I challenge you to argument

PS

I've been looking for the term for God knows how long!!! It was hard to look up because not many professionals know the term and it was hard to search up when I didn't know the term to look it up with. Thank you! (Third world country btw, not many are english speakers and not manh know the proper terms used)

Reliability doen’t equal accuracy

What would be the scenario where you didn't know animals, the zebra was a fake mule, and you guessed mule? What would that fall under?

The whole philosophical argument makes no sense because we can never know the truth.

Obviously, we can't know any of this ever.

This explanation is missing something to clarify..

Love your content 💪👍, Jesus bless.

The human body is replacing every cell and replacing the proteins that make up the cells that that don’t replace. The solution is that both sips are the ship of theseus.

bro why did i replay 4:32 so many time.The way she said Philosophy professor got me laughing.Any one else found that funny

This means that the ship of Theasus is just an imaginary reference to humans but part of objective reality.

I would say: The difference between belief and knowledge is that you are more certain if you know it than if you believe it unless it's a religious context. And if you perceive yourself to be more certain, that will help you feel more confident about it. But saying that you know something, and actually knowing something are two potentially different things. It's like hearing it rain, and it raining, are two different things. The latter requiring it to actually be the case.

In the one case you have a belief about a set of statements, and in the other case you have a set of belief/statement pairs. A belief about a set is not clearly the same kind or category of thing as the various beliefs about each of its members.

Humans go off the rule of it's wrong to eat your own species. Or that's one of them.

Ah: Migurl Angel

The assumption that the "spirit" Bert could have existed without the physical Bert is very strong. Disembodies spirits spring from such assumptions. More plausibly is that spirits do not exists anywhere but only momentarily. They are created by life experiences from non-existence.

The ship is still the same ship, but it is different than it was before. With time the grains, nails, ropes and sails have changed but nonetheless they are still part of the same ship. They eventually there will be changes that are sometimes small, sometimeslarge. But the ship itself is still the same ship. It only becomes a new ship when you can no longer recognize the ship as it was originally made.

This is an angle I hadn’t considered…🫠

My favorite red herring: "Vikings didn't have horned helmets. They would have been impractical in battle."

Subjective experience is what it feels like to be a brain processing external or internal stimuli. You are quite literally your physical brain processes. And once these processes stop, your conscious experience stops too.

Rich People: "No, I rather have my meat artificially made and expensive. I want it to be... RRRICH." Average People: "Well yes... But, you have to do it in a humane way... Animals have feelings too..." Poor People: "YES! 😭"

Spinoza advocates about the separation of the church and the state 100 years earlier than that.

If I could afford to not eat creatures I wouldn't eat them.

Is this also a non sequiter argument?

There is no ship. Stick and Eagle theory. The ship of Theseus is made up of sticks, ordinary, everyday, sticks. If an eagle saw one of those sticks it might think 'stick' (or whatever eagles think) and try to build its nest with it. If we saw a stick we might think 'stick' and if we arrange many sticks we might and try to build a ...oh, I don't know...a ship of Theseus maybe? After we build the ship the eagle comes and steals a stick (or many or all) to build its nest. We go to the nest and take the stick/s back to rebuild the ship...etc. At this scale there are fundamentally only sticks that exist. The ship is only in our human minds after we are taught what a ship is (sticks + stick = float and carry stuff). A ship is not a ship. There is no fundamental 'ship'. There are only sticks. The eagle will only ever see sticks, with which to build its nest. Does the eagle see 'nest'. Maybe, I'll ask an eagle the next chance I get.

Mi padre be decía entre varios mires: abducida

So they postulated the principles of bioethics and then retroactively condemned doctors who didnt follow them? 😂😂

Problem 2 can be stated in a more interesting way I believe. Tell me what you think of this. Imagine if some Event A were the cause of some Event B in the future, and Event A were to be defined as you acquiring the foreknowledge of Event B, then did you predict the future or did you cause the future? I would argue that you actually caused the future. It would be physically and logically impossible for you to predict the future if your knowledge of the future resulted in that future occurring. And here is my extrapolation from this: Since all past events collectively cause all future events, our "predictions" of the future are, in fact, contributing to shaping/causing the future. And here’s where it gets even more intriguing. All our present predictions of the future were, in some small way, caused by our past predictions of the future. This means even our predictions of the future are in a way being shaped by our past predictions of the future. I think I just blew my own mind. lol!

I think this is more of a linguistic naming of an object problem than a physical material world problem. If we know what properties of an object we are ascribing the name "Ship of Theseus" (SoT) to, we will know which of the two is the Ship of Theseus. If the defining property of the object we're calling SoT is that it is a ship that had been in physical contact with Theseus, then every plank replaced from the original SoT makes it less of SoT, or not an SoT at all in some strict sense of the name SoT. Once the last plank of the original SoT is replaced, it can no longer be called SoT as it has lost the defining property of the name SoT. If we were to rebuild the ship using the original planks, then the new ship will be called the SoT as it fulfills the defining properties of the object referred to as SoT. On a side note, there is no such thing as year zero. The first day of the first year of any calendar is called year 1 of that calendar. Once it completes the first year, then the first day of the next year is called the year 2 of that calendar. This is why we are in the 21st century even though we have only completed 2023 years in our calendar.

The statement “all non-black things are non-ravens” doesn’t actually say anything about ravens though, does it? Or I guess it doesn’t say anything about all black things being ravens. Like the statement could be true, but the statement doesn’t assert that all black things are ravens, just that anything that isn’t black, can’t be a raven. Am I missing something that makes this more paradoxical? I don’t know, I should probably get back to work.

My comment was interrupted and cut off. I believe in America the God first mentality being the morality connected to the ten commandments, applies to those practice and represent lawful law. My example as a visual is ? Anyone playing or learning chess, play themselves against an opponent. Today's law feels like I should hire someone knows more about chess to play for me against an opponent may have hired someone else to play for them - I count on those in law to fight for my constitutional rights. That is something understood and a weak link if lawyers are changing the rules of law and subtracting God to do it.

This irritates me. This conveys to me that law is no longer interested in truthful. It's a game of clever , instead of insisting on saying what you mean. Your arguments might go over my head not being as educated as you. Did I say I wasn't educated? In a way, yes. Am I offended if you suggest I am not educated in your field of of study? I shouldn't be. Ego in law is ungodly and above the law. But it should apply to maturity? And so now this restoration effort has an open door? It's not exactly right. Because my lawyer or public defender is supposed to buffet any sensitivities. Back in the arena of those play chess. Fq you Chris? Who else would edit me ? I'm not amused. What are having me believe? I said no.

Doesn’t the first premise contain the conclusion? I’m confused

I think I might be the second ship...

Theseus isn’t two, but one. Our identity isn’t two, but one. We don’t command two ships, but one. If someone picks up old ship parts, they have simply adopted old ship parts. They don’t work for me, we have no relation, no shared motivation, no shared ship trips….

7:30 Doesn’t Wolfram address the human experience dimension in science?

Read Ramana Maharshi, Who am i?

so the crucks - we continue to be at the crossroads

WGU? 👀

I enjoy philosophy but I feel its concepts touch into realms which are not grounded in reality. They taint upon the spiritual going into psychology and cognition which deprives away from the majority of entering into the ifs and buts which are not always reasonable or logical but nonetheless possible. Does It leave more questions than answers?

Going over the comments there seems to be a lot of Kant fan boys that understand Kant better than the maker of this video. I guess if you are a wanna be youtuber you cant really wait to understand something correctly before you put your video out there and seek attention 😂

I think most scientist Dont understand kant and dont understand the theory of relativity. Since it seems that they are describing both incorrectly. Last time I checked, I did not perceive the world in non-Eucladian geometry and even non-Eucladian geometry is described in terms of Eucladian geometry. That's the only way to make it intelligible to humans. So the first objection misses the mark.😂

Animals As Leaders brought me here

Sam Bankman-Fried was jailed for believeing in this nonsence called funds commingling. Your sources of funds are real and have real legal consequences if you don't consider it.

You state that "each of the premises when considered independently is true." I disagree. One type of star is made of gas, another type of star is made of flesh. Thus "all stars are exploding balls of gas" is FALSE since all stars are NOT exploding balls of gas. Even considered independently, premise 1 is false. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Fun fact, MOST people, don't kknow how to seek truth, they live a lie thinking they know, it's sad. I have only meet 1 person that knows more about truth than anyone else Ive ever meet, atleast from my perspective.

Donald Trump is the fallacy king.

Taxes aren’t legal and we keep voluntarily paying them.

Our focus should be on the Elites who have purposely withheld cures for painful illnesses. It's about money and power. Doctors are complicit and the masses are focused on death.