You should check PBS Space Time and PBS Infinite Series. They have excellent videos as well. I'm not trying to compare them with PBS Ideal Channel, though. I love them three.
Radical empathy does exist, usually with children. Remember when you were little and you worried about the comfort of your stuffed animals? Or you saw the film "The Red Balloon," and you cried for the loneliness of the little balloon? We tend to lose this as we grow for a number of reasons. 1) we let go of fantasies and magical thinking, and inanimate objects with emotions at this point falls into this category; 2) we realize the burdens of the world are too vast and numerous for any of us to tackle completely, so we must pick and choose what will hold our focus. Most of us can't concern ourselves with the feelings of the dresser when human beings all over are suffering for many horrendous reasons.
Is it a radical empathy, though? I think it's more of an anthropomorphization and I believe there's a difference between the two of those concepts. Radical empathy, in my mind, is an ability to see things from *their* perspective without necessarily giving them human emotions and other human qualities. Which is why it's pretty much impossible for us. What do you think?
Hmm. That's a good point. But, by that measure, I'm not certain it is possible to see things from a perspective outside of the human perspective, since we lack reference to anything other than being human.
I'm not sure it matters a whole lot, except at an abstract level. Maybe we can never completely step outside our own experiential framework - we don't know what it's like to be anything but a human. But the important thing is that we can see ourselves in other things, imagine what it would be like to be that thing. It might involve some projection, to fill in the gaps of our experience, but the empathy is still there - a reaching out, a desire to realize the connections that already exist, a movement of unconscious reality into the limited realm of conscious thought.
Diana Watson Sounds more like empathy training wheels to me. We learn to crawl before we learn to walk as well. Like bipedal motion, concern for others is incredibly useful for survival. Granted crawling on the ground may be educational from time to time, but I wouldn't recommend it as a means of travel.
"You try to master and be clever within a system." I like this concept, and I think "play" benefits our understanding of all things in the way described in that quote. To explain, I'll take cutting vegetables as an example. I used to hate cutting vegetables for any reason, so when I had to I would usually find ways to get out of it or make it easier: use a vegetable peeler, toss them in a food processor, buy them pre-cut (usually at a premium), anything just to not have to do it. However, about six years ago I got a job at a grocery store doing nothing but cutting vegetables. Instead of despising my job, I decided to play. I found out the best way (for me) to peel and cut carrots. I got REALLY fast at cutting up sweet potatoes (and also developed some muscle with how often I did it). To (sort of) get back to the topic of this episode, I also developed a better understanding of those objects. I now know that the best time to get Brussels sprouts is after the first frost -- they're a little sweeter then. I understand that you need to cut tomatoes with a sharp knife, or a serrated one, because otherwise you'll just squash them. I didn't just learn these things -- I experienced them first hand. I was given the opportunity to just learn them (with some guidance, admittedly). I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that if you have an activity that is a chore, then you'll treat it as such -- just another thing you have to get done. If you say "I want to learn about X", then the knowledge necessary to learn about that thing might become overwhelming and you might just give up. If you simply take the time to play, you will better understand the activity and the objects involved. You'll also have an appreciation for the objects involved. At least, that has been my experience.
never really try to focus to hard when it comes to these videos i find that simly leting it wash over me and absorbing what i can is better. Sometimes i latch onto a familiar topic but i mostly just end up mulling over what was said while in the shower or something processing it a bit at a time. OK that got weird
I would have never understood any of this in my early twenties, either. (not sure what age you are). I'm early 30's now and it's a lot more meaningful.
Some ideas can take months to make sense. we are all oneness, we all know it is true but, our brain makes have to work for it. existence is a game, for every positive a negative. if it's all positive it is like jumping off a building.
I was surprised to find that this video forgoes almost any mention of the multiple eastern religious and philosophical traditions that arrived at similar conclusions regarding ideas of interconnectedness between everything in existence either concurrently, or prior to the Stoic philosophers. Keeping in mind that there tended not to be as sharp a distinction drawn between philosophy and religion in these south and east Asian schools of thought as we make (today) in the West. In particular, Vedic philosophy (the precursor of modern day Hinduism) revolves around a concept of universal soul, or breath (sanskrit: atman), which bears remarkable similarity to the stoic concept of pneuma, while predating it by centuries and probably millennia. Namely, atman refers to a universal soul that is present within all beings and objects in existence and fundamentally unifies them in the form of a greater cosmic whole (sanskrit: brahman), and has its etymological root in the sanskrit term for essence, breath, or soul. Indeed, there are some scholars who speculate that the Stoics may have been influenced by Buddhist thought, and thereby indirectly by the Vedic philosophy from which Buddhism diverged (6th - 4th c. BCE). Buddhism of course eschews the concept of a universal soul, instead denying its existence (pali: anatta, or "no soul"). Rather, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism (of which Zen/Ch'an is one school), everything in existence is considered to be "empty" of any sort of essence whatsoever (sanskrit: sunyata). According to Buddhist thinkers (e.g. Nagarjuna) this implies that everything must be "dependently co-arisen," or in plain english: interconnected. Otherwise change of any sort would be impossible due to each thing's immutable "essence". Daoist thought, originating in China during the Warring States period (4th - 3rd c. BCE), emerged independently, but shares many aspects with the two above traditions. In particular, the "Way" (Chinese: Dao) is referred to as a sort of universal process which gives rise to and binds together (i.e. interconnects) all the "10000 myriad things" in existence. I suppose 10000 was effectively synonymous with infinity in that time and place. When Buddhism spread into China, its interactions with Daoism would produce the syncretic traditions of Ch'an Buddhism (better known by the Japanese term Zen in the West). Obviously these are all woefully abridged summaries of each of these philosophical/religious traditions, but I hope it gives some indication as to the common themes found within each of them, and their remarkable similarity to the Western thinking on interconnectedness presented in this video. Of course Watts himself was heavily influenced by Zen and Daoist thought. Emerson too, was inspired by Vedic thought as well as the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most important texts in Hindu philosophy. I find it curious that so much of what Watts wrote and said in particular are attributed to him, when he was often merely transmitting (no doubt by his own admission) the philosophical developments of countless, often nameless, eastern philosophers who came before him. Authorship tends not to be a big concern in these traditions. Laozi, who supposedly wrote the Daodejing, is not even known to have existed with any certainty. Furthermore many of these ideas originated through oral transmission and so the original thinkers are lost to posterity. I guess I was just a little disappointed by how western/euro-centric this video came across, although this is perhaps unsurprising considering the intended audience, and the obscurity of most eastern belief systems in the west. I suppose many of us in our relatively secular society may be tempted to dismiss most of these developments in eastern philosophy outright, simply because their separation from religion tends to be less clear cut than what we're accustomed to between western philosophy and the Abrahamic faiths for instance. However, the Stoics themselves were by no means atheistic, nor of course was Emerson. Admittedly, I started composing this before the video was over (I know, shame on me), but I was also struck by Bogost's formulation of play, and a similar concept of "play" (sanskrit: lila, loosely translated as play) found in Indian philosophy. Here, at least in non-dualistic schools of thought, this play refers to the universe as the creative product of divinity (Brahman) engaging in "play" on a cosmic scale. Huh, I wonder how all this talk of philosophy and video games might play (heh) into the simulation hypothesis when it comes to cosmology... Nonetheless, I greatly enjoyed this, and it is very interesting to see how many commonalities exist between eastern and western thought on this topic, across the vast gulfs of time and distance. Also, I'm as pasty and godless as they come, so I don't think my comments can be attributed to some personal bias, haha. By the way, love everything you do Mike (and Crash Course Mythology is fantastic!), so hopefully I don't come across mean-spirited in any way. Just hoping to share a segment of the human philosophical heritage that is sadly overlooked all too often in the West. Cheers!
This video covered at least five major philosophers in 15 minutes, four of whom are named specifically as part of the game. To bring in an entire other tradition would make it even more overextended than it was. And while those philosophers have thoughts in common with Laozi, I think it's hard to argue that he's part of the same tradition as the Stoics. Treating Taoism as a brief aside would never really escape a tone of exoticising tokenism. It warrants its own video dealing with media inspired by it.
While I agree with Elliott that an already info dense episode would have been made unbearably so with the inclusion of this info, it is 100% relevant to the topic and deserves attention (perhaps in the comment response). Hope your comment makes it way to the top of the page where it belongs.
I'm a Zen Buddhist, and "If you are a poet," writes the contemporary Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, "you will see that there is a cloud in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper." We are all connected so literally I Appreciate Myself as I am Everything!
I found this video really therapeutic. I have a tendency to find myself overwhelmed by the apparent meaninglessness of everything and this is frequently a vehicle by which my depression engulfs me. I feel like even just over the past few years I've lost my ability to appreciate and "play" things (I hadn't used this phrase but I find it useful). I used to have a greater tendency to turn objects over in my hand, inspect their details, and appreciate their qualities. Considering these new ideas you've presented caused me to stumble upon a realization: I believe that in the past I appreciated these things and played them through the lens of consumerism and in my attempt to rid myself of some of my consumerist tendencies (primarily so I could stop spending all my money on useless shit and stop feeling I needed it to be happy to an extent that seems almost satirical now) I also rid myself of the framework I used to appreciate objects... I think through the multiple lenses you've shown in this video I may be able to regain some of that appreciation without the baggage of consumerism. Even in this video I just picked up the can of La Croix in front of me and started playing with it. Appreciating the sounds it makes, the visual properties it has. I'm not sure if anyone else has had a similar experience (I'd be interested if anyone has). I don't think this video has instantly solved this problem, but I do think that it has given me some concepts and words to help me understand this incredibly hard to describe feeling I deal with. So thanks, Mike. I think this video has opened my eyes more than any other you've made, and I've watched a ton of your videos, haha.
I love listening to the lectures of Watts. His ability to put into words the very thoughts in my head has a meditative effect, and I can't wait to play Everything. The scientific fact that everything is nothing but atoms and the space between them, to me is a strong enough notion to always strive for peace and contentedness on this journey through life. I say "journey" but what I really mean is "dance", because In the words of Alan Watts: “When we dance, the journey itself is the point, as when we play music the playing itself is the point. And exactly the same thing is true in meditation. Meditation is the discovery that the point of life is always arrived at in the immediate moment.” The Pantheistic belief that you and I are the universe happening, and everything is now, is a constant thought for me, and really grounds me, opens my eyes to new perspectives and brings me great spiritual joy.
“Sherlock Holmes observed that once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.”
I... guess I'm a philosopher now. Still blows my mind how not a single teacher paid to teach me calculus over the course of 12 years succeeded, yet I can learn and get a basic understanding of literally anything else in 15 minutes on the internet. Good show, man. **slow clap**
I thought so for a long time as well, however I think it's important to expel the notion of ownership of ideas. Buddhist philosophy might have said something much earlier - but this should not invalidate those which reach similar conclusions. When stepping back, it might only seem more "western" because you assign the very idea itself a location in the East - very interesting if you ask me ;)
Well, it's very different to consider that no one can "own" an idea and that anyone can come to a similar conclusion, and to observe someone reading a source material, altering some parts of it and getting it "out there" as if it was his/her own thought, her/his work and taking credit for it. I'm not saying that it's the case here, but "expelling ownership of ideas" does not prevent us from unmasking appropriation and false claims when someone try to pretend all came out of one's brain and work, when one actually took it all from elsewhere. In that case "no one own an idea" can then become an excuse or an hypocritical defense used to obscure the whole plagiarism.
Everything is connected by space. I've grown more and more appreciative of existence over the past five years or so, appreciative of people, some "things," and in general, nature (not just plants & animals). However, that perspective doesn't solely result from my acknowledging interconnectedness to everything, there are other contributions. Great video. I'm glad you opened this discussion up further.
It's so interesting that you broach this subject. I wrote a paper in grad school about interconnectivity in the film Stranger than Fiction. The film is so meta. Lots of folks I know hated it, but I love the idea of questioning our connection to the narratives governing our lives. STF brings up so many questions of destiny, fate, and control. Who controls our narrative? How connected are we to our actual narrative and to its writer? What happens when our narrative(s) fall(s) apart?
Some one who isn't me, did mushrooms, and had a mental version of the aforementioned game, whereby they ceased to just be themselves, eventually even human; began being shapes and colors and experienced infinite infinities of infinitely different sizes. That is the best way I can suggest experiencing the aforementioned game or being not-human.
When a person see a flower or any other thing. One person react calmly and fine, the other amazed and joyful. Whenever a person or people see the same thing, they don't always perceive it the same way. Perceiving is seeing, this how a person own reality is form of experience, notion or ideas etc. All you are is the result of your mind.
I feel like there is one aspect missing from all of this. Capacity. Our experiences and our exchange with the world around us comes down to our capacity to essentially disseminate and ultimately make sense of and apply the information to our experience of living. This capacity should be applied to everything in that everything has a certain level of capacity. Humans being one of the infinite possibilities of capacity. And like the Universe itself, we (along with everything else) are constantly changing, but not just in the physical sense but in our ability to comprehend and take in. This is what we think of as consciousness. What we see as evolution is this process of change and as we (along with everything else within existence) are constantly expanding our capacity and therefore perpetuating the complexity at which we operate. Similar to the periodic table of elements, from H umble beginnings, the Po ssibilities are endless.
Wonderif this relates in any wa to the sense of sadness we some times feel when seeing a damaged or addandon object. I have no understanding of what it is to be that torn up sofa on the side of the road, but i can i some way empathize with the fact that it has been damaged and neglected, as that is something that all things can experiance experiance.
Psychedelics not only show you this, but let you experience the blissful, loving interconnectedness of everything. Experiencing it is so much more profound than merely knowing it.
Okay, so, a few things: 1) What would Bogost think of David Lewis/Modal Realism? 2) Would Upcycling give objects more agency than they have on their own? 3) This episode made me think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series (The bowl of petunias/reincarnation) 4) I think the game mechanics would impact how enjoyable gamifying (made up word) the life of everyday objects is. For example, I haven't played it, but Everything looks way more enjoyable and easier to control than a game like I Am Bread. Because of this, does that mean that the individual designing the game imparts a forced perspective on what kind of lives objects lead? If so, would the game Everything be different in feel if it were designed by someone else? Does this lend credence to the idea that objects have a gaze of their own that they return to the individual they interact with? Furthermore, is this gaze different from person to person?
Bogost is cool, and relates because games, but for anyone interested, Galen Strawson's realistic monism (not a good name for it) deals with similar questions and is quite the trip down the rabbit hole. His basic premise is that physicalism (the interpretation that all phenomena reduce to physical explanations) (as in, you don't have a "mind") is *correct*... but actually that it results in panpsychism, or the theory that EVERYTHING has mind-like properties. His premises are pretty hard to argue with. Similarly, W. Jaworski theorizes on hylomorphism, which means that the lower-level constituents don't mean higher-level structure doesn't literally and formally exist, basically this video (YMMV) without the proscriptive talk of impressions. Others of interest are Dennett, Chalmers, Fodor, Nagel, and Searle (not saying they're right or wrong, just saying they're interesting). All part of a wicked philosophy class.
Whenever I am very stressed, I have a sort of mantra which I repeat to myself, "this is te flow of the universe, and I am part of it." I like to think of myself as part of everything in an equalizing way. Like, the universe is just this river in time of matter and energy and I'm somewhere in that. Every piece of myself has always been here and always will be even it's not exactly me. Of course, that just complicates the already complicated notion of identity, but I'm alright with that.
I think this is fascinating. To me, possibly more fascinating than imagining the internal state of concrete objects is the idea of things that we consider to be 'ephemeral' in a sense having an internal life as well. When you listen to brilliant composers or improvisers talk about the "character" or "texture" or "gravity" or "direction" of a section of music it's as though they've considered it as a singular object with inherent properties and states of its own and thus its own 'internal state' of sorts. Great poets and authors talk about this similarly with sentence structure and word painting too; it's as though once a sentence has been written it has its own internal state and texture and feeling and in a way, life.
Reminds me of Ah! My Goddess. Belldandy would often tell keiichi that the component or machine that he was working on "wanted" to be fixed or that it was pleased to serve such a kind master.
I cannot thumbs up this video hard enough, for both introducing me to this interesting game and also for the 4 spine-tingling syncronisities I confronted during this video
As a student of art history I think a lot about human relationships to very specific things. In particular I think about how art objects are viewed, valued, and created, three processes that have undergone much change in the last 200 years. Art is generally created for some audience and by some artist with the goal of having an effect on that audience. This frame suggests that art can only function when experienced by humans which contradicts the idea that all objects have independent experience. While some artists try to make work that operates beyond human experience or interaction most art is presented as for humans only.
Thanks for this, Mike. Long time IdeaChannel viewer, but this video really...landed. Keep on making these great deep dives. I really appreciate every one.
Whether objects have an interior existence is a fascinating question since we tend to anthromorphize our gadgets such as naming cars and or guitars after women. One of my favorite quotes from the dectective show Columbo is: "if you take care of your car your car will take care of you" . It would seem that by anthromorphizing an object we are perhaps more inclined to use and interact with said object in a more ethical manner? But this episode of idea channel is very timely considering the rampng up of both robotoics/A.I technology and the cultural/economic/philosophical ramifications of said technology. somewhat ironically, humans (especially those overcome with lust) have a tendancy to treat others as "things" moreso than we treat things as "things". For example, the brain is hardwired for the experience of paradoliea leading humans to see outlets or car headlights as faces, or images in the clouds. But perhaps we as humans have this need to philosophize about "things" as we are by nature tool makers and users?
Ideas exist as an interconnected collection of neural patterns shared across multiple brains. When we communicate with each other we morph these patterns and thus change the idea itself.
the definition of one thing is pretty tricky as well within itself. like, when i look at a chair i can name an infinite amount of "thing" just in the chair: half a chair, the other half, 1/4 a chair, 1/4 a chairleg, 1/8 a chair etc
When a friend recently asked what I was enjoying about "Everything," a game they couldn't see any clear goals or objectives in, I posited that "in the same way playing Zelda might make me say 'gee, it sure was cool the way I had to use Ganon's own power against him in order to save the day,' playing Everything makes me say 'gee, it sure was cool the way that sea anemone reminded me to forgive myself for the really dumb thing I said in fifth grade.'"
By total coincidence, I'm exactly halfway through an old favorite book of mine featuring a certain detective agency. Was expecting Dirk Gently to get a shout out this whole time. :(
not just an idea, everything [ie ALL THINGS] IS/are interconnected =] ; we just dont have the capacity to fully understand all of the connections yet... ; great vid btw =]
I'm a little surprised Pixar didn't get a mention. While I'd like to think I'd have been an empathetic person naturally and just by paying attention to my family, schooling, and the world around me, my empathy for objects specifically is definitely due to growing up watching Pixar movies. While Pixar is probably best known for anthropomorphizing objects or creatures we normally think of as either inanimate or non-sapient, even their movies about humans are focused on a sense of empathy. Up and Brave demonstrate the importance of intergenerational communication and empathy (while simultaneously making us feel for a mailbox, dogs, a tapestry, and bears), and The Incredibles teaches us to humanize people who are literally superhuman, which makes it easier to take our real life heroes off their mental pedestals. Pixar was my gateway to this concept of humanizing the non-human, but the reigning champion of empathy in my world is definitely Sir Terry Pratchett. His satirical fantasy Discworld series constantly explores the nature of life, death, the will to exist, and Death. That last one is an actual recurring character in his books, and star of several of them. Death, the anthropomorphic personification of the cessation of life, is one of the most fragile and sympathetic characters of the series. He struggles with his day to day duties because his very existence, down to his human skeleton in a robe appearance, is shaped by human thought. He even adopted a daughter and took on an apprentice because of his strange and often counterproductive love of humans, which is how he manages to have adventures with his granddaughter. Death's job is obviously to make sure everyone and everything living fades from life on schedule, but on the other side of that coin it is also his job to protect life on the Discworld as a whole from enemies that would see it snuffed out. These enemies, the auditors of the universe, manage to be immortal by avoiding not only life, but any semblance of personality and characterization. To be an individual, they maintain, is to be a being with a beginning and an end, so they deliberately remain interchangeable, faceless, and dull. The auditors are Death's foil in every way. Where Death is often benign and at worst inevitable in his duties, the auditors go out of their way to interfere with life in increasingly petty ways, including attempting to assassinate their universe's equivalent of Santa. Through his frequent appearances in the Discworld books, Death teaches the reader to empathize with everything, from tiny lifeforms like deep sea anemones to human-shaped concepts like Death, War, and Time. The Discworld books are full to the brim of fun characters, including many seemingly inanimate objects like the Luggage, which is a loyal trunk modeled after mimics, the classic D&D monster. The Luggage (and several wizards' staves in the series) is made of "sapient pearwood" and thus is literally alive and capable of thinking for itself. However, a discussion of empathy in Terry Pratchett's books would be incomplete without mentioning his warnings against a lack thereof. Through his marvelous witch character Granny Weatherwax, we are told that all evil, sin, or whatever you call badness of character starts when you treat "people as things." She says there are lots of ways to do damage, but that concept is always at the heart of it. Through Death, Granny Weatherwax, and a host of other colorful characters, Terry Pratchett teaches his readers to interact with the world with a little more empathy, and playfulness, than when we first picked up his books. I highly recommend them to anyone who reads.
I obviously can't speak to the inner lives, or lack thereof, of anything but myself, but as a person with pantheist and animist elements to his spiritual views I definitely hold the belief that all things, including those things that are component parts to other things, have at least some level of spiritual existence. Having these beliefs has definitely lead me to being much more considerate of the things I interact with and how I interact with them.
about the last thing you said: exercising sort of brain muscles to develop emotions and extend empathy to other things. this really gave me hope bc I think fascism works by alienating others, and capitalism works by numbing empathy down so that you don't feel bad about other people's bad situations. I think increased empathy can change the way our society runs.
I think that connection is an interesting topic - there are several theories talking about the connectivity of everything, so I think that's undeniable. Everything is connected to everything - either being created or beget by nature, humans, or a greater being. Constructing a hierarchy on which to base the connectivity of everything I think is where the discussion should instead turn to. In the video, you discussed a "universal empathy", and I do think that is possible, but first it would be important to unanimously agree on how we would order the levels of empathy attributed to different things. For example, I don't think bugs should receive the same amount of empathy as humans, but they should definitely still receive something. It's definitely an interesting topic - great video!
Why wouldn't be an empathy for all things be possible? Alan Watts certainly seemed to believe that there was liberation in the unconditional appreciation of the "good" and "bad", the non-polarities of existence and the "things" inside it.
Alan Watts was borrowing a lot from Eastern philosophy. I've been reading about the Heart Sutra lately, and I think it's less about all objects being the same, but rather about dissolving your ego and thinking about everything in non-duelist ways. In Tsai Chih Chung's interpretation of the the Heart Sutra, he illustrates this with a blade of grass. In one drawing the blade says "I am a tiny blade of grass." In the next the blade says "I am the meadow!"
This whole argument is very west vs. east. The dominant thinking in the west is Anthropocentric by nature (JudeoChristian thought mostly) where as eastern philosophy tends toward the illusion of physical reality and distinction between things. Of course Mikes mention of the bike pedal brings up a deeper problem. That of other minds. To my knowledge there is no great answer to this question in philosophy, but I know I am conscious because I experience my thoughts. While I can infer that other humans are also conscious because they behave similarly to me, I can't know for certain, because I cannot experience their consciousness. I see a similar discussion above about the brain being the seat of the mind, but as the commenter states that doesn't mean for certain that non biological brains can't have consciousness (AI anyone?) or that a physical brain is even necessary. Having said all that, I think there is at least a good argument that our anthropocentrism is justifiable. We have good evidence to believe that other humans, and even some higher mammals have consciousness, but none that anything else does. I've never seen an inanimate object display anything I associate with thought. Yes I realize that what I associate as thought might be incomplete, but how can I act otherwise without any other frame of reference?
Whether other minds exist in the bodies you see is irrelevant - as if you cannot tell if it exists or not then it must either be true or close enough to be indistinguishable from truth, and thus true by all practical means. Solipsism is only a dead end if one willingly ignores the fact that indistinguishable differences are by their very nature not worth consideration
Have you seen Errant Signal's video on Everything (The game)? The end transmission talked about how he's unable to examine the philosophy of Everything, and I think he now has his response.
I've recently been thinking a lot about this topic and it led in many ways to my developing a set of quasi-spiritual/religious beliefs. I understand the universe as being made up of two fundamental aspects: the creative/destructive force we call Entropy and on the other hand, all that exists within the universe and the interactions between them which I call The Pattern. All things in the universe rely upon entropy, by sacrificing some small amount of the pattern, we gain energy with which we can alter parts of The Pattern, usually as part of an attempt to increase to complexity of The Pattern. There is no judgement value in this creative/destructive aspect, it merely is, and my beliefs exist more to centre my ego away from myself and recognise the inherent sameness all things have before Entropy than to prescribe any behaviour. As part of The Pattern we recognise that one day, there won't be enough of The Pattern left to sacrifice to Entropy and the heat death of the universe will have arrived, but until that day we add what small variation upon reality we were fated to make. I also have been interested in Pan-Psychism and the idea of all matter having mind with complexity of mind arising as the complexity of the interactions between the constituent elements of your physical self increases. Therefore I view myself as a collective/hive mind of all of the cells in my body with my conscious self being more of a political representative of my body. I also understand the universe in hard deterministic terms and believe that my conscious mind is more like a process than a thing.
If objects are meant to be played and humans are themselves objects, it stands to reason that we should "play" each-other and by extension ourselves. Perhaps this is what Emerson meant by achieving unity.
+Alfred Gorman You don't understand the purpose of this show, do you? The point of the show is, at least in part, to take the time to treat ideas that are not normally considered "serious" more seriously and scrutinize ourselves, the world around us, and how they interact with each other. If you don't like "opinions presented as fact" then maybe you should steer clear of philosophy in general.
How have you been playing everything if it's not yet out? Anyway, what I find really interesting about ontology is it's relationship with theology. I consider myself an agnostic, or a theist free of institutionalized religion, and for me a lot of ways I've found to reach answers about the divinity has been through ontology. The description you gave of the game actually reminded me a lot to one of the philosophers that I value a lot in this kinda theologic analysis: Spinoza. The idea that the whole world, or the whole universe is part of god, and how even people are part of god has always stuck with me. For me the value of spirituality is that it gives us humility, in a way, because by realizing that there is something bigger than us forces us to accept the world as it is, instead of trying to force our will onto it (I know that some people would say the opposite when talking about the catholic church, for example, and how powerful some priests are... but in that case I feel like we are talking about the politics of a religious institution, and not the Philosophy of an spiritual or belief system). There are some examples of religions that share this view, like hinduism or taoism. But actually understanding the value of respecting other objects, things or entities in the same way we value ourselves or other people is very hard to grasp. The idea of putting all of these ideas into a videogame seems fantastic, because of the interactiveness of the medium, with this, these compelx ideas can be understood in a way that has never been approached before. I value the relationship of this kind of ontology with religion, because I myself am a person of faith, but it is also very interesting from a point of view of the ethics of empathy. ¿How can we truly be emphatic, and how can we be truly ethical beings if we never overcome the challenge that represents the otherness? Accepting the value of things as they are, and accepting the possibility that they exist as much as we do, is a step into building a new kind of ethics, ethics that ignore the differences and that have the possibility of growing into a new form of understanding of the world. From this we can build new ethics for science, for environmentalism, for medicine, for everything. This is something that I also could relate to Westworld in a way, because the atrocities that happen to the robots in the story are seen as actions towards objects, thus making empathy towards them inecesary, but then we discover that even though for the visitors of the park the hosts are merely objects, in reality they are indeed subjects. The man in black raping Dolores doesn't represent only the lack of robotic rights in the world of the future, it represents our contemporary struggle to have empathy towards minorities (like women) because how different they are. The men don't see women as part of the human race, or as part of the universe as beings that exists as part of a whole, they see their otherness, thus comes misogyny. But what if we could show the value innerent to each form of existance? What if we show, like in westworld, that the "others" that "aren't real people" suffer, and struggle, and cry and learn? Or what if we told people that even a rock deserves respect? Would that help change our conception of "the other"? Would we build a new form of empathy? Another thing I find interesting, is the relation of videogames with interaction and action. It reminds me a lot to phenomenology, and that seems really interesting, considering that in a way, phenomenology contradicts the philosophers that the game and your video talk about, ¿how can we be stoic or idealistic and ignore the appearances of the world, if we are experimenting it's existence and we are realizing the value of objects through a sensorial experience? Also, I feel like there is a lot to analyze from the perspective of the New Realism, but I've only heard conferences of this and never have I read a book of this new philosophical movement. But Markus Gabriel's ideas on why the world doesn't exists and how each aspect of the world exists in it's own realms but nevertheless, the realms all have a value even if we are talking about the realm of the tiny stuff (like rocks) or the realm of ideas, or the realm of animals, kinda works well with the idea of the ontology of the small things that you mentioned. I find this whole concept incredibly interesting, I need to play that game.
As an engineer, I'm often struck by the stark difference between my degree of "thing-empathy" & that of others. When I hear gears grinding or motors overrevving or see supports sagging under weight, I *feel* that stress & failure in a very visceral way, the same way I'd feel if I saw another person being physically tortured or mutilated. (Confession Bear: I have that lamp commercial saved on my work computer & sometimes watch it as therapy when I have to do failure testing on my designs.) The pragmatist philosophy streak in me leads me to imagine that a diversity of interpretations is essential here - if everyone felt the way I do about objects, we probably would have never developed past the stone age. (Grog not knap obsidian! Obsidian happy being obsidian!) On the other hand, as you rightly point out, cultivating an appreciation & respect for objects is training up your "appreciation & respect" skill tree - I doubt that reacting in horror when I see someone smash a Roomba with a hammer is desensitizing me to violence against people... ...brb... (The new lamp is much better, the new lamp is much better...)
I think a lot of us tried empathizing with objects when we were kids. We only stop doing it once we realize how many things there are and how difficult it would be to maintain that level of empathy and sense of interconnectedness.
Interesting ideas on the subject, I've been reading a lot about this kind of stuff recently for school and for pleasure, this channel is always quality.
Asimov has an interesting take on this idea of Everything Interconnected in his Foundation series through the planet of Gaia. I found it odd that while I felt I should celebrate the idea of Gaia spreading throughout the universe, I was actually dreading that sort of sameness you mentioned.
Also, I've never read Wittgenstein, but I recall an epigraph in John Crowley's novel "Beasts" that "If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him". If this is true, are we any more likely to understand the motivations of a street lamp? No. The effect of a game like "Everything" is to frame human motivations in a non-human format, and see what happens. Science Fiction and Fantasy literature has covered this for over a century by pushing humans into non-"human" environments and the attraction has always been that people are people no matter their circumstance. Here we should note two divergences: the Pixar lamps, and the Disch story "The Brave Little Toaster", both precursors of Things Having Motives even if they were mostly human ones--connected to the "Everything" game in at least one way: the inanimate objects will always act according to the will of a thinking human, no matter the conceit.
I saw the title and I was hoping for something to do w/ Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently, or the BBCamerica TV show... Ah well this is good too. I'm always ready for Dirk Gently. Everything is connected.
At the end of the day, I think the answer one gives to that question ultimately depends on whether or not they believe God exists. (As one who believes in God, let me explain) I feel like this whole line of reasoning is only sustainable so long as one divorces from their mind any and all notions of creation/craftsmanship... To elaborate, rather than asking "is everything connected" right off the bat, we should first clarify whether we mean that connection to be "direct", as is espoused in Everything and as is talked about in this video, or whether that connection is "indirect". By indirect, I mean that no two objects have any relation to one another in and of themselves, but find connection through having been created/crafted (ultimately) by a conscious being with intent. One does not interact with a cup and draw closer in understanding to the cup itself, but, rather, to the one who made that cup(and to the one(s) who made the one who made that cup and so on and so on). I find it hard to argue, in a "direct" understanding of everything, that, if I were to craft a cup, I had simply wrought into existence a wholly separate entity no more connected to me than any other thing in existence. It seems more natural to, on some level, find the cup to be in some way defined by having been created with some level of intent by me. The cup is then inexplicably connected to its creator, and is connected to all things besides through its creator who, through a myriad of relations, is connected to all else. Moving from the unnatural to natural, the continuing chain of indirect relations would necessarily need to per-suppose the existence of a "Common Creator" or God who is the creator all natural things and people are ultimately connected to.\ I don't know If I managed to make that thought clear, but, in short: I find that saying "everything is directly connected" necessarily presupposes 1. the non-existence of God, 2. the irrelevance of human connection 3. the irrelevance of human intent in creation. These three presuppositions are, to me, both unappealing and hard to argue for objectively.
Nice thoughts, though I wonder how you distinguish between "created" things and "natural things." For example, is the act of creation in the context of a human fashioning an object fundamentally different from a volcano "creating" igneous rock? What about a tree "creating" CO2? Termites creating mounds? Stars creating iron and energy? It seems to me that the very idea of "creation" or "craftsmanship" is dependent on assigning agency to a creator. It would be, I think, fairly easy to take the human idea of agency and assign it to any one of these examples; who is to say that the termite mound is not fundamentally related to the termites who made it, as your cup is related to you? But is that the tree and the CO2, or the Star making Iron? It is difficult to draw the line as to where one stops granting agency. Another classic issue with the human intent view is that the very idea of agency is dependent upon perspective. The classic example is that of agriculture: Are humans clever beings who have tamed plants and bred them to suit their needs, or are agricultural plants the crafty manipulators who have succeeded in making humans so dependent on them that they have nearly guaranteed the survival and propagation of their species? Simple flowers and garden vegetables have conquered the world this way. With this in mind, can one say with certainty that your cup owes it's existence and is intimately connected to you and not that Cups, as a recurring pattern or "species" of matter, have guaranteed their continued reproduction by virtue of their use to humans? I think your assertion that the "connection" argument presupposes the non-existence of God is true in a way but a little overreaching. It certainly presupposes that Humans are material beings that operate within the universe as part of it, as opposed to disembodied souls that somehow act on the universe from outside. I don't think either of these views necessarily require or refute the existence of a God of some kind, though one's starting postulate certainly affects what sort of god (or gods) one might presume to exist (or not exist). Good, thoughtful comment!
Thank you for humoring me ^_^ If I may attempt to explain myself: As far as my distinction between natural and created, it's really only that "natural" things are devoid of human creation. That muddy definition, however, is really only meant to be used loosely... Is there a fundamental difference between human creation and things being created naturally? No, it's all just a question of who's consciousness(es) is/are behind a given object/creature. Keeping in mind the existence of God, all "natural" things (through a rather extended chain of cause and effect) would ultimately find their "connection" in Him. Because all things natural are indirectly connected to one another through God, so too are all things created by man since it is from the "natural" that man creates. To put it another way, when an individual makes a large scale model of the city of New York in Minecraft, the work becomes inseparably linked to their creator. HOWEVER, that work is ALSO linked to the game's creators who fashioned and crafted the framework which made the model possible. And, then again, the work is linked to the actual city of new york and so is in turn linked to all those individuals who had a hand in its creation. Point being, this minecraft build "sings" of its creator, the creators of the game, and the city which it emulates. So too would a cup be connected to its creator while also the Creator of the matter and laws of nature that made it's creation possible and the ones who created other cups from which this one cup was modeled after. A star making iron (and so on) and such would all be indirectly linked to God as they are all simply operating in accordance with the intent of the Creator. And so all purely natural things are connected to God and God alone until another will acts upon them As far as agency goes, I personally find that line of reasoning a little precarious because it presupposes a will/consciousness of sorts within ALL things despite no evidence nor argument to sustain that point. It's all a step well beyond Plato's realm of ideas really, one where the ideas are conscious and are actively warring with one another in the minds of mortals and with the world itself... So, to me, it's simply natural to say cups are connected to their creators. If pressed, I would go so far as to say that the design of the world by God was such that the creation of the cup was inevitable and designed for in advance. (In much the same way houses in minecraft were an inevitability and intended design solution for players to make on their own). Regardless, I'd never give any level of agency to plants or cups themselves, only their creators or ultimately God who would be behind the building blocks and systems employed. In all cases, things are interconnected to one another through their creators and shared Creator. I'm not sure I see quite what you mean when you put forth that neither "direct" nor "indirect" relations necessarily bear on the existence of a God, could you explain? Thank you again for your insight. ^_^
"It's all just a question of who's consciousness(es) is/are behind a given object/creature." This seems to presuppose that consciousness as an entity/phenomenon exists outside of the realm of normal matter, and acts on it from some other plane of existance. Indeed, if this is the case then all human innovations do "sing of their creators" as you suggest. The tricky bit is pinning down the true nature of consciousness (and, for that matter, the meaning of the word "creation"). I think that while it is technically impossible to disprove the assertion that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon, it is far more likely that consciousness arises as a self perpetuating pattern of matter that operates within the physical confines of the universe. In this case, it is redundant to say that the cup is fundamentally linked to the consciousness that created it; of course it is, but no more so than that consciousness is related to the natural processes that created IT, and the fundamental matter (atoms and so forth) that makes up both the human being AND the cup are mutually related to the processes of cosmic fusion and fission that produced the elements as we know them in the early universe. The cup and the human are two forks on the unimaginably deep fractal of physical relationships that is the universe. Now we come to the problem of "creation." If by "creation" you mean "the act of causing something to arise out of nothing," then humans have never done anything of the kind. Indeed, if there ever has been nothing, the existence of a God is eminently plausible, though the very concept of empty void seems difficult to swallow, since (as Alan Watts frequently said in his talks on eastern religion) the very idea of nothing (no-thing) is defined in relation to the existence of things. The classic analogy is that the idea of black has no meaning without knowledge of white, and vice versa, or opposites imply each other. This is the basic idea of Yin and Yang. So, then, it seems obvious that humans have never done anything so extreme as to create something out of nothing, and if it has ever been done, surely only God can be responsible (Einstein and Hawking, among others, have admitted as much). So what do we mean when we talk of "human creations"? (this question, incidentally, is still relevant even if we take the supernatural view of human consciousness) It seems to me that when (to continue the example) a human crafts a cup (I prefer not to use the word create, unless your cups spring fully formed from your head alla Zeus), what they are really doing is REARRANGING preexisting matter in such a way that it performs a certain function. We may then say, well then, the physical material of the cup may not bear the mark of the human creator, but surely the functionality of the cup bears the mark of consciousness? Certainly the cup is useful to humans, but even the functionality of the cup is simply taking advantage of a preexisting property of liquids that they can be contained by solids with interior cavities of sufficient volume. Every puddle, tidepool, lake and ocean in the universe is topologically nothing more or less than a cup; the distinction between all of these lies solely in the human mind. "As far as agency goes, I personally find that line of reasoning a little precarious because it presupposes a will/consciousness of sorts within ALL things despite no evidence nor argument to sustain that point." I feel like you slightly missed my point here. The idea is not to suggest that all things fundamentally have a will/consciousness; that, as you say, is a ridiculous assertion with no evidence to back it up. This lack of evidence is part of my point; that is: agency, as a concept, has no fundamental meaning. If we say that conscious beings have agency (as opposed to unconscious matter/objects), then we run into the thorny question of where to draw the line of consciousness. Are all animals conscious? Are some animals more conscious than others? Are there degrees of consciousness? If agency is tied to consciousness, then how can plants like the venus fly trap actively kill conscious if not through at least some rudimentary agency? Do not amoebas exhibit agency when they hunt smaller organisms, despite their single cells? What about viruses? All these exhibit agency, the virus is acting on it's host cell, but we would hardly say that viruses are conscious. Why then, is it so much more of a stretch to say that a star is not acting on the elements in it's core in order to prolong it's life? A star is obviously unconscious, but is it more or less so than the virus? All this is not to say that all things have consciousness but to make it clear that consciousness itself is not a cut and dried phenomenon, and that agency is a construct that humans use to make sense of the world by ascribing it to other things. Furthermore, even if we do grant that there is consciousness and unconsciousness and a clear distinction between them (which I think is unlikely), we still run into the sticky point of what it means to be unconscious. As far as I can tell unconscious things are simply not-conscious, and now we run into the Yin/Yang problem again. How can one have a consciousness without unconscious matter? How could one have the idea of unconscious matter without a consciousness to contemplate it? Like Black and White, these two imply each other. Now if we return to the issue of making, this means that the cup implies the maker and the maker implies the cup. This way of saying it hardly sounds revolutionary. Let's try saying it slightly differently. It is not unreasonable, I think, to say that because Black implies White a universe in which Black exists necessitates the existence of White, and vise versa. But now we can say in the same way that because cup and maker imply each other, a universe that contains cups cannot help but contain makers, and vise versa. In other words, you are just as dependent on the cup as the cup is on you! You exist because of the cup. One can go through this reciprocity process with anything you can think of, and I bet it will hold up. This is what Watts means when he says that everything is connected; If the universe cannot be anything other than it is, then every part of the universe (no matter how small or large) implies the whole thing.
*Samuel* In my opinion, the notion that everything is directly connected only presupposes the non-existence of _some kinds_ of Gods, but not others, and certainly not the whole concept of "deity/higher being/s" itself. Take one of the Pandeist Gods I've heard of for example. This God, without conscious intention or foreknowledge (necessarily) made every molecule in universe _from itself/it's "body"_, and so, everything is connected because no matter what is born or picked up and carved into something and changes into something else for whatever reason- it doesn't matter everything is made OF God. Comparing those, you can see how differing notions of "creation" and "God" can change the whole perspective on the situation. I don't understand how interconnectedness could make human connection or intention of human creation irrelevant, though... Could you explain what you mean?
If a cup has a purpose in relation to a person, isn't that relationship just as important as its relationship to any creator? Whether the cup was created by god or man, whether the man was created by god or cup, they are simply there interacting. To me, it is of supreme difficulty to allow the simplicity of plain relationships to be life's focus.
In one of his books on " out of body experience " Monroe talks about living as a blade of grass, I wonder if consciousness is a single entity experiencing itself in different nodes, or maybe the single electron traveling through time theory would explain it. As usual more questions.
I remember hearing a story about how a the rear end of horses influenced the size of almos all our transportation vehicles including the space shuttle. Just thinking that objects, and animals, shape our lives in ways we often can't see through their physical shape. Don't know where I want to get with this.
The interconnectedness of forces, space and time is something we as civilization need to explore much further, in the realms of the #FractalUniverse We need something like 'Building A Universe Competition' #BAUniC to debate ideas, evolve language to better express those ideas, evolve imagination to handle concepts and turn concepts into formulas and ultimately into a computer code able to render a slice of our shared mathematical universe.
I'm surprised an episode dealing with ontology in the western tradition didn't have any mention of the presocratics. The ideas of relation and interconnection in Parmenides and Heraclitus underlie every later project of ontology and metaphysics in the Hellenistic tradition and the Stoic conception of the cosmos is lifted directly from Empedocles and Anaxagoras. And generally the presocratics established a frame for approaching metaphysics and ontology in the west that would continue to persist (e.g. Hegel, Heidegger etc. )
Makes me think of Romantically Apocalyptic in which an out of control search engine has given everything from the sun to cake slices processors to calculate and best serve there function - then personality so that people can interact with them. Humanity has since been almost wiped out but all the objects keep trying to for fill there function as best they can. At one point a rock lectures the last(?) human(?) about treating it and its fellow rocks with respect, and there is a whole story about an elevator button trying to maintain standers in it's post-apocalyptic hotel.
I find that this is a good topic to frame the discussion of perspectives and empathy. that is, how we think about empathy and how we think about the other and how we relate to the other. in many ways, I find that it's easier to understand the similarities or viewpoints between the micro and the macro, but much less so the similarities or viewpoints between either of those and the anthro. when we think of things on the same level as ourselves, the same scale as ourselves, we have an innate, I think, instinct to focus inwardly on ourselves. there is a selfishness present at that level. but on the scales of extreme wideview or extreme smallview, we appreciate more easily and intuitively a much less centered frame of mind and a much more interconnected frame of mind. yet all of these frames of mind or points of view are incomplete. there is a certain tendency of humans to think of "nature" or "interconnectedness" as, ironically, excluding humanity or self. but humans, both as individuals and as a group, are also part of nature. and I think it's important to recognize the importance of both individuality AND connectedness.
Very practically, "The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up" by Marie Kondo brings this sort of intentionality to socks and underwear. In her process you thank them for their service before you put them in your drawer to rest. Strange to Westerners, but maybe more common in Eastern philosophy?
We are none of us alone. Even as we exhale it is inhaled by others. The light that shines upon me shines upon my neighbor as well. In this way everything is connected. Everything is connected to everything else. In this way I am connected to my friend even as I am connected to my enemy. In this way there is no difference between me and my friend. In this way there is no difference between me and my enemy. We are none of us alone
It's hard for humans to appreciate non-humans, but also to appreciate other humans which is something that the comment section of any video will display. So be nice to your fellow commenters, and also fire hydrants.
Thanks... I now understand how everything is connected. I had an idea of how but now it seems more real. I will project a quick scope of it for you. If everything was just one thing then in all is one. If one were to look back at itself in doing so a question is created. This question if answered creates a secondary location from the one. Between the question and the answer is space and a first and second so direction of time. So from everything which was one is now divided. This division is the particle development of everything from one. The relationship between these divisions becomes the connection and the division that separates the questions from one another. So in truth this reveals that everything as one or part is only ever the singularity of the smallest part of the whole at any given moment. If in observations we were able to see the smallest part of this equation it would still only be as small as the question. Because in our ability to see this we would already be as far separated as knowing the answer. Therefore already part of the whole looking back.
Please never stop making these.
You are the best thing on this website.
Oh yeah?
Thing! :D :D :D :D :D
You should check PBS Space Time and PBS Infinite Series. They have excellent videos as well.
I'm not trying to compare them with PBS Ideal Channel, though. I love them three.
Well that's unfortunate
haha
Radical empathy does exist, usually with children. Remember when you were little and you worried about the comfort of your stuffed animals? Or you saw the film "The Red Balloon," and you cried for the loneliness of the little balloon? We tend to lose this as we grow for a number of reasons. 1) we let go of fantasies and magical thinking, and inanimate objects with emotions at this point falls into this category; 2) we realize the burdens of the world are too vast and numerous for any of us to tackle completely, so we must pick and choose what will hold our focus. Most of us can't concern ourselves with the feelings of the dresser when human beings all over are suffering for many horrendous reasons.
Is it a radical empathy, though? I think it's more of an anthropomorphization and I believe there's a difference between the two of those concepts. Radical empathy, in my mind, is an ability to see things from *their* perspective without necessarily giving them human emotions and other human qualities. Which is why it's pretty much impossible for us. What do you think?
I often find it hard even to relate to myself - much less the chair I sit upon. I really wonder what it's like to be human, as I don't seem to know.
Hmm. That's a good point. But, by that measure, I'm not certain it is possible to see things from a perspective outside of the human perspective, since we lack reference to anything other than being human.
I'm not sure it matters a whole lot, except at an abstract level. Maybe we can never completely step outside our own experiential framework - we don't know what it's like to be anything but a human. But the important thing is that we can see ourselves in other things, imagine what it would be like to be that thing. It might involve some projection, to fill in the gaps of our experience, but the empathy is still there - a reaching out, a desire to realize the connections that already exist, a movement of unconscious reality into the limited realm of conscious thought.
Diana Watson Sounds more like empathy training wheels to me. We learn to crawl before we learn to walk as well. Like bipedal motion, concern for others is incredibly useful for survival. Granted crawling on the ground may be educational from time to time, but I wouldn't recommend it as a means of travel.
"You try to master and be clever within a system."
I like this concept, and I think "play" benefits our understanding of all things in the way described in that quote. To explain, I'll take cutting vegetables as an example. I used to hate cutting vegetables for any reason, so when I had to I would usually find ways to get out of it or make it easier: use a vegetable peeler, toss them in a food processor, buy them pre-cut (usually at a premium), anything just to not have to do it. However, about six years ago I got a job at a grocery store doing nothing but cutting vegetables. Instead of despising my job, I decided to play. I found out the best way (for me) to peel and cut carrots. I got REALLY fast at cutting up sweet potatoes (and also developed some muscle with how often I did it). To (sort of) get back to the topic of this episode, I also developed a better understanding of those objects. I now know that the best time to get Brussels sprouts is after the first frost -- they're a little sweeter then. I understand that you need to cut tomatoes with a sharp knife, or a serrated one, because otherwise you'll just squash them. I didn't just learn these things -- I experienced them first hand. I was given the opportunity to just learn them (with some guidance, admittedly).
I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that if you have an activity that is a chore, then you'll treat it as such -- just another thing you have to get done. If you say "I want to learn about X", then the knowledge necessary to learn about that thing might become overwhelming and you might just give up. If you simply take the time to play, you will better understand the activity and the objects involved. You'll also have an appreciation for the objects involved. At least, that has been my experience.
All this...went over my head.
Taqu3 All of it dude. Im going to have to watch this again and take notes.
never really try to focus to hard when it comes to these videos i find that simly leting it wash over me and absorbing what i can is better. Sometimes i latch onto a familiar topic but i mostly just end up mulling over what was said while in the shower or something processing it a bit at a time. OK that got weird
I would have never understood any of this in my early twenties, either. (not sure what age you are). I'm early 30's now and it's a lot more meaningful.
Some ideas can take months to make sense. we are all oneness, we all know it is true but, our brain makes have to work for it. existence is a game, for every positive a negative. if it's all positive it is like jumping off a building.
Congrats on you though, for going out of your comfort zone and trying to learn new things.
I was surprised to find that this video forgoes almost any mention of the multiple eastern religious and philosophical traditions that arrived at similar conclusions regarding ideas of interconnectedness between everything in existence either concurrently, or prior to the Stoic philosophers. Keeping in mind that there tended not to be as sharp a distinction drawn between philosophy and religion in these south and east Asian schools of thought as we make (today) in the West.
In particular, Vedic philosophy (the precursor of modern day Hinduism) revolves around a concept of universal soul, or breath (sanskrit: atman), which bears remarkable similarity to the stoic concept of pneuma, while predating it by centuries and probably millennia. Namely, atman refers to a universal soul that is present within all beings and objects in existence and fundamentally unifies them in the form of a greater cosmic whole (sanskrit: brahman), and has its etymological root in the sanskrit term for essence, breath, or soul.
Indeed, there are some scholars who speculate that the Stoics may have been influenced by Buddhist thought, and thereby indirectly by the Vedic philosophy from which Buddhism diverged (6th - 4th c. BCE). Buddhism of course eschews the concept of a universal soul, instead denying its existence (pali: anatta, or "no soul"). Rather, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism (of which Zen/Ch'an is one school), everything in existence is considered to be "empty" of any sort of essence whatsoever (sanskrit: sunyata). According to Buddhist thinkers (e.g. Nagarjuna) this implies that everything must be "dependently co-arisen," or in plain english: interconnected. Otherwise change of any sort would be impossible due to each thing's immutable "essence".
Daoist thought, originating in China during the Warring States period (4th - 3rd c. BCE), emerged independently, but shares many aspects with the two above traditions. In particular, the "Way" (Chinese: Dao) is referred to as a sort of universal process which gives rise to and binds together (i.e. interconnects) all the "10000 myriad things" in existence. I suppose 10000 was effectively synonymous with infinity in that time and place. When Buddhism spread into China, its interactions with Daoism would produce the syncretic traditions of Ch'an Buddhism (better known by the Japanese term Zen in the West).
Obviously these are all woefully abridged summaries of each of these philosophical/religious traditions, but I hope it gives some indication as to the common themes found within each of them, and their remarkable similarity to the Western thinking on interconnectedness presented in this video.
Of course Watts himself was heavily influenced by Zen and Daoist thought. Emerson too, was inspired by Vedic thought as well as the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most important texts in Hindu philosophy. I find it curious that so much of what Watts wrote and said in particular are attributed to him, when he was often merely transmitting (no doubt by his own admission) the philosophical developments of countless, often nameless, eastern philosophers who came before him. Authorship tends not to be a big concern in these traditions. Laozi, who supposedly wrote the Daodejing, is not even known to have existed with any certainty. Furthermore many of these ideas originated through oral transmission and so the original thinkers are lost to posterity.
I guess I was just a little disappointed by how western/euro-centric this video came across, although this is perhaps unsurprising considering the intended audience, and the obscurity of most eastern belief systems in the west. I suppose many of us in our relatively secular society may be tempted to dismiss most of these developments in eastern philosophy outright, simply because their separation from religion tends to be less clear cut than what we're accustomed to between western philosophy and the Abrahamic faiths for instance. However, the Stoics themselves were by no means atheistic, nor of course was Emerson.
Admittedly, I started composing this before the video was over (I know, shame on me), but I was also struck by Bogost's formulation of play, and a similar concept of "play" (sanskrit: lila, loosely translated as play) found in Indian philosophy. Here, at least in non-dualistic schools of thought, this play refers to the universe as the creative product of divinity (Brahman) engaging in "play" on a cosmic scale. Huh, I wonder how all this talk of philosophy and video games might play (heh) into the simulation hypothesis when it comes to cosmology...
Nonetheless, I greatly enjoyed this, and it is very interesting to see how many commonalities exist between eastern and western thought on this topic, across the vast gulfs of time and distance. Also, I'm as pasty and godless as they come, so I don't think my comments can be attributed to some personal bias, haha. By the way, love everything you do Mike (and Crash Course Mythology is fantastic!), so hopefully I don't come across mean-spirited in any way. Just hoping to share a segment of the human philosophical heritage that is sadly overlooked all too often in the West. Cheers!
This video covered at least five major philosophers in 15 minutes, four of whom are named specifically as part of the game. To bring in an entire other tradition would make it even more overextended than it was. And while those philosophers have thoughts in common with Laozi, I think it's hard to argue that he's part of the same tradition as the Stoics. Treating Taoism as a brief aside would never really escape a tone of exoticising tokenism. It warrants its own video dealing with media inspired by it.
exoticising tokenism...now that's a fancy word i'm glad i learned today, thank you Sir.
While I agree with Elliott that an already info dense episode would have been made unbearably so with the inclusion of this info, it is 100% relevant to the topic and deserves attention (perhaps in the comment response). Hope your comment makes it way to the top of the page where it belongs.
i think i love your mind Steven Irwin
Awww
I'm a Zen Buddhist, and "If you are a poet," writes the contemporary Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, "you will see that there is a cloud in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper." We are all connected so literally I Appreciate Myself as I am Everything!
I found this video really therapeutic. I have a tendency to find myself overwhelmed by the apparent meaninglessness of everything and this is frequently a vehicle by which my depression engulfs me. I feel like even just over the past few years I've lost my ability to appreciate and "play" things (I hadn't used this phrase but I find it useful).
I used to have a greater tendency to turn objects over in my hand, inspect their details, and appreciate their qualities. Considering these new ideas you've presented caused me to stumble upon a realization: I believe that in the past I appreciated these things and played them through the lens of consumerism and in my attempt to rid myself of some of my consumerist tendencies (primarily so I could stop spending all my money on useless shit and stop feeling I needed it to be happy to an extent that seems almost satirical now) I also rid myself of the framework I used to appreciate objects... I think through the multiple lenses you've shown in this video I may be able to regain some of that appreciation without the baggage of consumerism. Even in this video I just picked up the can of La Croix in front of me and started playing with it. Appreciating the sounds it makes, the visual properties it has.
I'm not sure if anyone else has had a similar experience (I'd be interested if anyone has). I don't think this video has instantly solved this problem, but I do think that it has given me some concepts and words to help me understand this incredibly hard to describe feeling I deal with. So thanks, Mike. I think this video has opened my eyes more than any other you've made, and I've watched a ton of your videos, haha.
I love listening to the lectures of Watts. His ability to put into words the very thoughts in my head has a meditative effect, and I can't wait to play Everything.
The scientific fact that everything is nothing but atoms and the space between them, to me is a strong enough notion to always strive for peace and contentedness on this journey through life. I say "journey" but what I really mean is "dance", because In the words of Alan Watts:
“When we dance, the journey itself is the point, as when we play music the playing itself is the point. And exactly the same thing is true in meditation. Meditation is the discovery that the point of life is always arrived at in the immediate moment.”
The Pantheistic belief that you and I are the universe happening, and everything is now, is a constant thought for me, and really grounds me, opens my eyes to new perspectives and brings me great spiritual joy.
yes but where does The Brave Little Toaster fit into all this?
I was really hoping you would slip a reference to Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency into this one.
AK Bosch and from "I Heart Huckabees", with Dustin Howfman and the blanket
AK Bosch Ditto!!
Its a really great and underrated show (great books too)
AK Bosch same ma dude. I saw the title and was like 'Dirk Gently!?' but ah well, I'm always down for idea channel regardless.
“Sherlock Holmes observed that once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.”
I... guess I'm a philosopher now.
Still blows my mind how not a single teacher paid to teach me calculus over the course of 12 years succeeded, yet I can learn and get a basic understanding of literally anything else in 15 minutes on the internet. Good show, man. **slow clap**
FINALLY, BEEN WAITING FOR THIS CONCEPT TO BE TALKED ABOUT
I was always under the impression that Watts was mainly trying to 'westernize' Buddhist philosophy. This is an interesting take on Watts.
I thought so for a long time as well, however I think it's important to expel the notion of ownership of ideas. Buddhist philosophy might have said something much earlier - but this should not invalidate those which reach similar conclusions. When stepping back, it might only seem more "western" because you assign the very idea itself a location in the East - very interesting if you ask me ;)
Well, it's very different to consider that no one can "own" an idea and that anyone can come to a similar conclusion, and to observe someone reading a source material, altering some parts of it and getting it "out there" as if it was his/her own thought, her/his work and taking credit for it.
I'm not saying that it's the case here, but "expelling ownership of ideas" does not prevent us from unmasking appropriation and false claims when someone try to pretend all came out of one's brain and work, when one actually took it all from elsewhere. In that case "no one own an idea" can then become an excuse or an hypocritical defense used to obscure the whole plagiarism.
Everything is connected by space. I've grown more and more appreciative of existence over the past five years or so, appreciative of people, some "things," and in general, nature (not just plants & animals). However, that perspective doesn't solely result from my acknowledging interconnectedness to everything, there are other contributions.
Great video. I'm glad you opened this discussion up further.
This reminds me of the view that stuffed animals, dolls, and similar children's toys have a soul, and thus are deserving of empathy and respect.
It's so interesting that you broach this subject. I wrote a paper in grad school about interconnectivity in the film Stranger than Fiction. The film is so meta. Lots of folks I know hated it, but I love the idea of questioning our connection to the narratives governing our lives. STF brings up so many questions of destiny, fate, and control. Who controls our narrative? How connected are we to our actual narrative and to its writer? What happens when our narrative(s) fall(s) apart?
Some one who isn't me, did mushrooms, and had a mental version of the aforementioned game, whereby they ceased to just be themselves, eventually even human; began being shapes and colors and experienced infinite infinities of infinitely different sizes.
That is the best way I can suggest experiencing the aforementioned game or being not-human.
Well that's a new way to pronounce Epictetus
When a person see a flower or any other thing. One person react calmly and fine, the other amazed and joyful. Whenever a person or people see the same thing, they don't always perceive it the same way. Perceiving is seeing, this how a person own reality is form of experience, notion or ideas etc. All you are is the result of your mind.
I feel like there is one aspect missing from all of this. Capacity. Our experiences and our exchange with the world around us comes down to our capacity to essentially disseminate and ultimately make sense of and apply the information to our experience of living. This capacity should be applied to everything in that everything has a certain level of capacity. Humans being one of the infinite possibilities of capacity. And like the Universe itself, we (along with everything else) are constantly changing, but not just in the physical sense but in our ability to comprehend and take in. This is what we think of as consciousness. What we see as evolution is this process of change and as we (along with everything else within existence) are constantly expanding our capacity and therefore perpetuating the complexity at which we operate. Similar to the periodic table of elements, from H umble beginnings, the Po ssibilities are endless.
Wonderif this relates in any wa to the sense of sadness we some times feel when seeing a damaged or addandon object. I have no understanding of what it is to be that torn up sofa on the side of the road, but i can i some way empathize with the fact that it has been damaged and neglected, as that is something that all things can experiance experiance.
Basically don't take things for granted. Being able to experience anything as to everything is the gift to enjoy.
Psychedelics not only show you this, but let you experience the blissful, loving interconnectedness of everything. Experiencing it is so much more profound than merely knowing it.
Okay, so, a few things:
1) What would Bogost think of David Lewis/Modal Realism?
2) Would Upcycling give objects more agency than they have on their own?
3) This episode made me think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series (The bowl of petunias/reincarnation)
4) I think the game mechanics would impact how enjoyable gamifying (made up word) the life of everyday objects is. For example, I haven't played it, but Everything looks way more enjoyable and easier to control than a game like I Am Bread. Because of this, does that mean that the individual designing the game imparts a forced perspective on what kind of lives objects lead? If so, would the game Everything be different in feel if it were designed by someone else? Does this lend credence to the idea that objects have a gaze of their own that they return to the individual they interact with? Furthermore, is this gaze different from person to person?
Virtual Virtual reality.
Sorta fell off this channel a couple years ago, I'm glad the quality is as good as (or better than) I remember! Excited to get back into it.
Now, I need the Idea Channel treatment for every video game.
Bogost is cool, and relates because games, but for anyone interested, Galen Strawson's realistic monism (not a good name for it) deals with similar questions and is quite the trip down the rabbit hole. His basic premise is that physicalism (the interpretation that all phenomena reduce to physical explanations) (as in, you don't have a "mind") is *correct*... but actually that it results in panpsychism, or the theory that EVERYTHING has mind-like properties. His premises are pretty hard to argue with. Similarly, W. Jaworski theorizes on hylomorphism, which means that the lower-level constituents don't mean higher-level structure doesn't literally and formally exist, basically this video (YMMV) without the proscriptive talk of impressions. Others of interest are Dennett, Chalmers, Fodor, Nagel, and Searle (not saying they're right or wrong, just saying they're interesting). All part of a wicked philosophy class.
How could physicalism be correct with the existence of fictional things being "real" (in the sense that they exist)?
Whenever I am very stressed, I have a sort of mantra which I repeat to myself, "this is te flow of the universe, and I am part of it." I like to think of myself as part of everything in an equalizing way. Like, the universe is just this river in time of matter and energy and I'm somewhere in that. Every piece of myself has always been here and always will be even it's not exactly me. Of course, that just complicates the already complicated notion of identity, but I'm alright with that.
psychedelics made me appreciate the interconnectivity of all things.
I feel like there was a missed opportunity to use a Gif from the brave little toaster
I think this is fascinating. To me, possibly more fascinating than imagining the internal state of concrete objects is the idea of things that we consider to be 'ephemeral' in a sense having an internal life as well. When you listen to brilliant composers or improvisers talk about the "character" or "texture" or "gravity" or "direction" of a section of music it's as though they've considered it as a singular object with inherent properties and states of its own and thus its own 'internal state' of sorts. Great poets and authors talk about this similarly with sentence structure and word painting too; it's as though once a sentence has been written it has its own internal state and texture and feeling and in a way, life.
Reminds me of Ah! My Goddess. Belldandy would often tell keiichi that the component or machine that he was working on "wanted" to be fixed or that it was pleased to serve such a kind master.
I cannot thumbs up this video hard enough, for both introducing me to this interesting game and also for the 4 spine-tingling syncronisities I confronted during this video
As a student of art history I think a lot about human relationships to very specific things. In particular I think about how art objects are viewed, valued, and created, three processes that have undergone much change in the last 200 years. Art is generally created for some audience and by some artist with the goal of having an effect on that audience. This frame suggests that art can only function when experienced by humans which contradicts the idea that all objects have independent experience. While some artists try to make work that operates beyond human experience or interaction most art is presented as for humans only.
Next week's video should be: Are There Separations Between Anything?
Thanks for this, Mike. Long time IdeaChannel viewer, but this video really...landed. Keep on making these great deep dives. I really appreciate every one.
Whether objects have an interior existence is a fascinating question since we tend to anthromorphize our gadgets such as naming cars and or guitars after women. One of my favorite quotes from the dectective show Columbo is: "if you take care of your car your car will take care of you" . It would seem that by anthromorphizing an object we are perhaps more inclined to use and interact with said object in a more ethical manner? But this episode of idea channel is very timely considering the rampng up of both robotoics/A.I technology and the cultural/economic/philosophical ramifications of said technology. somewhat ironically, humans (especially those overcome with lust) have a tendancy to treat others as "things" moreso than we treat things as "things". For example, the brain is hardwired for the experience of paradoliea leading humans to see outlets or car headlights as faces, or images in the clouds. But perhaps we as humans have this need to philosophize about "things" as we are by nature tool makers and users?
The Blanket from "I Heart Huckabees" explains
Ideas exist as an interconnected collection of neural patterns shared across multiple brains. When we communicate with each other we morph these patterns and thus change the idea itself.
Everything is connected trough bacon
Kevin Bacon
the definition of one thing is pretty tricky as well within itself.
like, when i look at a chair i can name an infinite amount of "thing" just in the chair: half a chair, the other half, 1/4 a chair, 1/4 a chairleg, 1/8 a chair etc
When a friend recently asked what I was enjoying about "Everything," a game they couldn't see any clear goals or objectives in, I posited that "in the same way playing Zelda might make me say 'gee, it sure was cool the way I had to use Ganon's own power against him in order to save the day,' playing Everything makes me say 'gee, it sure was cool the way that sea anemone reminded me to forgive myself for the really dumb thing I said in fifth grade.'"
By total coincidence, I'm exactly halfway through an old favorite book of mine featuring a certain detective agency. Was expecting Dirk Gently to get a shout out this whole time. :(
AHHHHHHH STOP IM GOING TO BECOME A HORDER
The recognition that we are all made up of Star Stuff makes you callous about returning people to dust.
not just an idea, everything [ie ALL THINGS] IS/are interconnected =] ; we just dont have the capacity to fully understand all of the connections yet... ; great vid btw =]
This kinda makes me think of The Power of Now By Eckhart Tolle
Great Video! Can't believe you didn't reference Pixars ability to give objects a motivation and purpose.
I'm a little surprised Pixar didn't get a mention. While I'd like to think I'd have been an empathetic person naturally and just by paying attention to my family, schooling, and the world around me, my empathy for objects specifically is definitely due to growing up watching Pixar movies. While Pixar is probably best known for anthropomorphizing objects or creatures we normally think of as either inanimate or non-sapient, even their movies about humans are focused on a sense of empathy. Up and Brave demonstrate the importance of intergenerational communication and empathy (while simultaneously making us feel for a mailbox, dogs, a tapestry, and bears), and The Incredibles teaches us to humanize people who are literally superhuman, which makes it easier to take our real life heroes off their mental pedestals.
Pixar was my gateway to this concept of humanizing the non-human, but the reigning champion of empathy in my world is definitely Sir Terry Pratchett. His satirical fantasy Discworld series constantly explores the nature of life, death, the will to exist, and Death. That last one is an actual recurring character in his books, and star of several of them. Death, the anthropomorphic personification of the cessation of life, is one of the most fragile and sympathetic characters of the series. He struggles with his day to day duties because his very existence, down to his human skeleton in a robe appearance, is shaped by human thought. He even adopted a daughter and took on an apprentice because of his strange and often counterproductive love of humans, which is how he manages to have adventures with his granddaughter. Death's job is obviously to make sure everyone and everything living fades from life on schedule, but on the other side of that coin it is also his job to protect life on the Discworld as a whole from enemies that would see it snuffed out. These enemies, the auditors of the universe, manage to be immortal by avoiding not only life, but any semblance of personality and characterization. To be an individual, they maintain, is to be a being with a beginning and an end, so they deliberately remain interchangeable, faceless, and dull. The auditors are Death's foil in every way. Where Death is often benign and at worst inevitable in his duties, the auditors go out of their way to interfere with life in increasingly petty ways, including attempting to assassinate their universe's equivalent of Santa. Through his frequent appearances in the Discworld books, Death teaches the reader to empathize with everything, from tiny lifeforms like deep sea anemones to human-shaped concepts like Death, War, and Time.
The Discworld books are full to the brim of fun characters, including many seemingly inanimate objects like the Luggage, which is a loyal trunk modeled after mimics, the classic D&D monster. The Luggage (and several wizards' staves in the series) is made of "sapient pearwood" and thus is literally alive and capable of thinking for itself. However, a discussion of empathy in Terry Pratchett's books would be incomplete without mentioning his warnings against a lack thereof. Through his marvelous witch character Granny Weatherwax, we are told that all evil, sin, or whatever you call badness of character starts when you treat "people as things." She says there are lots of ways to do damage, but that concept is always at the heart of it. Through Death, Granny Weatherwax, and a host of other colorful characters, Terry Pratchett teaches his readers to interact with the world with a little more empathy, and playfulness, than when we first picked up his books. I highly recommend them to anyone who reads.
6:31 The Oversoul?
*(has Crota's End flashbacks)*
first i watch shoeonhead's video about a brave little toaster and now this. Gonna take my body pillow out on a date now.
I obviously can't speak to the inner lives, or lack thereof, of anything but myself, but as a person with pantheist and animist elements to his spiritual views I definitely hold the belief that all things, including those things that are component parts to other things, have at least some level of spiritual existence. Having these beliefs has definitely lead me to being much more considerate of the things I interact with and how I interact with them.
I'm really interested in what you cannot play as in "everything". Can you play as a sidewalk? Can you play as a car seat? If no, why not?
Jonathan Edwards also wrote a lot on ontology and phenomenology, and was almost a Monist of sorts.
first
r/place episode when?
QuantumSeanyGlass watch the one by ThisExists it's quite good
Aye! That's where I heard about it. :( I wanna hear Mike's opinion though.
This
This is fascinating, never heard about r/place before. Please, Mike!
+
about the last thing you said: exercising sort of brain muscles to develop emotions and extend empathy to other things. this really gave me hope bc I think fascism works by alienating others, and capitalism works by numbing empathy down so that you don't feel bad about other people's bad situations. I think increased empathy can change the way our society runs.
I think that connection is an interesting topic - there are several theories talking about the connectivity of everything, so I think that's undeniable. Everything is connected to everything - either being created or beget by nature, humans, or a greater being. Constructing a hierarchy on which to base the connectivity of everything I think is where the discussion should instead turn to. In the video, you discussed a "universal empathy", and I do think that is possible, but first it would be important to unanimously agree on how we would order the levels of empathy attributed to different things. For example, I don't think bugs should receive the same amount of empathy as humans, but they should definitely still receive something. It's definitely an interesting topic - great video!
Why wouldn't be an empathy for all things be possible? Alan Watts certainly seemed to believe that there was liberation in the unconditional appreciation of the "good" and "bad", the non-polarities of existence and the "things" inside it.
Alan Watts was borrowing a lot from Eastern philosophy. I've been reading about the Heart Sutra lately, and I think it's less about all objects being the same, but rather about dissolving your ego and thinking about everything in non-duelist ways. In Tsai Chih Chung's interpretation of the the Heart Sutra, he illustrates this with a blade of grass. In one drawing the blade says "I am a tiny blade of grass." In the next the blade says "I am the meadow!"
This whole argument is very west vs. east. The dominant thinking in the west is Anthropocentric by nature (JudeoChristian thought mostly) where as eastern philosophy tends toward the illusion of physical reality and distinction between things.
Of course Mikes mention of the bike pedal brings up a deeper problem. That of other minds. To my knowledge there is no great answer to this question in philosophy, but I know I am conscious because I experience my thoughts. While I can infer that other humans are also conscious because they behave similarly to me, I can't know for certain, because I cannot experience their consciousness.
I see a similar discussion above about the brain being the seat of the mind, but as the commenter states that doesn't mean for certain that non biological brains can't have consciousness (AI anyone?) or that a physical brain is even necessary.
Having said all that, I think there is at least a good argument that our anthropocentrism is justifiable. We have good evidence to believe that other humans, and even some higher mammals have consciousness, but none that anything else does. I've never seen an inanimate object display anything I associate with thought. Yes I realize that what I associate as thought might be incomplete, but how can I act otherwise without any other frame of reference?
Whether other minds exist in the bodies you see is irrelevant - as if you cannot tell if it exists or not then it must either be true or close enough to be indistinguishable from truth, and thus true by all practical means. Solipsism is only a dead end if one willingly ignores the fact that indistinguishable differences are by their very nature not worth consideration
Have you seen Errant Signal's video on Everything (The game)? The end transmission talked about how he's unable to examine the philosophy of Everything, and I think he now has his response.
I've recently been thinking a lot about this topic and it led in many ways to my developing a set of quasi-spiritual/religious beliefs. I understand the universe as being made up of two fundamental aspects: the creative/destructive force we call Entropy and on the other hand, all that exists within the universe and the interactions between them which I call The Pattern.
All things in the universe rely upon entropy, by sacrificing some small amount of the pattern, we gain energy with which we can alter parts of The Pattern, usually as part of an attempt to increase to complexity of The Pattern. There is no judgement value in this creative/destructive aspect, it merely is, and my beliefs exist more to centre my ego away from myself and recognise the inherent sameness all things have before Entropy than to prescribe any behaviour. As part of The Pattern we recognise that one day, there won't be enough of The Pattern left to sacrifice to Entropy and the heat death of the universe will have arrived, but until that day we add what small variation upon reality we were fated to make.
I also have been interested in Pan-Psychism and the idea of all matter having mind with complexity of mind arising as the complexity of the interactions between the constituent elements of your physical self increases. Therefore I view myself as a collective/hive mind of all of the cells in my body with my conscious self being more of a political representative of my body. I also understand the universe in hard deterministic terms and believe that my conscious mind is more like a process than a thing.
If objects are meant to be played and humans are themselves objects, it stands to reason that we should "play" each-other and by extension ourselves. Perhaps this is what Emerson meant by achieving unity.
This game would be epic to play while experiencing ego death on acid ^_^
i hope Trump cutting the pbs funding won't affect idea channel.
why do you think they need more sponsors?
they have a patreon, they may have to dial it down, but im sure they will still be around
Then, there's PornHub for the last resort! :D
Alfred Gorman why? is entertaining and education video free to the public a bad thing?
+Alfred Gorman
You don't understand the purpose of this show, do you?
The point of the show is, at least in part, to take the time to treat ideas that are not normally considered "serious" more seriously and scrutinize ourselves, the world around us, and how they interact with each other.
If you don't like "opinions presented as fact" then maybe you should steer clear of philosophy in general.
Man I was really looking forward to seeing some more of Mike's sick pen-twirling skills when he got to playing objects.
How have you been playing everything if it's not yet out?
Anyway, what I find really interesting about ontology is it's relationship with theology. I consider myself an agnostic, or a theist free of institutionalized religion, and for me a lot of ways I've found to reach answers about the divinity has been through ontology. The description you gave of the game actually reminded me a lot to one of the philosophers that I value a lot in this kinda theologic analysis: Spinoza. The idea that the whole world, or the whole universe is part of god, and how even people are part of god has always stuck with me. For me the value of spirituality is that it gives us humility, in a way, because by realizing that there is something bigger than us forces us to accept the world as it is, instead of trying to force our will onto it (I know that some people would say the opposite when talking about the catholic church, for example, and how powerful some priests are... but in that case I feel like we are talking about the politics of a religious institution, and not the Philosophy of an spiritual or belief system). There are some examples of religions that share this view, like hinduism or taoism. But actually understanding the value of respecting other objects, things or entities in the same way we value ourselves or other people is very hard to grasp. The idea of putting all of these ideas into a videogame seems fantastic, because of the interactiveness of the medium, with this, these compelx ideas can be understood in a way that has never been approached before.
I value the relationship of this kind of ontology with religion, because I myself am a person of faith, but it is also very interesting from a point of view of the ethics of empathy. ¿How can we truly be emphatic, and how can we be truly ethical beings if we never overcome the challenge that represents the otherness? Accepting the value of things as they are, and accepting the possibility that they exist as much as we do, is a step into building a new kind of ethics, ethics that ignore the differences and that have the possibility of growing into a new form of understanding of the world. From this we can build new ethics for science, for environmentalism, for medicine, for everything. This is something that I also could relate to Westworld in a way, because the atrocities that happen to the robots in the story are seen as actions towards objects, thus making empathy towards them inecesary, but then we discover that even though for the visitors of the park the hosts are merely objects, in reality they are indeed subjects. The man in black raping Dolores doesn't represent only the lack of robotic rights in the world of the future, it represents our contemporary struggle to have empathy towards minorities (like women) because how different they are. The men don't see women as part of the human race, or as part of the universe as beings that exists as part of a whole, they see their otherness, thus comes misogyny. But what if we could show the value innerent to each form of existance? What if we show, like in westworld, that the "others" that "aren't real people" suffer, and struggle, and cry and learn? Or what if we told people that even a rock deserves respect? Would that help change our conception of "the other"? Would we build a new form of empathy?
Another thing I find interesting, is the relation of videogames with interaction and action. It reminds me a lot to phenomenology, and that seems really interesting, considering that in a way, phenomenology contradicts the philosophers that the game and your video talk about, ¿how can we be stoic or idealistic and ignore the appearances of the world, if we are experimenting it's existence and we are realizing the value of objects through a sensorial experience?
Also, I feel like there is a lot to analyze from the perspective of the New Realism, but I've only heard conferences of this and never have I read a book of this new philosophical movement. But Markus Gabriel's ideas on why the world doesn't exists and how each aspect of the world exists in it's own realms but nevertheless, the realms all have a value even if we are talking about the realm of the tiny stuff (like rocks) or the realm of ideas, or the realm of animals, kinda works well with the idea of the ontology of the small things that you mentioned.
I find this whole concept incredibly interesting, I need to play that game.
As an engineer, I'm often struck by the stark difference between my degree of "thing-empathy" & that of others. When I hear gears grinding or motors overrevving or see supports sagging under weight, I *feel* that stress & failure in a very visceral way, the same way I'd feel if I saw another person being physically tortured or mutilated.
(Confession Bear: I have that lamp commercial saved on my work computer & sometimes watch it as therapy when I have to do failure testing on my designs.)
The pragmatist philosophy streak in me leads me to imagine that a diversity of interpretations is essential here - if everyone felt the way I do about objects, we probably would have never developed past the stone age. (Grog not knap obsidian! Obsidian happy being obsidian!) On the other hand, as you rightly point out, cultivating an appreciation & respect for objects is training up your "appreciation & respect" skill tree - I doubt that reacting in horror when I see someone smash a Roomba with a hammer is desensitizing me to violence against people...
...brb... (The new lamp is much better, the new lamp is much better...)
Radical Empathy?
The Enrichment Center reminds you that the Weighted Companion Cube will never threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak.
I think a lot of us tried empathizing with objects when we were kids. We only stop doing it once we realize how many things there are and how difficult it would be to maintain that level of empathy and sense of interconnectedness.
Interesting ideas on the subject, I've been reading a lot about this kind of stuff recently for school and for pleasure, this channel is always quality.
I’ve been thinking with and as things/people as long as I can remember. And I have non stop anxiety. Thanks nature
Asimov has an interesting take on this idea of Everything Interconnected in his Foundation series through the planet of Gaia. I found it odd that while I felt I should celebrate the idea of Gaia spreading throughout the universe, I was actually dreading that sort of sameness you mentioned.
Also, I've never read Wittgenstein, but I recall an epigraph in John Crowley's novel "Beasts" that "If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him". If this is true, are we any more likely to understand the motivations of a street lamp?
No. The effect of a game like "Everything" is to frame human motivations in a non-human format, and see what happens. Science Fiction and Fantasy literature has covered this for over a century by pushing humans into non-"human" environments and the attraction has always been that people are people no matter their circumstance.
Here we should note two divergences: the Pixar lamps, and the Disch story "The Brave Little Toaster", both precursors of Things Having Motives even if they were mostly human ones--connected to the "Everything" game in at least one way: the inanimate objects will always act according to the will of a thinking human, no matter the conceit.
I saw the title and I was hoping for something to do w/ Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently, or the BBCamerica TV show... Ah well this is good too. I'm always ready for Dirk Gently. Everything is connected.
Everything is connected. Nothing is also connected.
At the end of the day, I think the answer one gives to that question ultimately depends on whether or not they believe God exists. (As one who believes in God, let me explain)
I feel like this whole line of reasoning is only sustainable so long as one divorces from their mind any and all notions of creation/craftsmanship...
To elaborate, rather than asking "is everything connected" right off the bat, we should first clarify whether we mean that connection to be "direct", as is espoused in Everything and as is talked about in this video, or whether that connection is "indirect".
By indirect, I mean that no two objects have any relation to one another in and of themselves, but find connection through having been created/crafted (ultimately) by a conscious being with intent. One does not interact with a cup and draw closer in understanding to the cup itself, but, rather, to the one who made that cup(and to the one(s) who made the one who made that cup and so on and so on).
I find it hard to argue, in a "direct" understanding of everything, that, if I were to craft a cup, I had simply wrought into existence a wholly separate entity no more connected to me than any other thing in existence. It seems more natural to, on some level, find the cup to be in some way defined by having been created with some level of intent by me. The cup is then inexplicably connected to its creator, and is connected to all things besides through its creator who, through a myriad of relations, is connected to all else.
Moving from the unnatural to natural, the continuing chain of indirect relations would necessarily need to per-suppose the existence of a "Common Creator" or God who is the creator all natural things and people are ultimately connected to.\
I don't know If I managed to make that thought clear, but, in short:
I find that saying "everything is directly connected" necessarily presupposes 1. the non-existence of God, 2. the irrelevance of human connection 3. the irrelevance of human intent in creation. These three presuppositions are, to me, both unappealing and hard to argue for objectively.
Nice thoughts, though I wonder how you distinguish between "created" things and "natural things." For example, is the act of creation in the context of a human fashioning an object fundamentally different from a volcano "creating" igneous rock? What about a tree "creating" CO2? Termites creating mounds? Stars creating iron and energy? It seems to me that the very idea of "creation" or "craftsmanship" is dependent on assigning agency to a creator. It would be, I think, fairly easy to take the human idea of agency and assign it to any one of these examples; who is to say that the termite mound is not fundamentally related to the termites who made it, as your cup is related to you? But is that the tree and the CO2, or the Star making Iron? It is difficult to draw the line as to where one stops granting agency.
Another classic issue with the human intent view is that the very idea of agency is dependent upon perspective. The classic example is that of agriculture: Are humans clever beings who have tamed plants and bred them to suit their needs, or are agricultural plants the crafty manipulators who have succeeded in making humans so dependent on them that they have nearly guaranteed the survival and propagation of their species? Simple flowers and garden vegetables have conquered the world this way. With this in mind, can one say with certainty that your cup owes it's existence and is intimately connected to you and not that Cups, as a recurring pattern or "species" of matter, have guaranteed their continued reproduction by virtue of their use to humans?
I think your assertion that the "connection" argument presupposes the non-existence of God is true in a way but a little overreaching. It certainly presupposes that Humans are material beings that operate within the universe as part of it, as opposed to disembodied souls that somehow act on the universe from outside. I don't think either of these views necessarily require or refute the existence of a God of some kind, though one's starting postulate certainly affects what sort of god (or gods) one might presume to exist (or not exist).
Good, thoughtful comment!
Thank you for humoring me ^_^
If I may attempt to explain myself:
As far as my distinction between natural and created, it's really only that "natural" things are devoid of human creation. That muddy definition, however, is really only meant to be used loosely...
Is there a fundamental difference between human creation and things being created naturally? No, it's all just a question of who's consciousness(es) is/are behind a given object/creature.
Keeping in mind the existence of God, all "natural" things (through a rather extended chain of cause and effect) would ultimately find their "connection" in Him. Because all things natural are indirectly connected to one another through God, so too are all things created by man since it is from the "natural" that man creates.
To put it another way, when an individual makes a large scale model of the city of New York in Minecraft, the work becomes inseparably linked to their creator. HOWEVER, that work is ALSO linked to the game's creators who fashioned and crafted the framework which made the model possible. And, then again, the work is linked to the actual city of new york and so is in turn linked to all those individuals who had a hand in its creation.
Point being, this minecraft build "sings" of its creator, the creators of the game, and the city which it emulates. So too would a cup be connected to its creator while also the Creator of the matter and laws of nature that made it's creation possible and the ones who created other cups from which this one cup was modeled after.
A star making iron (and so on) and such would all be indirectly linked to God as they are all simply operating in accordance with the intent of the Creator. And so all purely natural things are connected to God and God alone until another will acts upon them
As far as agency goes, I personally find that line of reasoning a little precarious because it presupposes a will/consciousness of sorts within ALL things despite no evidence nor argument to sustain that point. It's all a step well beyond Plato's realm of ideas really, one where the ideas are conscious and are actively warring with one another in the minds of mortals and with the world itself...
So, to me, it's simply natural to say cups are connected to their creators. If pressed, I would go so far as to say that the design of the world by God was such that the creation of the cup was inevitable and designed for in advance. (In much the same way houses in minecraft were an inevitability and intended design solution for players to make on their own).
Regardless, I'd never give any level of agency to plants or cups themselves, only their creators or ultimately God who would be behind the building blocks and systems employed.
In all cases, things are interconnected to one another through their creators and shared Creator.
I'm not sure I see quite what you mean when you put forth that neither "direct" nor "indirect" relations necessarily bear on the existence of a God, could you explain?
Thank you again for your insight. ^_^
"It's all just a question of who's consciousness(es) is/are behind a given object/creature."
This seems to presuppose that consciousness as an entity/phenomenon exists outside of the realm of normal matter, and acts on it from some other plane of existance. Indeed, if this is the case then all human innovations do "sing of their creators" as you suggest. The tricky bit is pinning down the true nature of consciousness (and, for that matter, the meaning of the word "creation"). I think that while it is technically impossible to disprove the assertion that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon, it is far more likely that consciousness arises as a self perpetuating pattern of matter that operates within the physical confines of the universe. In this case, it is redundant to say that the cup is fundamentally linked to the consciousness that created it; of course it is, but no more so than that consciousness is related to the natural processes that created IT, and the fundamental matter (atoms and so forth) that makes up both the human being AND the cup are mutually related to the processes of cosmic fusion and fission that produced the elements as we know them in the early universe. The cup and the human are two forks on the unimaginably deep fractal of physical relationships that is the universe.
Now we come to the problem of "creation." If by "creation" you mean "the act of causing something to arise out of nothing," then humans have never done anything of the kind. Indeed, if there ever has been nothing, the existence of a God is eminently plausible, though the very concept of empty void seems difficult to swallow, since (as Alan Watts frequently said in his talks on eastern religion) the very idea of nothing (no-thing) is defined in relation to the existence of things. The classic analogy is that the idea of black has no meaning without knowledge of white, and vice versa, or opposites imply each other. This is the basic idea of Yin and Yang.
So, then, it seems obvious that humans have never done anything so extreme as to create something out of nothing, and if it has ever been done, surely only God can be responsible (Einstein and Hawking, among others, have admitted as much). So what do we mean when we talk of "human creations"? (this question, incidentally, is still relevant even if we take the supernatural view of human consciousness) It seems to me that when (to continue the example) a human crafts a cup (I prefer not to use the word create, unless your cups spring fully formed from your head alla Zeus), what they are really doing is REARRANGING preexisting matter in such a way that it performs a certain function. We may then say, well then, the physical material of the cup may not bear the mark of the human creator, but surely the functionality of the cup bears the mark of consciousness? Certainly the cup is useful to humans, but even the functionality of the cup is simply taking advantage of a preexisting property of liquids that they can be contained by solids with interior cavities of sufficient volume. Every puddle, tidepool, lake and ocean in the universe is topologically nothing more or less than a cup; the distinction between all of these lies solely in the human mind.
"As far as agency goes, I personally find that line of reasoning a little precarious because it presupposes a will/consciousness of sorts within ALL things despite no evidence nor argument to sustain that point."
I feel like you slightly missed my point here. The idea is not to suggest that all things fundamentally have a will/consciousness; that, as you say, is a ridiculous assertion with no evidence to back it up. This lack of evidence is part of my point; that is: agency, as a concept, has no fundamental meaning. If we say that conscious beings have agency (as opposed to unconscious matter/objects), then we run into the thorny question of where to draw the line of consciousness. Are all animals conscious? Are some animals more conscious than others? Are there degrees of consciousness? If agency is tied to consciousness, then how can plants like the venus fly trap actively kill conscious if not through at least some rudimentary agency? Do not amoebas exhibit agency when they hunt smaller organisms, despite their single cells? What about viruses? All these exhibit agency, the virus is acting on it's host cell, but we would hardly say that viruses are conscious. Why then, is it so much more of a stretch to say that a star is not acting on the elements in it's core in order to prolong it's life? A star is obviously unconscious, but is it more or less so than the virus?
All this is not to say that all things have consciousness but to make it clear that consciousness itself is not a cut and dried phenomenon, and that agency is a construct that humans use to make sense of the world by ascribing it to other things. Furthermore, even if we do grant that there is consciousness and unconsciousness and a clear distinction between them (which I think is unlikely), we still run into the sticky point of what it means to be unconscious. As far as I can tell unconscious things are simply not-conscious, and now we run into the Yin/Yang problem again. How can one have a consciousness without unconscious matter? How could one have the idea of unconscious matter without a consciousness to contemplate it? Like Black and White, these two imply each other. Now if we return to the issue of making, this means that the cup implies the maker and the maker implies the cup. This way of saying it hardly sounds revolutionary. Let's try saying it slightly differently. It is not unreasonable, I think, to say that because Black implies White a universe in which Black exists necessitates the existence of White, and vise versa. But now we can say in the same way that because cup and maker imply each other, a universe that contains cups cannot help but contain makers, and vise versa. In other words, you are just as dependent on the cup as the cup is on you! You exist because of the cup. One can go through this reciprocity process with anything you can think of, and I bet it will hold up. This is what Watts means when he says that everything is connected; If the universe cannot be anything other than it is, then every part of the universe (no matter how small or large) implies the whole thing.
*Samuel* In my opinion, the notion that everything is directly connected only presupposes the non-existence of _some kinds_ of Gods, but not others, and certainly not the whole concept of "deity/higher being/s" itself.
Take one of the Pandeist Gods I've heard of for example. This God, without conscious intention or foreknowledge (necessarily) made every molecule in universe _from itself/it's "body"_, and so, everything is connected because no matter what is born or picked up and carved into something and changes into something else for whatever reason- it doesn't matter everything is made OF God.
Comparing those, you can see how differing notions of "creation" and "God" can change the whole perspective on the situation.
I don't understand how interconnectedness could make human connection or intention of human creation irrelevant, though... Could you explain what you mean?
If a cup has a purpose in relation to a person, isn't that relationship just as important as its relationship to any creator? Whether the cup was created by god or man, whether the man was created by god or cup, they are simply there interacting. To me, it is of supreme difficulty to allow the simplicity of plain relationships to be life's focus.
In one of his books on " out of body experience " Monroe talks about living as a blade of grass, I wonder if consciousness is a single entity experiencing itself in different nodes, or maybe the single electron traveling through time theory would explain it.
As usual more questions.
When that video game designer says that all things equally exist, does he include thoughts alongside the water and the rocks?
perhaps it is heat which ultimately binds everything together.
I remember hearing a story about how a the rear end of horses influenced the size of almos all our transportation vehicles including the space shuttle.
Just thinking that objects, and animals, shape our lives in ways we often can't see through their physical shape.
Don't know where I want to get with this.
The interconnectedness of forces, space and time is something we as civilization need to explore much further, in the realms of the #FractalUniverse
We need something like 'Building A Universe Competition' #BAUniC to debate ideas, evolve language to better express those ideas, evolve imagination to handle concepts and turn concepts into formulas and ultimately into a computer code able to render a slice of our shared mathematical universe.
What an exceptional analysis/thought experiment. Keep up the philosophically inclined videos, they're always intriguing.
I'm surprised an episode dealing with ontology in the western tradition didn't have any mention of the presocratics. The ideas of relation and interconnection in Parmenides and Heraclitus underlie every later project of ontology and metaphysics in the Hellenistic tradition and the Stoic conception of the cosmos is lifted directly from Empedocles and Anaxagoras. And generally the presocratics established a frame for approaching metaphysics and ontology in the west that would continue to persist (e.g. Hegel, Heidegger etc. )
I get the distinct impression that, by the end of the episode, Mike was totally done with this wishy-washy hippie shit lmao
Makes me think of Romantically Apocalyptic in which an out of control search engine has given everything from the sun to cake slices processors to calculate and best serve there function - then personality so that people can interact with them. Humanity has since been almost wiped out but all the objects keep trying to for fill there function as best they can. At one point a rock lectures the last(?) human(?) about treating it and its fellow rocks with respect, and there is a whole story about an elevator button trying to maintain standers in it's post-apocalyptic hotel.
One can love absolutely everything provided we remember love includes letting it all go. Ownership does not equal love.
You know what they say about impressions.
They make an imp out of presh and shuns.
I miss this channel
Came here expecting a video on quantum physics, I'm pleasantly surprised :) Beautifully scripted and edited, thank you for this
Well, this goes into my "Important videos" list! Thanks Idea Channel!
I find that this is a good topic to frame the discussion of perspectives and empathy. that is, how we think about empathy and how we think about the other and how we relate to the other. in many ways, I find that it's easier to understand the similarities or viewpoints between the micro and the macro, but much less so the similarities or viewpoints between either of those and the anthro. when we think of things on the same level as ourselves, the same scale as ourselves, we have an innate, I think, instinct to focus inwardly on ourselves. there is a selfishness present at that level. but on the scales of extreme wideview or extreme smallview, we appreciate more easily and intuitively a much less centered frame of mind and a much more interconnected frame of mind. yet all of these frames of mind or points of view are incomplete. there is a certain tendency of humans to think of "nature" or "interconnectedness" as, ironically, excluding humanity or self. but humans, both as individuals and as a group, are also part of nature. and I think it's important to recognize the importance of both individuality AND connectedness.
Very practically, "The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up" by Marie Kondo brings this sort of intentionality to socks and underwear. In her process you thank them for their service before you put them in your drawer to rest. Strange to Westerners, but maybe more common in Eastern philosophy?
We are none of us alone.
Even as we exhale
it is inhaled by others.
The light that shines upon me
shines upon my neighbor as well.
In this way
everything is connected.
Everything is connected
to everything else.
In this way
I am connected to my friend
even as I am connected to my enemy.
In this way
there is no difference between me and my friend.
In this way
there is no difference between me and my enemy.
We are none of us alone
Anything can become something if you can assign some gray matter to it. The question is: Is it worth it?
This was a great video even though I don't have much to add right now.
It's hard for humans to appreciate non-humans, but also to appreciate other humans which is something that the comment section of any video will display. So be nice to your fellow commenters, and also fire hydrants.
Thanks... I now understand how everything is connected. I had an idea of how but now it seems more real. I will project a quick scope of it for you. If everything was just one thing then in all is one. If one were to look back at itself in doing so a question is created. This question if answered creates a secondary location from the one. Between the question and the answer is space and a first and second so direction of time. So from everything which was one is now divided. This division is the particle development of everything from one. The relationship between these divisions becomes the connection and the division that separates the questions from one another. So in truth this reveals that everything as one or part is only ever the singularity of the smallest part of the whole at any given moment. If in observations we were able to see the smallest part of this equation it would still only be as small as the question. Because in our ability to see this we would already be as far separated as knowing the answer. Therefore already part of the whole looking back.
Most everything is connected, in ways both measurable and not. Ignore your connection to other things both sentient and not at your own peril.
THIS WAS VERY WELL WRITTEN, GIVE US MORE, GIVE US NOTHING
I don't know if objects feel pain, but when I drop my phone, I say: "ouch!"