a Spinozaist. But Spinoza was a rationalist that didnt stay within the a priori, so i think he kindof goes beyond the classical limits of rationalism imo. Really, the sound is that bad? All I gots right now is a TASCAM. I used it a few times, but it sorta doubles my editing work, but since this complaint is a reoccurring one, I'll probly invest in getting a plugin mic by the end of this month.

the very essence of it possibly

I appreciate these thoughts. I really need to read more of Schopenhauer to get a better sense of his concept. I relate to that feeling of an endless battle. i refer sometimes to the words of saint Peter (since I'm a Christian) "whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" 1Peter 4:1. Hang in there, live for the battle! (that's what I tell myself sometimes.) My view on the will-to-live, is that I think that only denying the finitized version of the will-to-live seems essential. I almost believe that there is a more infinite will-to-live connected with aligning with God's goodness, that experiences entirely without negation. That is pure "affirmation" as Spinoza himself says of infinitude. Finiteness always involves some negation, when we desire a particular thing in a finite way we suffer our being to become negated. That's how I interpret the Buddhist message that to end suffering one must end desire.

"that there is a more infinite will-to-live connected with aligning with God's goodness" I whole heartedly agree with these words specially. If one has to imagine then the image should be directed towards the Infinite i.e. God.

I see. makes sense. Its been a while since I really dug into his philosophy.

haha, maybe one could say it was a "strike" 🙃(if i can figure out how to pin it there i will 👍)

haha, thanks 🤣

or even to be "zapped" maybe

@@Ryans_Science or stung with cupid's arrow. In the original mythology cupid was spanked by his mother for causing so much trouble.

@@gelidsoul haha. yikes, poor soul 😳

no, I'm meaning accommodating in the general sense, of the analogy. Taking the analogy to its fullest limits, not assuming one sense of the analogy to have supremacy over another. That is, not assuming bodily accommodation as first to a mental accommodation. With regard to your question, I'm saying that space if it is bodily space, itself requires an accommodating for, so it's not absolutely primitive, space "provides" in a way. and the two senses of being accommodated for, corresponding to mind and matter, are truly separate, so Descartes was right in assuming a real difference there. However, I do not assume them to be without cause in something else. Please comment further questions if you have any, since I do believe I can explain away alot of the difficulties to this system.

Thanks. I have not actually been following the whole development of your thinking, I just dropped in kind of randomly in the midst. So I'll probably watch more of what you've already uploaded to sort of get the gist of what you're trying to formulate in terms of an overall theory. As for Cartesian dualism, I have always imagined a near infinity between the Spirit and between the senses and Matter in general. Perhaps this is a slight nod to religious thinking. Question: are you interested in a kind of theoretical explanation of psychic phenomena?

@@SeventyFive-gn9kh some of my old thoughts are no longer consistent with my current ones. Some i see as belonging to a different discourse. Basically to understand my whole method, one only needs to understand the nature of discourse. All i do is start a new discourse at a given level of experience, and then see how much can be worked out from there. Not necessarily drawing from things others have said, unless they help solve one of the immediate problems that arises through the needs of the discourse i am in the process of developing. sure. you can tell me your explanation. My natural one at this point would be that they are modes of thought, i.e. things that accommodate for in a different sense for the bodies but in no interference to them, but I've become kindof a Spinozaist.

I gather that you 'wipe the slate clean' every now and then to start the conversation anew if it doesn't solve a more present enigma or problem that you might be trying to tackle? IMHO the mental state of a person's experience is a 'projection upon' an otherwise indifferent, and essentially independent external reality. What I mean by that is that if certain filters are applied to one's linguistic apparatus, it leads to a different/higher perception of that independent and external reality. Personally though I am trying to think about the structures present inside narratives or myths which seem to have informed most of mankind's religio-mystical thinking, whether Abrahmic religions or Dharmic religions or so-called pagan religions.

​@@SeventyFive-gn9kh Yeah, that's probably it. Not that any of my old thoughts are wrong, but if one were to try to put definition to how i was using certain words, one would realize that the sense was different in different instances of certain words. Theoretically one could make all the different claims consistent, one would just have to pullback to a language with more terms, and then individually define the old terms in a way that eliminates all confusion. i can see how mental states can be understood as projections. That makes sense. yea, somehow those narratives came about. Even the ones i don't believe in they seem to have very powerful presences in peoples minds.

Sometimes I feel like the algorithms be playing with us, like the Choice is being taken out of life. but maybe it can also be convenient, who knows. thanks, you too

@@Ryans_Science yes - they can and do for me - I try to document it - for science.

@@Ryans_Science I also ask - is it? - and highlighting choice - or any characteristic is a good start to unwinding the cryptographic rabbit hole

@@LoneFarrell i'm not sure i understood your comment completely. But i would say, these things seem like they are being used to control people and not for our own benefits but for something called "profit"