This series is phenomenal. Been doing a deep self study into philosophy the past few years. Started with an interest in existentialism but now all different areas of philosophy are of great interest to me. I love how you lay out the problems and the different solutions philosophers have asserted without claiming any truth.
I’m glad you like it. I am also glad you noticed that I am not claiming that any one philosopher has it right, or arguing for a particular position. That is kind of my gimmick. I tell my students, “I won’t tell you what to believe, but I will tell you your price. And every belief has a price.” I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I am experiencing understanding by watching your video. It's crazy that it might be possible, from my point of view, that someone who doesn't exist (you) is helping me think about what's real
Academic philosophy can be a rewarding and comfortable career-but it is highly competitive. The practice of philosophy, say, with a Bachelor's degree by itself or paired with another Bachelor's can be even more lucrative. The following page may be helpful in answering your question. www.whystudyphilosophy.com/p/charts-graphs.html
Russell says, "Thus the certainty of our knowledge of our experiences does not have to be limited in any way to allow for exceptional cases." Is this claim the move where he is allowing for systematic doubt in his theory of knowledge? I find his writing very accessible (at least in this book), but I had a really hard time understanding what he meant here.
I apologize for not responding sooner. My classes demand quite a lot of time. To be blunt, I don't have the time to search for this quote in the text. Can you give me the chapter and paragraph number? I can look it up with that.
Please explain to me why this is not correct. In assuming that i exist as a perciever i hve presumed i exist. And if that is to be consistent with my earlier hypothesis then i must not be made up of matter. But i percieve sense data therefore i must be in the dimension of sense data and hence sense data like. Dosent the proof collapse then?
If i accept 'experience' do i not also imply that the 'i', that is the 'experiencer' has to be somehow related to the domain of the 'experienced' ie the sense data. Doesent the proof contradict itslef then?
Do you mean the proof of one’s own existence? The proof is pretty straightforward: 1. I am having experiences. 2. If I am having experiences, then I exist. 3. Therefore, I exist. If your point is that the conclusion that one exists is “contained” in the assertion that one is having experiences, that is the nature of deductive inference. Deductive inference is truth preserving-it does not include “new information”. If you want to reject deductive inference, then you throw out pretty much all of logic including mathematics. As for whether the argument is deductively sound, it sure looks like it. (1) is true (for any individual-this cannot be proven to another person). If (2) is false we have the following: I am having experiences and I do not exist. This is a self-contradiction. So, the denial of (2) is necessarily false; hence, (2) must be true. The conclusion follows.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy ok, i understand. I think I am stuck at what 'I' and 'exist' exactly mean. If 'existence' implies the I am a present, living entity independent of everything else ( which includes sense data). Then I have the following doubt. 1) when I deductively conclude I exist, why do I not also acknowledge the possibility the my 'existing' is also a feeling- just like feeling any other sensation. So thoughts and emotions are sense data, and i argue that the feeling of perceiving thought and emotion is also a sense data. Now to say that I am a perciever of perciever of sense data-- or a perciever of perciever of perciever of sense data- will set up an infinite loop because I can declare each perciever to be a perception. So logically there is no final perciever. So isnt there doubt about the 'existence' of an objective 'I'. Please bear with me, im new to this. Thank you so much.
No worries. Okay, you are worried about an infinite regress. I am having a little difficulty comprehending the idea that your existence is just a feeling or just a perception, but let’s give it a shot. If there is a feeling, there is one who feels. If there is a perception, there is a perceiver. This begins the infinite regress, right? So, your existence is a feeling. Call this existence F1. Since F1 is a feeling, there is one who feels. By your definition, this one who feels is also a feeling. Either this feeling is you or something else. If this feeling is not you, it is some other existence. Call it F2. Since F2 is a feeling, there is one who feels. This is F3 and so on. The infinite regress begins. For any dinner, you are in the largest possible dinner party. The other possibility is that one who feels just is you. So, we have a feeling . . . feeling. A circle of emotion to be sure. This constitutes either an infinite regress or the ultimate self-reflective moment. To avoid this, one need not claim that one’s existence is merely a feeling. If there is a feeling, then there is one who feels. If there is a perception, then there is a perceiver. However, there is no reason to suppose that the one who feels is also a feeling; neither is there reason to suppose that the perceiver is also a perception. This might make for good science fiction or poetry, but not good philosophy. There is good reason, in fact, to infer that the one who feels is not a feeling, and that the perceiver is not a perception. Consider your eyes. Your eyes perceive some portions of the electro-magnetic spectrum, and then interprets them as color. Your eyes perceive color, but your eyes are not a color-they are an organ composed of cells. Similarly, your ears perceive some frequencies of concussive waves of air molecules, and then interprets them as sound. Your ears perceive sound, but they are not a sound-they are an organ composed of cells. Similarly, your skin perceive textures, but is not a texture. You tongue perceives tastes, but is not a taste. You have these perceptions, but you are not a perception. So, you need not conclude that your existence just is a feeling or a perception since the one who feels or the perceiver is not a feeling or a perception. Here, however, is where things might get a little strange. You do not feel your existence. You do not perceive your existence. You have feelings. You have perceptions. However, that which feels cannot feel itself. That which perceives cannot perceive itself. Think again of the eye: it cannot see itself. The ear cannot hear itself. Your brain is the center of feelings and perceptions. That is where all that information happens. However, the brain has no feelings. Feelings and perceptions merely take place there. The kind of scary upshot about this is that you do not perceive yourself. You can only know the fact of your existence through inference.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy thank you for substantiating so well, I get what you are saying completely- infact i have been engaged in a rigoruous study of the advaita philosphy for some time now- the philosphy of non duality- not formally as a subject- just out of interest, so i completely understand what you are suggesting through the example you list. However, if i were to formally refute in purely philosphical terms- would the argument of infinte regress be considered a valid one? I mean - you have used a few examples to explain - such as the eye cannot see itself and so on. But we cannot use these as a proof in philosophical terms or can we? The premise we have is only our own perception for now, - suppose we havent even established the existence of matter at this point.... so on those grounds- in a purely philosophical sense- does the infinte regression argument, according to you- stand valid as a doubt?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy without getting answer to this question, anything we speak on matter is mere assumption not conclusion Think on that 😉 The quest to know this will definitely bring you to India and vedas.. All the best 👍💯
after all this - objects do not exist when they are not perceived. Space time is a construct and objects are 'icons' on a user interface . There is a mind independent reality but it is not accessible in principle.
Well, this is not Russell’s position exactly. You probably need to watch the remaining videos to understand what he claims. Notice something further, it cannot be the case that there is a mind-independent reality and that objects do not exist when they are not perceived. The second necessitates that reality is mind dependent.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy the 'objects' we create with perception are not 'reality' but 'icons' of an interface. The theory in conscious realism makes the computer desktop metaphor well where the graphical icons on your desktop (your perception) represent a dumbed down easy representation of a more complex mind independent reality ( diodes and resistors, programs) that are hidden because natural selection only empowered us with easy survival tools. Space time is the 'interface' and objects are the icons. Even top physicists are now stating that 'spacetime' is doomed- not to say that there cannot be a science of consciousness but the agents model purported by Donald Hoffman turns the argument upside down and 'derives ' physics from consciousness. A very neat solution to the mind body problem by coming at in reverse.
Okay, you want to say that ‘objects’ are mere representations in the mind of reality. Fine, but then the statement that objects do not exist when not perceived is not nearly as surprising. It is a lot like saying dogs do not exist when there are no mammals. You want to say that the mind does not understand reality. Okay, this is something like Russell and very much like Kant. This is fine, but the appeal to what physicists are stating is odd since Russell’s and Kant’s views lead to scientific anti-realism. Roughly stated, scientific antirealism is the claim that the physical sciences, while perhaps useful, do not actually give us any truth about reality. I don’t know what you mean by a science of consciousness nor how physics can be derived from consciousness. In fact, it looks like such efforts have significant difficulties. After all, other minds would be a part of that reality you claim you cannot understand with your own mind. The danger of both Russell’s, Kant’s, and now your own view is solipsism. If you cannot know reality outside your own mind, that includes the existence of, and nature of, other minds. It’s a way to go, but not without its price.
HaugenMetaphilosophy the claim that objects do not exist when not perceived extends to neurons and they too have no causal powers ( as they are mere representations on a interface desktop) the abstract mathematical formalism of conscious agent theory is based on probability sets and msrkov kennels that map
the action decision perception loops together which in the limit lead to the formula for a free particle in quantum mechanics this is the fundamentsl ontology presumed and mkes the conscious agent fundamental not the ' physical world' ( which is derived from the former)
Yeah, vocal disfluencies are an interesting burden of not preparing a speech as opposed to preparing material. I sacrificed a clean, rehearsed speech for the sake of a "natural" tone. You are welcome to do better.
What I have glimpsed so far is that I absolutely should not read this book while sleepy or drunk.
This series is phenomenal. Been doing a deep self study into philosophy the past few years. Started with an interest in existentialism but now all different areas of philosophy are of great interest to me. I love how you lay out the problems and the different solutions philosophers have asserted without claiming any truth.
I’m glad you like it. I am also glad you noticed that I am not claiming that any one philosopher has it right, or arguing for a particular position. That is kind of my gimmick. I tell my students, “I won’t tell you what to believe, but I will tell you your price. And every belief has a price.”
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
from india, delhi
Welcome!
thank you
You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
You did an excellent job. The sequence in which you explain all of this makes it very easy to understand a philosophy that is not so easy to read.
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
I am experiencing understanding by watching your video.
It's crazy that it might be possible, from my point of view, that someone who doesn't exist (you) is helping me think about what's real
You know have reached true philosophy geekdom when you start cracking the solopsist jokes.
Its been a great help. Thank you so much .
You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word!
what a good explanation ! thank you .
You are welcome, and thanks for watching.
Great video, you are living the dream!
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Thank u so much 👍🏻
You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word!
Great explanation, I understand it a lot better now!
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Thank you so much! I was really confused!
You are welcome. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
How much philosophers make a year and which industry employs them?
Academic philosophy can be a rewarding and comfortable career-but it is highly competitive. The practice of philosophy, say, with a Bachelor's degree by itself or paired with another Bachelor's can be even more lucrative. The following page may be helpful in answering your question.
www.whystudyphilosophy.com/p/charts-graphs.html
Russell says, "Thus the certainty of our knowledge of our experiences does not have to be limited in any way to allow for exceptional cases." Is this claim the move where he is allowing for systematic doubt in his theory of knowledge? I find his writing very accessible (at least in this book), but I had a really hard time understanding what he meant here.
I apologize for not responding sooner. My classes demand quite a lot of time.
To be blunt, I don't have the time to search for this quote in the text. Can you give me the chapter and paragraph number? I can look it up with that.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy It is in chapter 2, paragraph 6... Whenever you get around to it. Thank you for your time.
Thanku sir
You are welcome. Thanks for watching.
I love you, thank you for saving me for my philosophy exam tomorrow can I pay you to be my teacher?
Well, how about you pay it forward? Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Please explain to me why this is not correct.
In assuming that i exist as a perciever i hve presumed i exist.
And if that is to be consistent with my earlier hypothesis then i must not be made up of matter.
But i percieve sense data therefore i must be in the dimension of sense data and hence sense data like.
Dosent the proof collapse then?
If i accept 'experience' do i not also imply that the 'i', that is the 'experiencer' has to be somehow related to the domain of the 'experienced' ie the sense data.
Doesent the proof contradict itslef then?
Do you mean the proof of one’s own existence? The proof is pretty straightforward:
1. I am having experiences.
2. If I am having experiences, then I exist.
3. Therefore, I exist.
If your point is that the conclusion that one exists is “contained” in the assertion that one is having experiences, that is the nature of deductive inference. Deductive inference is truth preserving-it does not include “new information”. If you want to reject deductive inference, then you throw out pretty much all of logic including mathematics.
As for whether the argument is deductively sound, it sure looks like it. (1) is true (for any individual-this cannot be proven to another person). If (2) is false we have the following: I am having experiences and I do not exist. This is a self-contradiction. So, the denial of (2) is necessarily false; hence, (2) must be true. The conclusion follows.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy ok, i understand. I think I am stuck at what 'I' and 'exist' exactly mean.
If 'existence' implies the I am a present, living entity independent of everything else ( which includes sense data). Then I have the following doubt.
1) when I deductively conclude I exist, why do I not also acknowledge the possibility the my 'existing' is also a feeling- just like feeling any other sensation. So thoughts and emotions are sense data, and i argue that the feeling of perceiving thought and emotion is also a sense data.
Now to say that I am a perciever of perciever of sense data-- or a perciever of perciever of perciever of sense data- will set up an infinite loop because I can declare each perciever to be a perception. So logically there is no final perciever.
So isnt there doubt about the 'existence' of an objective 'I'.
Please bear with me, im new to this.
Thank you so much.
No worries.
Okay, you are worried about an infinite regress. I am having a little difficulty comprehending the idea that your existence is just a feeling or just a perception, but let’s give it a shot. If there is a feeling, there is one who feels. If there is a perception, there is a perceiver. This begins the infinite regress, right? So, your existence is a feeling. Call this existence F1. Since F1 is a feeling, there is one who feels. By your definition, this one who feels is also a feeling. Either this feeling is you or something else. If this feeling is not you, it is some other existence. Call it F2. Since F2 is a feeling, there is one who feels. This is F3 and so on. The infinite regress begins. For any dinner, you are in the largest possible dinner party. The other possibility is that one who feels just is you. So, we have a feeling . . . feeling. A circle of emotion to be sure. This constitutes either an infinite regress or the ultimate self-reflective moment.
To avoid this, one need not claim that one’s existence is merely a feeling. If there is a feeling, then there is one who feels. If there is a perception, then there is a perceiver. However, there is no reason to suppose that the one who feels is also a feeling; neither is there reason to suppose that the perceiver is also a perception. This might make for good science fiction or poetry, but not good philosophy.
There is good reason, in fact, to infer that the one who feels is not a feeling, and that the perceiver is not a perception. Consider your eyes. Your eyes perceive some portions of the electro-magnetic spectrum, and then interprets them as color. Your eyes perceive color, but your eyes are not a color-they are an organ composed of cells. Similarly, your ears perceive some frequencies of concussive waves of air molecules, and then interprets them as sound. Your ears perceive sound, but they are not a sound-they are an organ composed of cells. Similarly, your skin perceive textures, but is not a texture. You tongue perceives tastes, but is not a taste. You have these perceptions, but you are not a perception.
So, you need not conclude that your existence just is a feeling or a perception since the one who feels or the perceiver is not a feeling or a perception. Here, however, is where things might get a little strange. You do not feel your existence. You do not perceive your existence. You have feelings. You have perceptions. However, that which feels cannot feel itself. That which perceives cannot perceive itself. Think again of the eye: it cannot see itself. The ear cannot hear itself. Your brain is the center of feelings and perceptions. That is where all that information happens. However, the brain has no feelings. Feelings and perceptions merely take place there.
The kind of scary upshot about this is that you do not perceive yourself. You can only know the fact of your existence through inference.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy thank you for substantiating so well, I get what you are saying completely- infact i have been engaged in a rigoruous study of the advaita philosphy for some time now- the philosphy of non duality- not formally as a subject- just out of interest, so i completely understand what you are suggesting through the example you list.
However, if i were to formally refute in purely philosphical terms- would the argument of infinte regress be considered a valid one?
I mean - you have used a few examples to explain - such as the eye cannot see itself and so on.
But we cannot use these as a proof in philosophical terms or can we?
The premise we have is only our own perception for now, - suppose we havent even established the existence of matter at this point.... so on those grounds- in a purely philosophical sense- does the infinte regression argument, according to you- stand valid as a doubt?
How did matter origin? The ' first matter ' ever in universe?
I have no idea, and I don’t think Russell really tries to answer this question-at least in this book.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy without getting answer to this question, anything we speak on matter is mere assumption not conclusion
Think on that 😉
The quest to know this will definitely bring you to India and vedas..
All the best 👍💯
Using your initial reply, I guess we have seen your assumptions.
after all this - objects do not exist when they are not perceived. Space time is a construct and objects are 'icons' on a user interface . There is a mind independent reality but it is not accessible in principle.
Well, this is not Russell’s position exactly. You probably need to watch the remaining videos to understand what he claims. Notice something further, it cannot be the case that there is a mind-independent reality and that objects do not exist when they are not perceived. The second necessitates that reality is mind dependent.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy the 'objects' we create with perception are not 'reality' but 'icons' of an interface. The theory in conscious realism makes the computer desktop metaphor well where the graphical icons on your desktop (your perception) represent a dumbed down easy representation of a more complex mind independent reality ( diodes and resistors, programs) that are hidden because natural selection only empowered us with easy survival tools. Space time is the 'interface' and objects are the icons. Even top physicists are now stating that 'spacetime' is doomed- not to say that there cannot be a science of consciousness but the agents model purported by Donald Hoffman turns the argument upside down and 'derives ' physics from consciousness. A very neat solution to the mind body problem by coming at in reverse.
Okay, you want to say that ‘objects’ are mere representations in the mind of reality. Fine, but then the statement that objects do not exist when not perceived is not nearly as surprising. It is a lot like saying dogs do not exist when there are no mammals.
You want to say that the mind does not understand reality. Okay, this is something like Russell and very much like Kant. This is fine, but the appeal to what physicists are stating is odd since Russell’s and Kant’s views lead to scientific anti-realism. Roughly stated, scientific antirealism is the claim that the physical sciences, while perhaps useful, do not actually give us any truth about reality.
I don’t know what you mean by a science of consciousness nor how physics can be derived from consciousness. In fact, it looks like such efforts have significant difficulties. After all, other minds would be a part of that reality you claim you cannot understand with your own mind. The danger of both Russell’s, Kant’s, and now your own view is solipsism. If you cannot know reality outside your own mind, that includes the existence of, and nature of, other minds.
It’s a way to go, but not without its price.
HaugenMetaphilosophy the claim that objects do not exist when not perceived extends to neurons and they too have no causal powers ( as they are mere representations on a interface desktop)
the abstract mathematical formalism of conscious agent theory is based on probability sets and msrkov kennels that map
the action decision perception loops together which in the limit lead to the formula for a free particle in quantum mechanics
this is the fundamentsl ontology presumed and mkes the conscious agent fundamental not the ' physical world' ( which is derived from the former)
..y'kno
Yeah, vocal disfluencies are an interesting burden of not preparing a speech as opposed to preparing material. I sacrificed a clean, rehearsed speech for the sake of a "natural" tone.
You are welcome to do better.