Thanks Abdullah; do you mean the one with the brown cover? It's Rudolf Carnap's Logical Structure of the World: www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002FKEROS/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=
Judging solely from this video, I have no clarity into what "verification" means exactly. If I say that a non-physical realm exists, and that you can verify the existence of this realm yourself reliably by taking a large dose of DMT, does this count as verification? If not, why is our everyday waking consciousness, in which we seem to inhabit a physical world, valued more than other states of consiousness, given that there essentially is no way to 'verify' which is closer to a hypothetical ontological truth? Just something that came to my mind, since I do not quite understand what counts as verification (and why), and what doesn't. Anyways, will continue watching the series
Something that i've thought about similar to this is whether or not we can prove the worlds we inhabit in dreams are real or not real vs the world we inhabit in 'waking' life. And similarly, to other 'realms' you can experience on psychedelics (though i personally find the experiences i've had on psychedelics to be more 'real' than any dream i've had). One thing we can do is predict what the waking world will be like in the future after waking up from sleep based on the world we inhabit before going to sleep. We can make predictions and measurements in our waking life that are consistent from one day to the next. We can't even begin to take measurements of anything in a dream that we can compare with later dreams, or make any kind of predictions about the worlds we inhabit in dreams that are falsifiable. I realize dreams are not a perfect analogy for psychedelics but i think it is a useful one. At the same time, i feel like you can learn certain truths about the waking world on psychedelics that are useful when you're not on psychedelics. I realize i'm kind of contradicting myself but i think there's something here worth considering.
So it seems that there two "stages" a true scientific theory should go through ; the first is the verifiability stage, in which case it will be either declared "scientific" or not, and the second is that of its truthfulness given its scientific nature. Now what happens when a theory passes the first stage and fails the second? Is it discarded altogether, as it should? Then, I have the impression that some "scientists" seem to care for their theories passing the first stage and then making sure they never make it to the second for fear of failing it.
He claims that Marx did not believe in revolution, which is absolutely false. From the last paragraph of the communist manifesto: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite! " Whether you think this is a good thing or not, Karl Marx definitely believed in the intentional intervention into current affairs by communist organizations.
I found this fascinating. Thank you for sharing it!
Thank you for sharing your wonderful lectures with us.
You're welcome, Kourosh... - Jack
great lectures, thanks for sharing
Thank you for these lectures. Sort of candy for the mind
Didn't Wittgenstein read metaphysical poetry to the Vienna circle and claim they completely miss understood him?
lol did I detect a tap on the watch two/ three mins before end ...very smooth
Why yes you did...8^)...
Thanks for the great lecture, can you tell me what is the name of the book you put in the last of the lecture ?
Thanks Abdullah; do you mean the one with the brown cover? It's Rudolf Carnap's Logical Structure of the World: www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002FKEROS/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=
Thanks a lot.
wow obrigado studied the subject twice Glasgow and stirling . loved your lecture. i sadly remain sadly an Aj Ayers fan ;)
PS ww11 or 1 ;) 1920
Thanks Castelo!
Judging solely from this video, I have no clarity into what "verification" means exactly. If I say that a non-physical realm exists, and that you can verify the existence of this realm yourself reliably by taking a large dose of DMT, does this count as verification?
If not, why is our everyday waking consciousness, in which we seem to inhabit a physical world, valued more than other states of consiousness, given that there essentially is no way to 'verify' which is closer to a hypothetical ontological truth?
Just something that came to my mind, since I do not quite understand what counts as verification (and why), and what doesn't. Anyways, will continue watching the series
Something that i've thought about similar to this is whether or not we can prove the worlds we inhabit in dreams are real or not real vs the world we inhabit in 'waking' life. And similarly, to other 'realms' you can experience on psychedelics (though i personally find the experiences i've had on psychedelics to be more 'real' than any dream i've had). One thing we can do is predict what the waking world will be like in the future after waking up from sleep based on the world we inhabit before going to sleep. We can make predictions and measurements in our waking life that are consistent from one day to the next. We can't even begin to take measurements of anything in a dream that we can compare with later dreams, or make any kind of predictions about the worlds we inhabit in dreams that are falsifiable. I realize dreams are not a perfect analogy for psychedelics but i think it is a useful one. At the same time, i feel like you can learn certain truths about the waking world on psychedelics that are useful when you're not on psychedelics. I realize i'm kind of contradicting myself but i think there's something here worth considering.
Hi Kevino, So: in what way "great"? Just wondering... Cheers, Jack
Will there be more lectures in the future? The most recent video was 3 years ago.
@@kayak1984 I think he covered all he meant to
So it seems that there two "stages" a true scientific theory should go through ; the first is the verifiability stage, in which case it will be either declared "scientific" or not, and the second is that of its truthfulness given its scientific nature. Now what happens when a theory passes the first stage and fails the second? Is it discarded altogether, as it should? Then, I have the impression that some "scientists" seem to care for their theories passing the first stage and then making sure they never make it to the second for fear of failing it.
These are great lectures but basically everything he says about Marx is wrong lmao
He claims that Marx did not believe in revolution, which is absolutely false. From the last paragraph of the communist manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite! "
Whether you think this is a good thing or not, Karl Marx definitely believed in the intentional intervention into current affairs by communist organizations.