This is the kind which respect the audience minds

It's in large part to Roberts interviewing skills. He asked such profound questions and has stood toe to toe with...... Everyone. Super inquisitive conversation from Robert. The guy just never disappoints.

What makes someone a philosopher is the ability to talk nonsense endlessly, while every sentence he says is neither obviously right nor wrong.

I agree, this channel is so good. One thing I think makes it so good is Robert always asks really great questions

I had this similar thought before reading this comment. This is a real public service in exposing people to these ideas.

Hey David... didn't Kuhn write a book himself?

If he can stop using theistic opinions just to grab a wider audience he would be taken more seriously! He wants a big tent n sacrifices epistemology n truth

Why dont u ask him to Demonstrate how he know ure god makes choices and who told him! Presuppositional !

@@mikebell4649 Why would he and should he be so prejudicial in his investigation? Especially since a great number of modern philosophers are theists. I think getting a wide variety of opinions and considering them is a sign of intellectual maturity. And this is especially true given that Kuhn has stated on multiple occasions that the existence of God and the possibility of an afterlife is one of the subjects that troubles him most of all the deep questions.

@@mikebell4649 ...what?

Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions... 👇 Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

There are Ads now.

Without ads? What? The way I’m watching they are relentlessly mercilessly appearing.

Adblock removes them! It's free (donations appreciated)

Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions... 👇 Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

couldnt agree with u more

@@sirluoyi2853 You still host a whatsapp group?

Doctor Who 2002 Cause & Effect. I drank too much wine, and now must take a piss.

@@Bldyiii lol, the matrix 😁

people would rather watch mindless entertainment like fat guys chugging 10 gallons of coke. Thinking is hard work

Only those interested in ultimate truth will watch,but most people is interested satisfying their sensual needs.

people en masse are insufficiently intelligent

Try 50.

I have the same feeling when I hear songs from the 80's

Interesting and I mostly agree. I know most people think we will become increasingly advanced in the future but I often wonder could we regress. Could we lose even our current technology and have to start over. I am not sure I could start a fire without a match and that scares the hell out of me!!!

I agree a bit. But these are deep questions and I feel that our understanding of the natural world has increased a lot since I was a kid.

The surest sign of intelligence is curiosity, whereas surest sign of stupidity is disinterestedness.

Me too I'm interested in many things. I can't do them all. Not time enough dont live long enough. I've always knew for some time now about the law of cause and effect. Einstein used it. To discover ever thing he ever knew without it nothing can be known about any thing. I'm a very curious person. I suppose. ,,,

The things is all of these smart people arent sure of their "intelligence". I assume like most smart people they doubt they are. The difference is that they are people that have done thing i.e they jumped

Kuhn makes you think, whatever that is. Curiosity is for people who like to think, dogma is for lazy,disinterested people who enjoy being satisfied with group values.

Hey Dom.. I feel the same. But I'm pretty simple-minded so I don't think my conversation with these people would get very far.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Well, tbh i would need to improve a lot to talk with many of these people.

You can now easier than ever with social media etc. People like Dr Brian Green has e a weekly show and he answers questions.

@@terrywbreedlove Those popular scientists doesn't really answer question, only referee to what they already explained. There are other channels when young researchers and scientists explore their thought models, they do care what community want to know and do repply to every single comment. Greene is a good professor, but he wont waste time with amateurs and risk loosing credibility due to some stupid question he can't really explain.

@@xspotbox4400 Brian Greene is doing the Daily Equation show at the World Science Festival in the last weeks. They have some Q&A videos there.

Im underated

Sorry about your leg, truly. But stating an example of exactly what is being debated doesn’t move the needle at all

Sorry for that... Technically it was some specific chain of events (only part of what can be called "the accident") that lead to the damage. I hope that something could be learned from those events that helps others and also that you can still lead a life worthy to live. I have a HUGE RESPECT for each kind of activity that involves things faster than a fast ride on bicycle. We've been playing once with a cheap, very HARD frisbee, which was capable of flying rather long distances if thrown with enough POWER. It was me who threw it mostly along the lowest path possible, as that was the most efficient. For reasons, we stood on a hillside, and changed positions, so it wasn't trivial to find the best path. Once I threw it in such direction that a boy standing closer to me, than the intended "target", could intervene. So he attempted to catch the damn thing but it was SPINNING VERY VIGOROUSLY and since it was somewhat sharp at its circumference, he instantly pulled away his hand. That sturdy, energetic frisbee hit him right in the head and resulted in such a wound as if hit by a stone. So the cheerful game had an awfully BLOODY END. Of course this can't be compared to most of the traffic accidents. What I'd like to HIGHLIGHT is: I knew that frisbee the most, as it was mine and played with it a lot. I think most of the players realised it's unusually dangerous properties (I even urged them to be careful) but they had LIMITED EXPERIENCE with it. I threw it sometimes the MOST HARD because I was able to aim it precisely and knew that after the given distance it will loose enough energy to be safely catched. However after a while we all got "enchanted" and many of us tried the limits (that's what puberty is about, eh?!). When more participants of any potentially harmful activity start to loose carefulness also alertness (due to tiredness) then the circumstances can change more quickly than awaited: accident is bound to happen. If I'm not mistaken: majority of motorcycle riders don't get involved in serious accidents (?) What are the major causes that lead to more drastic outcomes? On aikido lessons we spent a lot of time, a huge effort went into learning HOW TO FALL. Are there similar trainings for motorbike raiders? Is that even possible to prepare (a bit) in advance? If that opens up too painful memories, please ignore my comment

Right! Especially, the Granddaddy of them all -- Judea Pearl. His books, "Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference" (for the expert) and "The Book of Why" (for the layman) are the last word on this subject for now.

They'd be dead by now.

@Islayman what makes any of us able to decide on whatever if future already exists? Sorry, one has to peek into what kinds of experiments are done in QM (eg. a bunch of quantum particles showing non-intuitive probability distributions, or the wave like behaviour of matter particles strongly limited by the mass of the system, it's not that long that systems able to re-cohere are studied ...): QM with all the fields and special dynamics is nowhere near to full understanding of even the simplest systems... Once you start to develop a solid grasp on basic concepts, suddenly you realize how far stretched are many of even the basic interpretations of the measurement problem, not speaking about the extrapolations they make. What the heck is a conscious system in a block universe anyway?

The beginning is the Lord . The Creator

?? determinism doesn't "become" free will by inverting the arrow of causation and time, it's still determinism. you just perceive it psychologically as free will if you want.

haha

philosophers (aka b.s. artists) are only good for Monty Python skits.

@@tilik13 so you did not understand a thing.

@@eucariote79 why do you think so, mimzi?

I’m not sure what caused me to watch this.

Amere Mortal you can not study it. by definition, the tool you would use to study is science which is based on the cause and effect. So, it would not be an objective quest for truth. does it make sense ?

Join this WhatsApp group for Philosophical discussions... 👇 Link: chat.whatsapp.com/IibF9JUazRF9IExVk5Qmh1

@@demiurge1608 It does, unfortunately.

Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. How do you think it could be grounded?

I really liked this video myself. My conclusion is that the concept of causation is being used backwards in many cases. It is very helpful and enlightening to look for causes to explain observations or experiences, but you get in trouble when you take these imagined "causes" and try to use them to judge nature. What you observe or experience is assumed to exist, but your explanation is just an opinion that is subject to being revised or rejected based on new data.

Yes, but this is a rather trivial observation; the relevant and important question is why it is supposedly a universal law, and on what grounds it can be so described, discovered, or conceived.

Can you say more? Or point to resources that explain this more thoroughly? I'm very interested!

Ps. I know that Feser denies backward causation, but he’s just wrong about that. It’s not merely theoretical, as there’s experimental evidence for it! But his case for PSR remains solid.

Re: Sinnot-Armstrong and "Contrastive causality": It's not two kinds of causality, it's two kinds of epistemology: knowledge of the physical world and knowledge of human values and meaning.

I think causation is delusional - backwards or forwards. When you think about it, the illusion of causation can be pretty much summed up in a couple of perceptions we have evolved as humans, for example if we hold a glass and be at the verge of deciding wether to drop and break it or to not drop it and still have the glass and in such a situation it feels like the fate of the glass ie broken or not is entirely at our disposal and our alone even though the glass could simply break (can) without we doing anything. Also it adds more importance or substance to our decision the fact that we know from experience really well that droping it would definitely break it and wont otherewise, even when that too is totally possible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

Good post, but science assumes causation. It can't investigate it, by definition.

When you describe the mechanism of how one event makes another event happen and show beyond reasonable doubt that this mechanism exists and it works like this in every experiment, then this is experimental evidence and not an assumption. An assumption is when you make an untestable and an unfalsifiable statement and assume that it's true. But this clearly isn't the case when describe a mechanism of how one event makes another event happen, and show with various experiments that this mechanism actually exists and it works the way you say it works. Because if this mechanism doesn't exist or doesn't work the way you say it works, then the experiments will show it. And other people can test it too independently of you. Perhaps the problem here isn't the answer. The problem is the question. It's a badly worded question that uses an abstract word which doesn't describe what exactly it is that you are looking for. Albert Einstein once said, “ If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.” www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/determining-the-proper-question I think you can remove the word 'causation' and just talk about one event making another event happen through some kind of a mechanism that can be tested and shown to work in various experiments. And then you don't have any philosophical dilemma to worry about. It's just a mundane scientific question about whether one event plays a role in making another event happen or not.

A circular labyrinth of words.

@Geegee Poo Not necessarily. The humans' comprehension of reality might be inherently limited, while reality can still be real, not a sim