i think the title should be more something like "materialism and nietzsche's response" - but this video still helped me understand the concept much better!! thank you :)
The Tao Te Ching best describes the dynamic of material and immaterial ‘We build a house but it is the empty space within in which we live.’ We are surrounded by the objective material but we experience life as an subjective and immaterial.
I'm an Ultradarwinist, therefore I think the first biological and scientific instinct is the will to survive. But thru this will to survive, the will to power comes into play, because the man with the most power is the most likely to survive. If somebody is more powerful than you are, he could kill you at any moment, and nobody will bother, so if your survival instinct is great enough, you will fear that powerlessness, and then try to dominate it. It's how humans dominated nature, and how individuals/companies/kingdoms/nations overpower each other.
@@jamesbarlow6423 to live! Well, that's the point right? If we experience only constant survival we default our will to power and purposely end our existence. Now that's fucking willpower and at the same time, a lack thereof.
philosophy for me is a lullaby for my brain. In reality if it wasn't for it, life could be worst. it is like wings. it makes me see the world in nor just a different way, rather the way of what is worth to be human. but what a petty that out there most billions of humans do not care about Philosophy. it is like a best friend. thanks for your great videos.
Nietzsche said it was "so much the better" that we realize will to power is only interpretation, because it should make us realize that our cherished "laws of nature" are also only interpretation.
Spent 10 minutes watching this cause I need to learn about will to power, and it talks about it for like 30 seconds at the end of the video. The title is misleading.
Move out to the wilderness. Spend a couple of years under the stars. Without contact with the modern world. Only you, nature, its sounds, and the sky above. You will eventually begin to "see" the truth in this: the fabric of the universe is alive, and is divine. Interconnected. Interactive. Interdependent. And we have extricated ourselves from it at our own peril.
I like this very much. I think you have understood Nietzsche's W-to-P correctly - a rarity. The Whitehead association is interesting. I have made a similar argument using Schelling's "Inquiry". Hegel, as well.
@James Goner That fucking bitch altered the way we see Nietzsche by altering parts of his work. When i learnes that she went in and change some of his thoughts that shit really pissed me off. Where does she get off tainting the gift he gave to the world? Oh she thought it was best.
this is about his idea of the will to power not the text his sister made. The passage used here is from Beyond good and evil, and his use of the idea of the will to power is also found in his other works such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
The problem with Nietzsche's approach as stated beginning at 8:45 is that, in trying to deduce properties of the basic materials of the universe by just sitting there and thinking, you aren't discovering any new information about the materials, you're just discovering new information about your own mind. It's easy to see how this bias can mislead one into thinking that basic materials have consciousness of their own. To really discover how a phenomenon works, you must interrogate the phenomenon, not yourself. The problem of the emergence of life from non-life has been solved. This isn't even a debate. The answer to this problem is emergence. Complexity emerges from the interaction of simpler building-blocks as these interactions produce properties that the building-blocks themselves do not exhibit. Layer upon layer of complexity is build up in a smooth gradient, going from the simplest particles to the most complex multicellular organisms. Chemistry has shown us how the interactions between many simpler particles can produce complex phenomena. Physical chemistry has shown us how proteins can perform tasks and exhibit properties that the amino acid building blocks do not. Systems biology has allowed us to reveal in great detail the complicated web of interactions in the cell which allow simple stimuli to be transmitted through a signal transduction pathway to produce a coordinated response from the cell as a whole. These cells can then, in turn, be shown to produce further complexity when they interact with each other in multicellular organisms. Study of such model organisms as Caenorhabditis elegans has become so detailed over the decades that we now know not only the organism's entire genome, but we can also follow and explain the fate of each cell going from embryo to adult. After careful study, the entire connectome of the animal's nervous system is known. The complexity arising from the interactions between individual neurons in neural nets is great, yet for simple cases it is possible to understand the entire network all at once and show how it can exhibit complex behaviors emerging from simpler ones. Due to the exponential increase in interconnections as more neurons are added, it quickly becomes impossible to understand the network in its entirety. However, as the complexity arises in a smooth gradient, the complicated behavior of complex neutral networks can yet be explained as emerging from the many interactions of simpler subsets. The human brain is the most extreme example of this complexity problem, but study of the neurology of the animal kingdom shows how the human brain is just a highly developed instance on the spectrum of brain complexity, which smoothly ranges from the simplest neural networks of jellyfish, to more complex versions inside insects, to yet more complexity in the simplest lancelet, to even more complexity in higher and higher animals all the way to humans. There is no discontinuity. Today, it is especially ignorant to suppose that, for consciousness to exist, that the sub-components must possess rudimentary consciousness of their own. As research into artificial intelligence catapults forward at an ever-increasing rate, it is plain to see how we are well on our way to producing analogues of animal intelligence in silico. We know for sure that the subcomponents of our artificial neural networks are without consciousness, for we ourselves have created them. From lifeless transistors, to nodes, to static neural networks, and now to deep learning, we humans have begun to create our own artificial intelligence which is impossible to understand all at once. Yet, as its creators, we know that its complexity emerges from underlying simplicity. Nietzche, in the ignorance of his time, could be forgiven for resorting to panexperientialism. But given what we now know to be true, we in modern times can no longer do so.
As an update, Kurzgesagt published a nice video on the concept of emergence. They left the emergence of consciousness to a future video, but the video gives a succinct overview on the emergence of complexity from simpler subcomponents. It is available here: ua-cam.com/video/16W7c0mb-rE/v-deo.html
Thank you, I am impressed by the amount of philosophers who claim to be interested in the way things work, but refuse to learn even the simplest concepts of molecular and cellular biology. I guess it just takes too much hard work.
This comment perfectly verbalized my thoughts I've had during the video. Here's a like for you, good sir. :) P.S. The Kurzgesagt's video is very concise and clear! I like it.
BirdValiant Just because a phenomena has been observed and labeled, doesn't mean that it is adequately explained. Especially with something as fundamental as emergence. If it is to serve as the origin of non-life to life, then an understanding of its own origins should be a necessary prerequisite to its utter acceptance. The Kurzgesagt video even describes emergence as "mysterious", and it ends by saying, "We don't know why any of this happens. We just observe it, and it seems to be a fundamental property of the universe." As with that video, finding out ants have instinctual code that express as, "If I don't see a gatherer ant after 'x' meetings, then become a gatherer," is a wonderful observation of a pattern, but that's not the same as understanding what brought about that pattern. The hows and whys of emergence haven't yet been "solved" (as you put it) by science. It's compelling, but inadequate for now. Maybe you'd realize that if you took some time for introspection, as Nietzsche suggests. Examining reality within yourself before imposing on the entire universe your own "desires and passions" of how it should be.
Terrible projection. Whether it's good or bad, depressing or uplifting, there is no evidence of purpose to the universe beyond what emerges from organisms.
@@JustHatchetedexplain 3 things 1. How do atoms completely devoid of experience result in the mind? 2. What is consciousness in the first place? 3. Why is consciousness necessary for essentially flesh automatons that are completely determined not requiring experience?
@@nova8091 ur asking metaphysical questions which begs metaphysical response. purpose, need, experience. what purpose does a fire need for igniting? what does it feel when it sparks? does it regret burning down the forest? it's a ridiculous presumption to assume intent or purpose, this is anthropomorphizing reality at best, philosophical sleight of hand quackery at worst. these phenomena just are, and what they are is material. atoms, timespace, and quarks
Wow. I think I see the roots of postmodernism here. Look now at it's effects here in our schools 2017. Rudimentary Postmodernism roots are on display here and have survived a long journey.
Not really, Post modernists like Michel Foucault bastardized Nietzsche. Most post modern philosophers (including Foucault) held Marxist presuppositions.. Nietzsche felt egalitarianism was the anti-thesis of the will to power.
Agreed. Nietzsche's ideas about power and perspectivism and perhaps other topics too are no doubt popular with Postmodernists in general but this isn't the same as following in the philosophical wake as the man. I understand his notions about superior and inferior men and races were quite popular with the Nazis. His influence on psychology through his own direct insights, Jung and Freud was enormous. I believe Jordan Peterson is making a stand against postmodernist ideological infection (as he sees it) in Canada to this day. So just off the top of my head you have the totalitarian right, a Christian professor, two famous psychologists (one materialist, one mythological thinker) on top of the nihilistic left you mention. He was an important thinker, you'll find his influence throughout philosophy and history. The only people that get to claim an intellectual tradition descending from Nietzsche would be those higher men he sought to cultivate for future generations. Whom, by definition, would chafe under the label of Nietzschean should they be as independently minded as he hoped.
Kirchoff’s Current Law (Parallel Circuit) is the lost answer to Nietzsche’s unsolved puzzle on Will to Power vs Will to Live (Series Circuit). In order to flow and innovate in Quantum Computing we shall flow like a Parallel Circuit. I can see Kirchoff’s Current Law appear in DNA a-helix
This is a helpful work and I appreciate it though an idea and a concept are NOT the same thing. I only point this out since in philosophy words are used with more precision and need to be due to the nature of the subject which is very worked out understandings.
Speaking of the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" if think it's questionable to introduce the term "OUR experience". Who experiences something? Isn't (we/our) an abstraction which is unappropriate for experience?
I don't know if this was complete and all that Nietzche said on the topic but I hope it wasn't. It definitely needs more explaining because he doesn't say why he thinks this way. How can one say that inanimate objects have a will? That is a pretty bold statement that should have an equal explanation of the thinking behind it. Yeah of course he wasn't going to be dogmatic on a claim like that. I think he was trying to be creative and playing around with ideas but without evidence that's all they are , ideas.
Thank you for this illuminating lecture! I wonder which a cell goes under, the animate and inanimate objects. If a cell(or a virus) is considered a mixture of complex biochemical reactions, wouldn't this be considered inanimate? And, the evolution explains the rest. I feel like though I'm missing the "point" of this lecture...
There's definitely some gaps in the explanation of materialism and its flaws. It seems like this is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in case anybody wants to learn more about this subject. It might be useful to watch a few videos about that to familiarize yourself with the background of that field, then you should look up Schopenhauer's metaphysics and then Nietzsche's to best understand how this fits together. A little bit of Kant might be useful as well. I suggest exurb1a and Weltgeist as two excellent channels that have covered some of these ideas more clearly
Interesting! But in which way is describing the functions of matter an abstraction? If you can describe how all matter behaves, then how is that abstracting? Thanks.
The key word is _describe,_ when physicists describe how matter behaves what they are doing is constructing a mathematical model and then attributing it with properties such as reliability, accuracy and predictive power based on empirical results. The algebraic variable psi describing the wave-function of a particle in QM is an abstract representation of a physical entity, not the entity itself. The Fourier transforms, time evolution mechanics, commutation relations etc are all arrangements of algebraic (and hence abstract) variables constructed in such a way as to describe a pattern. A pattern itself being an abstraction of events that may or may not actually have occurred but are rather posited to have occurred and then explained. Then of course we find some unanswered questions and construct further abstract, explanatory apparatus on top of our existing models. All the while testing our models with experiment and prediction. So it's entirely possible that matter, fields, space, time, energy are all concepts that bear no resemblance to any "truth" of how the universe is structured. All science can say is that the concepts and models explain the data very well and are therefore our best working tools. So we use them. Though the tremendous success of scientific progress does provide quite a temptation to just think of the models and reality as identical. I tend to think in terms of the analogy of a paper mache or plaster casting on a face. Refining the technique does provide you with a more and more accurate and convincing picture of a face. But it only conveys the structure of the surface layer you have access to. What you get as a result isn't a face. Just a model you can use to describe one.
@Adam Hansen watch the biblical series by Jordan peterson, he breaks down the psychological and philosophical reasoning behind the Bible and myths in Buddhism. Good lectures and yes religion and philosophy are innately the same when used properly and improperly.
the elements of nature are the ones who ought to be alive. we are just the congruency of those elements spoken in a macrochosmic way. we are living chemistry.
So, gawd of the gaps scenario regarding abiogenesis & macro vs micro world. Empiricism. A lot of progress since then, including rare decreases in entropy. Onto something. But ya, saying it's actual consciousness is a bit much.
Good video. Although, I don't agree with the grammar you use to describe life from "non-living" matter. None of what is described here refutes materialism because the dynamics of matter in the universe has made it possible for life to "emerge". The same is true for consciousness. Consciousness is due to the billions of of neurons that are not conscious in themselves. The matter that makes up life is still "non-living". What is called life is a certain configuration of matter NOT a different form
Consciousness itself is not neurons firing, just like the display on your screen is not electrons moving through transistors in a computer chip. We know how electrons moving through transistors produces the display on your screen, but we don't have the faintest idea how neurons produce consciousness. The perception of the color red is quite different from the neural activity giving rise to it, and different still from electromagnetic wave describing the color red. There is an irreconcilable distinction between the phenomenon of consciousness and the materialist description of processes in the brain which appear to give rise to consciousness.
Quantum physics can comfortably explain the major question you have posed.... how does life emerge from the interaction of these seemingly lifeless units? materialism ,whether you like it or not, wins all the time.... and as for Nietzche, come on, his is just an exaggeration of a mad man... give him a good scientific book, he will get it
So the problem is that humans are thinking that things like "atoms" are inanimate only because our concept of atoms seem lifeless and pointless. We are thinking about them from our anthropocentric point of view. Chair can have meaning because it can be used to sit on, but in itself it does not. Same with atoms - they have meaning because we are made from them, but in themselves, they are inanimate. So we have to approach meaning from a holistic perspective as in "we are build by something meaningful and we, working together, are building some other meaningful beings that are a part of oneness of the universe". And that is why science can't determine how did life, as in, consciousness start. Because everything in itself has some form of awareness, being and experience, or, nothing has consciousness? There is no difference between atoms, molecules, bacteria, plants and animals/us? We are all just part of small consciousnesses and it delivers our "bigger" consciousness. And by looking through ourselves, we explore the universe. And the mistake materialists make is that they have a concept of atoms as something pointless in itself. But I tell you this. There still is some difference between life as an ego and an object that can't move or anything. I'm not saying that that object is worth less than subject with an ego, nor that it lacks some sort of experience, but first life, as in something that can move and feed on its own, is still something different. So scientist will, I believe, determine what happens when these lower forms of will connect and make higher form of will (life).
Consciousness... the last bastion of mysticism. One thing is for sure, human beings will go to great lengths in order to believe they are more than just physical objects. Do you know what this "panpsychism" fantasy reminds me of? Midichlorians... from Star Wars. It's like a mix of animism with modern particle physics. No evidence? No problem! But we need to invent some kind of magic in the universe to justify are arbitrary value judgments between physical things.
People way overuse the term anthropocentric. No, utilizing our human cognitive abilities to make rational points based on our observations and data is not anthropocentrism.
Okay. So, then the will to power is the force that lies in the atom. It is one of two ways to view/explain the world/life (the other being materialism). It does not claim to be the only view.
I am a bit confused. Does it mean that Nietzsche's analyse into one's own experience is a way of discovering concretes, and therefore will not mistakenly abstract the essential elements of concretes, but rather preserve them so the questions about life, which materialism cannot explain, now can be reviewed correctly?
"How does varying combinations of dead or non life create life" because an input of certain energies in the correct conditions will stimulate the creation of amino acids. Along with good circumstance this creates primitive cells and boom. You just created life.
Pretty sure the first cavemen to take a whiff of their overpowering armpit smell were the first to realize that the inanimate has a life of their own. So lets give credit where credit is due.
I was told by an apparently ill-informed source that will to power meant that you could acquire anything you desire if you work hard enough for it. What is the name of that concept?
Maybe. It reminds me in some ways of trying to face against a nihilistic view of the world, trying to find meaning, and arguing that science can only explain what things are or how they function, but it can't make a case for what you or other individuals find meaningful in life. Finding this meaning doesn't have to necessitate being religious of course. The Will To Power can be defined in a lot of ways. One being that society has hierarchies of value, we value different things above others, and decide which values become the dominant values in society. Others of course being that we try to exert power in order to survive, which is indicative of biology. Organisms trying to reproduce, transporting our genes, etc. It's a complicated topic that I personally don't think this video does justice. With how Nietzsche's views on materialism were presented here, I don't think it's fair to equate his views with the "God of the gaps" argument. Because he was at least trying to make a fair question at how science couldn't explain this one thing, and that maybe we can value our own experience, how we experience life, our introspection, etc. to try to fill this gap. And unlike Christian apologists, he was more than willing to be open to the idea that his perspectives on the matter were false as highlighted by the end of the video.
Will is the behaviour. The will to power is that behaviour acting in a way which gives it power. Such as atoms binding together, suns being born, planets colliding, volcanos from trapped energy, oceans from leftover moisture in the atmosphere, life birthed in essence from the struggle to power, rose to become the very WILL to power.
I am amazed at the scientific illiteracy of ideas like this. Disregarding the huge strides of biology and genetics and focusing with mouth-gaping admiration on the incoherent mumblings of the most prominent prophet of Naziism!
It is an extremely narrow view of Nietzsche he opposed not only materialism but any kind of moral doctrine whether founded in materialistic or idealistic metaphysical systems. Also, materialism is a redundant term and what is described as materialism is known as positivism.
"We seem to be ourselves elements of this world in the same sense as are other things we perceive." This hearkens back to the old occult concept of "As Above, So Below" (The structure of micro-cosmos - man - is fundamentally similar to the structure of macro-cosmos - the Universe).
This video disregards the evolution theory completely. Life is a mutation. The feeling of ownership of or own thoughts is explain trough evolutionary behaviorism.
Because metaphysics was unquestionable in the West for over 1,000 years, Western philosophers abandoned interest in metaphysics. Western philosophy focused exclusively on logic, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. But we've reached a technological point with virtual reality and AI when we need to return to the pre-Socratic questions about the distinctions between existence and non-existence, living and non-living, the question of what consciousness and personhood actually are. Science, meanwhile, has destroyed the mechanistic Newtonian model of a perfectly ordered and ready-to-be-diagrammed universe. Quantum physics, string theory, etc present possible descriptions of a univese that is messy and a bit chaotic. Even Einstein, himself a Newtonian at heart, found it too much to bear. The West needs to confront anew the questions of metaphysics- especially ontology, teleology, and epistemology.
This went over my head. Will to power = energy? In fact, I can't even grasp the basic terminology here. Matter is distinct from energy, and from what I understand we're mostly interacting with and perceiving energy fields not matter, of which there is very little. So the very term materialism is problematic? But did Nietzche know this in a physical sense or is he being prophetic? Or did I misunderstand where he was going altogether? God.. I could have used some education :p
Well, we sort of know now that Whitehead was somewhat wrong. We can in fact look at concrete, non-abstracted atoms through a microscope. They’re as concrete as individual chairs.
Evolution is just a psyop concept about how A species lead to B and C species but he steel doesn't exaplain how A originale species is created from non material
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche and the Will to Power [full length]](/img/n.gif)
Nietzche's Will to Power @ 8:32
Thanks, Conner
thank you, thank you, thank you
almost 9 minutes in ! Wtf
cheers bro
thankyou
i think the title should be more something like "materialism and nietzsche's response" - but this video still helped me understand the concept much better!! thank you :)
No
@Anzioo24 no
Is it not empowering to free yourself from desire?
No
The Tao Te Ching best describes the dynamic of material and immaterial
‘We build a house but it is the empty space within in which we live.’ We are surrounded by the objective material but we experience life as an subjective and immaterial.
I'm an Ultradarwinist, therefore I think the first biological and scientific instinct is the will to survive. But thru this will to survive, the will to power comes into play, because the man with the most power is the most likely to survive. If somebody is more powerful than you are, he could kill you at any moment, and nobody will bother, so if your survival instinct is great enough, you will fear that powerlessness, and then try to dominate it. It's how humans dominated nature, and how individuals/companies/kingdoms/nations overpower each other.
Take a look around you! It's never a will merely to survive, but always a voiceless will to thrive!!!
@@jamesbarlow6423 to live! Well, that's the point right? If we experience only constant survival we default our will to power and purposely end our existence. Now that's fucking willpower and at the same time, a lack thereof.
You have described the horridly nihilist universe of warhammer.
philosophy for me is a lullaby for my brain.
In reality if it wasn't for it, life could be worst.
it is like wings.
it makes me see the world in nor just a different way, rather the way of what is worth to be human.
but what a petty that out there most billions of humans do not care about Philosophy.
it is like a best friend.
thanks for your great videos.
U and wat army?
@@xxczerxx Quantity of billions does not matter, Quality of hundreds does.
Nietzsche said it was "so much the better" that we realize will to power is only interpretation, because it should make us realize that our cherished "laws of nature" are also only interpretation.
The will to power is dead! Because we have killed the will!
Ole Rush he is right
Lol
Social media is now God, we should probably kill it...
@João Fernandes eating them?
Then we must ignite the will. If you "Will" not do it, then be forever stagnant.
Spent 10 minutes watching this cause I need to learn about will to power, and it talks about it for like 30 seconds at the end of the video. The title is misleading.
Well you've learnt a greater lesson in life there then as I see it, dont use UA-cam videos as research tools, read a damn book lad!
Yeah take that lad have you read a book yet lad you’ve had two years to read ”the will to power” lad. Buzzard’s guts man.
The Ants are My friends This was too funny 😁 even though it wasn’t meant to be.
We definitely will!
Every evening
Arthur Schopenhauer goes for 2 hours walk
Regardless of the weather.
He would
And nothing would stop him.
You definitely will what??
Your work is richly textured; similar to a book that was rich in texture and narrative. "The Joy of Less: A Minimalist Living Guide" by Matthew Cove
You really do great work. Thank you for sharing your introductions!
Move out to the wilderness. Spend a couple of years under the stars. Without contact with the modern world. Only you, nature, its sounds, and the sky above. You will eventually begin to "see" the truth in this: the fabric of the universe is alive, and is divine. Interconnected. Interactive. Interdependent. And we have extricated ourselves from it at our own peril.
You should do a series on Arthur Schopenhauer!
I like this very much. I think you have understood Nietzsche's W-to-P correctly - a rarity. The Whitehead association is interesting. I have made a similar argument using Schelling's "Inquiry". Hegel, as well.
Your title is slightly misleading. You din't even refer to Nietsche's book once nor you give a quotes from the book.
It would be hard to know what passages Nietzsche's sister changed
@James Goner That fucking bitch altered the way we see Nietzsche by altering parts of his work. When i learnes that she went in and change some of his thoughts that shit really pissed me off. Where does she get off tainting the gift he gave to the world? Oh she thought it was best.
this is about his idea of the will to power not the text his sister made. The passage used here is from Beyond good and evil, and his use of the idea of the will to power is also found in his other works such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
@@jimmyfallon2484 because she's a woman
Alec Xavier are you miss gendering?
The problem with Nietzsche's approach as stated beginning at 8:45 is that, in trying to deduce properties of the basic materials of the universe by just sitting there and thinking, you aren't discovering any new information about the materials, you're just discovering new information about your own mind. It's easy to see how this bias can mislead one into thinking that basic materials have consciousness of their own.
To really discover how a phenomenon works, you must interrogate the phenomenon, not yourself.
The problem of the emergence of life from non-life has been solved. This isn't even a debate. The answer to this problem is emergence. Complexity emerges from the interaction of simpler building-blocks as these interactions produce properties that the building-blocks themselves do not exhibit. Layer upon layer of complexity is build up in a smooth gradient, going from the simplest particles to the most complex multicellular organisms.
Chemistry has shown us how the interactions between many simpler particles can produce complex phenomena. Physical chemistry has shown us how proteins can perform tasks and exhibit properties that the amino acid building blocks do not. Systems biology has allowed us to reveal in great detail the complicated web of interactions in the cell which allow simple stimuli to be transmitted through a signal transduction pathway to produce a coordinated response from the cell as a whole. These cells can then, in turn, be shown to produce further complexity when they interact with each other in multicellular organisms. Study of such model organisms as Caenorhabditis elegans has become so detailed over the decades that we now know not only the organism's entire genome, but we can also follow and explain the fate of each cell going from embryo to adult. After careful study, the entire connectome of the animal's nervous system is known.
The complexity arising from the interactions between individual neurons in neural nets is great, yet for simple cases it is possible to understand the entire network all at once and show how it can exhibit complex behaviors emerging from simpler ones. Due to the exponential increase in interconnections as more neurons are added, it quickly becomes impossible to understand the network in its entirety. However, as the complexity arises in a smooth gradient, the complicated behavior of complex neutral networks can yet be explained as emerging from the many interactions of simpler subsets. The human brain is the most extreme example of this complexity problem, but study of the neurology of the animal kingdom shows how the human brain is just a highly developed instance on the spectrum of brain complexity, which smoothly ranges from the simplest neural networks of jellyfish, to more complex versions inside insects, to yet more complexity in the simplest lancelet, to even more complexity in higher and higher animals all the way to humans. There is no discontinuity.
Today, it is especially ignorant to suppose that, for consciousness to exist, that the sub-components must possess rudimentary consciousness of their own. As research into artificial intelligence catapults forward at an ever-increasing rate, it is plain to see how we are well on our way to producing analogues of animal intelligence in silico. We know for sure that the subcomponents of our artificial neural networks are without consciousness, for we ourselves have created them. From lifeless transistors, to nodes, to static neural networks, and now to deep learning, we humans have begun to create our own artificial intelligence which is impossible to understand all at once. Yet, as its creators, we know that its complexity emerges from underlying simplicity.
Nietzche, in the ignorance of his time, could be forgiven for resorting to panexperientialism. But given what we now know to be true, we in modern times can no longer do so.
I love you, I was about to give the lecture myself. Strange how people pick and choose what science to belive in ey?
As an update, Kurzgesagt published a nice video on the concept of emergence. They left the emergence of consciousness to a future video, but the video gives a succinct overview on the emergence of complexity from simpler subcomponents. It is available here: ua-cam.com/video/16W7c0mb-rE/v-deo.html
Thank you, I am impressed by the amount of philosophers who claim to be interested in the way things work, but refuse to learn even the simplest concepts of molecular and cellular biology. I guess it just takes too much hard work.
This comment perfectly verbalized my thoughts I've had during the video.
Here's a like for you, good sir. :)
P.S. The Kurzgesagt's video is very concise and clear! I like it.
BirdValiant Just because a phenomena has been observed and labeled, doesn't mean that it is adequately explained. Especially with something as fundamental as emergence. If it is to serve as the origin of non-life to life, then an understanding of its own origins should be a necessary prerequisite to its utter acceptance. The Kurzgesagt video even describes emergence as "mysterious", and it ends by saying, "We don't know why any of this happens. We just observe it, and it seems to be a fundamental property of the universe."
As with that video, finding out ants have instinctual code that express as, "If I don't see a gatherer ant after 'x' meetings, then become a gatherer," is a wonderful observation of a pattern, but that's not the same as understanding what brought about that pattern.
The hows and whys of emergence haven't yet been "solved" (as you put it) by science. It's compelling, but inadequate for now. Maybe you'd realize that if you took some time for introspection, as Nietzsche suggests. Examining reality within yourself before imposing on the entire universe your own "desires and passions" of how it should be.
Thank you so much for making this idea so clear!
I don’t think most people actually read this book all the way through. Probably the wildest book I have ever read.
I just got my copy. It's long as hell!
absolutely love your videos...very informative and thought provoking!
Why is every philosophy video's comment section crowded by angry materialists trying to impose their own (depressing) worldview?
Terrible projection. Whether it's good or bad, depressing or uplifting, there is no evidence of purpose to the universe beyond what emerges from organisms.
It is materialism or it is delusion
Because there are so many of em
@@JustHatchetedexplain 3 things
1. How do atoms completely devoid of experience result in the mind?
2. What is consciousness in the first place?
3. Why is consciousness necessary for essentially flesh automatons that are completely determined not requiring experience?
@@nova8091 ur asking metaphysical questions which begs metaphysical response. purpose, need, experience. what purpose does a fire need for igniting? what does it feel when it sparks? does it regret burning down the forest?
it's a ridiculous presumption to assume intent or purpose, this is anthropomorphizing reality at best, philosophical sleight of hand quackery at worst. these phenomena just are, and what they are is material. atoms, timespace, and quarks
Loving your videos, really great job!
Kenya we tuned in
Came as a materalist. Still a materialist.
Wow. I think I see the roots of postmodernism here.
Look now at it's effects here in our schools 2017.
Rudimentary Postmodernism roots are on display here and have survived a long journey.
Not really, Post modernists like Michel Foucault bastardized Nietzsche. Most post modern philosophers (including Foucault) held Marxist presuppositions.. Nietzsche felt egalitarianism was the anti-thesis of the will to power.
Agreed. Nietzsche's ideas about power and perspectivism and perhaps other topics too are no doubt popular with Postmodernists in general but this isn't the same as following in the philosophical wake as the man.
I understand his notions about superior and inferior men and races were quite popular with the Nazis. His influence on psychology through his own direct insights, Jung and Freud was enormous. I believe Jordan Peterson is making a stand against postmodernist ideological infection (as he sees it) in Canada to this day.
So just off the top of my head you have the totalitarian right, a Christian professor, two famous psychologists (one materialist, one mythological thinker) on top of the nihilistic left you mention. He was an important thinker, you'll find his influence throughout philosophy and history.
The only people that get to claim an intellectual tradition descending from Nietzsche would be those higher men he sought to cultivate for future generations. Whom, by definition, would chafe under the label of Nietzschean should they be as independently minded as he hoped.
Also technically speaking the universe is more than simple matter due to energies that interact with said matter. Electricity, radiation, light, etc.
Kirchoff’s Current Law (Parallel Circuit) is the lost answer to Nietzsche’s unsolved puzzle on Will to Power vs Will to Live (Series Circuit). In order to flow and innovate in Quantum Computing we shall flow like a Parallel Circuit.
I can see Kirchoff’s Current Law appear in DNA a-helix
Just downloaded the book!
This is a helpful work and I appreciate it though an idea and a concept are NOT the same thing. I only point this out since in philosophy words are used with more precision and need to be due to the nature of the subject which is very worked out understandings.
Speaking of the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" if think it's questionable to introduce the term "OUR experience". Who experiences something? Isn't (we/our) an abstraction which is unappropriate for experience?
I don't know if this was complete and all that Nietzche said on the topic but I hope it wasn't. It definitely needs more explaining because he doesn't say why he thinks this way. How can one say that inanimate objects have a will? That is a pretty bold statement that should have an equal explanation of the thinking behind it. Yeah of course he wasn't going to be dogmatic on a claim like that. I think he was trying to be creative and playing around with ideas but without evidence that's all they are , ideas.
the levels of misunderstanding in this video is astonishing, can the author reach out? I am appalled no one has seen through this!!!!!!
Thank you for this illuminating lecture! I wonder which a cell goes under, the animate and inanimate objects. If a cell(or a virus) is considered a mixture of complex biochemical reactions, wouldn't this be considered inanimate? And, the evolution explains the rest. I feel like though I'm missing the "point" of this lecture...
There's definitely some gaps in the explanation of materialism and its flaws. It seems like this is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in case anybody wants to learn more about this subject. It might be useful to watch a few videos about that to familiarize yourself with the background of that field, then you should look up Schopenhauer's metaphysics and then Nietzsche's to best understand how this fits together. A little bit of Kant might be useful as well. I suggest exurb1a and Weltgeist as two excellent channels that have covered some of these ideas more clearly
Interesting! But in which way is describing the functions of matter an abstraction? If you can describe how all matter behaves, then how is that abstracting? Thanks.
The key word is _describe,_ when physicists describe how matter behaves what they are doing is constructing a mathematical model and then attributing it with properties such as reliability, accuracy and predictive power based on empirical results.
The algebraic variable psi describing the wave-function of a particle in QM is an abstract representation of a physical entity, not the entity itself.
The Fourier transforms, time evolution mechanics, commutation relations etc are all arrangements of algebraic (and hence abstract) variables constructed in such a way as to describe a pattern. A pattern itself being an abstraction of events that may or may not actually have occurred but are rather posited to have occurred and then explained.
Then of course we find some unanswered questions and construct further abstract, explanatory apparatus on top of our existing models. All the while testing our models with experiment and prediction.
So it's entirely possible that matter, fields, space, time, energy are all concepts that bear no resemblance to any "truth" of how the universe is structured. All science can say is that the concepts and models explain the data very well and are therefore our best working tools. So we use them.
Though the tremendous success of scientific progress does provide quite a temptation to just think of the models and reality as identical.
I tend to think in terms of the analogy of a paper mache or plaster casting on a face. Refining the technique does provide you with a more and more accurate and convincing picture of a face. But it only conveys the structure of the surface layer you have access to. What you get as a result isn't a face. Just a model you can use to describe one.
Everything is light energy. Kirlian photography proves this.
Brilliant. Your videos provide profound shortcuts to knowledge. Keep it up and well done.
You missed king Solomon, long before the Greeks. Newton referred to him as the greatest philosopher who ever lived.
@HanselManCan
How could a nihilist philosopher talk about "facts"? Keep your shotty reasoning to yourself.
@Adam Hansen hovah is hebrew for mischief, destruction, evil even and guess what Jesus said rules heaven...ly places.
If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have needed to create philosophy.
@Adam Hansen watch the biblical series by Jordan peterson, he breaks down the psychological and philosophical reasoning behind the Bible and myths in Buddhism. Good lectures and yes religion and philosophy are innately the same when used properly and improperly.
@@duellingdescartes7950 Isaac Newton can suck my fuck stick.
the elements of nature are the ones who ought to be alive. we are just the congruency of those elements spoken in a macrochosmic way. we are living chemistry.
So, gawd of the gaps scenario regarding abiogenesis & macro vs micro world. Empiricism. A lot of progress since then, including rare decreases in entropy. Onto something. But ya, saying it's actual consciousness is a bit much.
solid video! keep them coming!
abiogenesis?
Good video. Although, I don't agree with the grammar you use to describe life from "non-living" matter. None of what is described here refutes materialism because the dynamics of matter in the universe has made it possible for life to "emerge". The same is true for consciousness. Consciousness is due to the billions of of neurons that are not conscious in themselves. The matter that makes up life is still "non-living". What is called life is a certain configuration of matter NOT a different form
Consciousness itself is not neurons firing, just like the display on your screen is not electrons moving through transistors in a computer chip. We know how electrons moving through transistors produces the display on your screen, but we don't have the faintest idea how neurons produce consciousness. The perception of the color red is quite different from the neural activity giving rise to it, and different still from electromagnetic wave describing the color red. There is an irreconcilable distinction between the phenomenon of consciousness and the materialist description of processes in the brain which appear to give rise to consciousness.
@@ienjoyapples . What a wonderful and simple, yet elegant refutation to the previous comment, I loved it! Cheers!
Quantum physics can comfortably explain the major question you have posed.... how does life emerge from the interaction of these seemingly lifeless units? materialism ,whether you like it or not, wins all the time.... and as for Nietzche, come on, his is just an exaggeration of a mad man... give him a good scientific book, he will get it
So the problem is that humans are thinking that things like "atoms" are inanimate only because our concept of atoms seem lifeless and pointless. We are thinking about them from our anthropocentric point of view. Chair can have meaning because it can be used to sit on, but in itself it does not. Same with atoms - they have meaning because we are made from them, but in themselves, they are inanimate. So we have to approach meaning from a holistic perspective as in "we are build by something meaningful and we, working together, are building some other meaningful beings that are a part of oneness of the universe". And that is why science can't determine how did life, as in, consciousness start. Because everything in itself has some form of awareness, being and experience, or, nothing has consciousness? There is no difference between atoms, molecules, bacteria, plants and animals/us? We are all just part of small consciousnesses and it delivers our "bigger" consciousness. And by looking through ourselves, we explore the universe. And the mistake materialists make is that they have a concept of atoms as something pointless in itself. But I tell you this. There still is some difference between life as an ego and an object that can't move or anything. I'm not saying that that object is worth less than subject with an ego, nor that it lacks some sort of experience, but first life, as in something that can move and feed on its own, is still something different. So scientist will, I believe, determine what happens when these lower forms of will connect and make higher form of will (life).
Someone with no actual scientific knowledge beyont 4th grade detected.
Consciousness... the last bastion of mysticism. One thing is for sure, human beings will go to great lengths in order to believe they are more than just physical objects. Do you know what this "panpsychism" fantasy reminds me of? Midichlorians... from Star Wars. It's like a mix of animism with modern particle physics. No evidence? No problem! But we need to invent some kind of magic in the universe to justify are arbitrary value judgments between physical things.
People way overuse the term anthropocentric. No, utilizing our human cognitive abilities to make rational points based on our observations and data is not anthropocentrism.
Okay. So, then the will to power is the force that lies in the atom. It is one of two ways to view/explain the world/life (the other being materialism). It does not claim to be the only view.
Only three minutes of this video is actually about Nietzsche...fix the title
Is there an important difference to the will to power and Greek teleology?
Was the will to power not first Schopenhauer's philosophy?
I am a bit confused. Does it mean that Nietzsche's analyse into one's own experience is a way of discovering concretes, and therefore will not mistakenly abstract the essential elements of concretes, but rather preserve them so the questions about life, which materialism cannot explain, now can be reviewed correctly?
How about talking of the will to power...
Thanks!
A nice aphorism of motion, in that . . . without gravity attracting, where would we be?
Have you heard any Alan Watts lectures? He has an interesting take on the subject of reality ua-cam.com/video/r3VC2pBn3Dw/v-deo.html
Yeah i agree even materialism cannot explain stockmarket trends
"How does varying combinations of dead or non life create life" because an input of certain energies in the correct conditions will stimulate the creation of amino acids. Along with good circumstance this creates primitive cells and boom. You just created life.
Each and every person is their own universe.
Based on what? That makes no intuitive sense.
Pretty sure the first cavemen to take a whiff of their overpowering armpit smell were the first to realize that the inanimate has a life of their own. So lets give credit where credit is due.
🧐😆😆😆
I was told by an apparently ill-informed source that will to power meant that you could acquire anything you desire if you work hard enough for it. What is the name of that concept?
I'd call it bullshit in a certain measure
Is this not a contradiction of the Heraclitus view?
Is this the philosopher's version of the 'God of the gaps?' "Science can't explain this therefore....?"
Maybe. It reminds me in some ways of trying to face against a nihilistic view of the world, trying to find meaning, and arguing that science can only explain what things are or how they function, but it can't make a case for what you or other individuals find meaningful in life. Finding this meaning doesn't have to necessitate being religious of course. The Will To Power can be defined in a lot of ways. One being that society has hierarchies of value, we value different things above others, and decide which values become the dominant values in society. Others of course being that we try to exert power in order to survive, which is indicative of biology. Organisms trying to reproduce, transporting our genes, etc. It's a complicated topic that I personally don't think this video does justice.
With how Nietzsche's views on materialism were presented here, I don't think it's fair to equate his views with the "God of the gaps" argument. Because he was at least trying to make a fair question at how science couldn't explain this one thing, and that maybe we can value our own experience, how we experience life, our introspection, etc. to try to fill this gap. And unlike Christian apologists, he was more than willing to be open to the idea that his perspectives on the matter were false as highlighted by the end of the video.
Sounds a bit like Lennox v Dawkins .
read, zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and LILA by Robert M Peersig for a metaphysics
Metaphysics started with the Egyptians who taught it to the Greeks.
Pheonicians!
Devoid of life and therefore devoid of meaning.
great videos
I still did not understand how things have the inner will to power
Will is the behaviour. The will to power is that behaviour acting in a way which gives it power.
Such as atoms binding together, suns being born, planets colliding, volcanos from trapped energy, oceans from leftover moisture in the atmosphere, life birthed in essence from the struggle to power, rose to become the very WILL to power.
I am amazed at the scientific illiteracy of ideas like this. Disregarding the huge strides of biology and genetics and focusing with mouth-gaping admiration on the incoherent mumblings of the most prominent prophet of Naziism!
Good to remind us here, that atoms are just a theory.
Materialism is a Means to an End
Materialism, Nietzsche, and the Will to Power
Now I finally know why my physics professors laugh about Nietsche
Materialism is a good doctrin for scientistic progress. It is though not a good philosophy to lead your life by.
Materialism seems to only have an inability to account for the origin of life if you haven’t done the reading
7:40 Nonsense. Look into the field of abiogenesis.
Similar issues with cosmology
My German beer brought me here.
I came here to figure out what Nietzsche meant by Power and the Will to it, not the asinine abstractions of metaphysics.
I don't think that the will to power and materialism are truly in opposition.
Metaphysics by the Ancient Greeks? Really? Try Ancient Egyptians as far back as the 26/25th century BCE with Ptahhotep.
It is an extremely narrow view of Nietzsche he opposed not only materialism but any kind of moral doctrine whether founded in materialistic or idealistic metaphysical systems. Also, materialism is a redundant term and what is described as materialism is known as positivism.
"We seem to be ourselves elements of this world in the same sense as are other things we perceive." This hearkens back to the old occult concept of "As Above, So Below" (The structure of micro-cosmos - man - is fundamentally similar to the structure of macro-cosmos - the Universe).
This video disregards the evolution theory completely. Life is a mutation. The feeling of ownership of or own thoughts is explain trough evolutionary behaviorism.
then explain it.. I am waiting..
Because metaphysics was unquestionable in the West for over 1,000 years, Western philosophers abandoned interest in metaphysics. Western philosophy focused exclusively on logic, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. But we've reached a technological point with virtual reality and AI when we need to return to the pre-Socratic questions about the distinctions between existence and non-existence, living and non-living, the question of what consciousness and personhood actually are. Science, meanwhile, has destroyed the mechanistic Newtonian model of a perfectly ordered and ready-to-be-diagrammed universe. Quantum physics, string theory, etc present possible descriptions of a univese that is messy and a bit chaotic. Even Einstein, himself a Newtonian at heart, found it too much to bear. The West needs to confront anew the questions of metaphysics- especially ontology, teleology, and epistemology.
Democritus looks like Post Malone
will to respect will be appropriate.. not power..
Will, shmill... experience is not relient on a will to power.
Change the title - good video nonetheless
Nietzche didn't use Will to Power to describe the inanimate.
Dude! I'm officially tired of heading about nietche !
Give us some kierkeguard!!
I just did a video on Soren Kierkegaard and anxiety.
This went over my head. Will to power = energy? In fact, I can't even grasp the basic terminology here. Matter is distinct from energy, and from what I understand we're mostly interacting with and perceiving energy fields not matter, of which there is very little. So the very term materialism is problematic? But did Nietzche know this in a physical sense or is he being prophetic? Or did I misunderstand where he was going altogether? God.. I could have used some education :p
This is Nietzsche at his most rationalist, his least convincing.
'IF THOUGHT IS ENERGY, THEN CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES MATTER'
- ogl
Well, we sort of know now that Whitehead was somewhat wrong. We can in fact look at concrete, non-abstracted atoms through a microscope. They’re as concrete as individual chairs.
Google abiogenesis ffs
You guys are funny, outstanding videos and really dull t-shirts...
I thought that one's experience was contingency not to be trusted too much. Just saying.
Is this video a joke? Scientists can’t explain how life is formed from lifeless atoms? EVOLUTION describes the exact process.
Evolution is just a psyop concept about how A species lead to B and C species but he steel doesn't exaplain how A originale species is created from non material
Google: Abiogenesis
To Jordan: Jesus Christ: it's not a fucking Math Experiment. You have friends
Love
Steven
Nietzsche be like; but thats just like, my opinion, man.
This needs 1000% more Nietzsche or a change in title.
will to atoms