Nickerless Gasbag!
4m — universeness

That's it! "The Dark Solution", by Nickerless Gasbag! :lol:

You're priceless and worth a zillion at the same time!

They ask a dollar to question but without guaranteed response. You gave guaranteed response when you were a teacher. But it's worthwhile! A dollar I can spare!

Ive asked a question on the reactions part. The same I asked him by email. I have to check how to pay him that dollar — Hillary

You have to jump through the hoops they set out to get your questions answered.
I don't mean the above sentence as a 'power-crazed,' accusation, they just have to employ some kind of system for their 'Mindscape podcasts.' You need to follow their process exactly.
Maybe you have to watch the podcast for that month to find out if he has actually answered your question. I thought they might explain the process once you have paid the toll but if you have not paid then you won't get answered. I think that's Patreons rules, not Seans but I accept that he signed up with them but maybe they are the best-established kids on the block for this stuff. I know a lot of the atheist phone-in YouTube stuff is through Patreon.
I intend to watch this month's podcast in full at some point but 3.5 hours is as long as a lord of the rings movie!

Maybe somewhat off the beaten track, but do you know if new ST movies are planned? Is Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness something? Seems great!

I watched, coincidentally, a Star Trek Voyager episode, with captain Picard. In search for a vaccine the team ended up in a fight between the crew member with short blond hair and a black planet habitant. Both women, equipped with artificial hands with sharp pins with poison tips... — Hillary

Oh you heathen!! Captain Picard on Star Trek Voyager!! Only your gods could make that happen!
Yeah, I remember the episode you are talking about. It was Star Trek the next generation.
All about the nefarious leader of a very African-looking tribal group and his intrigues to hold on to his power base. The fight was between the Enterprises security Chief Lieutenant Yar and the female suitor of the guy who was second in command to the black leader.

I know a lot of the atheist phone-in YouTube stuff is through Patreon.
I intend to watch this month's podcast in full at some point but 3.5 hours is as long as a lord of the rings movie! — universeness

The video is very interesting. Maybe we can use it as a starting point for a discussion and see where the road takes us.

I followed the instructions in the podcast, and you will encounter the quest for payment with the message that answer is not guaranteed. You can ask on many websites for free, like here or physics fora. What money it costs Carroll to answer? Why did Harari respond, while others didn’t? Because I like his model?

Oh you heathen!! Captain Picard on Star Trek Voyager!! Only your gods could make that happen!
Yeah, I remember the episode you are talking about. It was Star Trek the next generation.
All about the nefarious leader of a very African-looking tribal group and his intrigues to hold on to his power base. The fight was between the Enterprises security Chief Lieutenant Yar and the female suitor of the guy who was second in command to the black leader. — universeness

Yes, that's the one! You are a real Trekkie(?)! I saw it on Netflix, last night. Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise? I saw a nice documentary about the history of the series. Very interesting! The ship was designed by just putting a model upside down.

Ouioui! — Hillary

Tennyson, quite possibly, had never lost in love or suffered in life.

I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume. — Tobias

-So we are on to something here...and advance.
So you agree with the order I outlined?
First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept.

-" I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process."
-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things.

-" The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume"
I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try.

-"What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality."
-Well this wasn't in my initial point...and it isn't part of my position now. I never talked about an accurate picture of Reality, but an accurate picture of reality. (do you get the difference?...I will elaborate).

I pointed out that Objective independent Verification is necessary condition foran accurate picture of reality . Since I don't refer to an Absolute Reality or Absolutely True picture...the term "accurate picture of reality" refers to a model that is in agreement with Current Available Facts about reality.
I am a Methodological Naturalism so I never presume Metaphysical views in my positions. I remain strictly within our limits of our methods and observations and I always keep knowledge, truth, reality within a tentative state limited and defined by the latest , objective and most credible facts that are currently available to us. I don't do absolutes I don't do ultimates...I find them useless in philosophy and in science.
i.e. Not trying to run through a solid brick wall is a wise decision informed by an accurate picture on how brick walls manifest and "behave" in reality and this specific scale.

Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too. — Tobias

Again, the author is irrelevant. Science and Philosophy doesn't have authorities. Their work rises and fall on its merit. In order to be able to do philosophy, we need to be aware of the latest and most credible knowledge. I don't know why you object the use of resources as a way to support our Philosophy. MAybe you could elaborate on that along with your critique on Induction!

They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias

-Well,our brains are wired, our minds are the product of that wiring but I get your point. So you essentially say that our empirical interactions guide and form our mental models.
Sure I think we agree on that. Practical every day interactions are how we form concepts. Logic and science are used to verify which concepts have additional values as principles and standards for our evaluations.
-" Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction."
-I don't know what that means and why you keep bringing it up.....My arguments was always in favor of the empirical interaction independent from the highly systematic structure(scientific) or not(every day practical interactions).
I pointed that twice now but you keep pushing this strawman...why is that?

Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. — Tobias

I would look in your suggested material but only if I was making the distinction you are accusing me of between Science and Every day knowledge...but I don't!
The term Empirical observation that I set as the first step in the necessary process to produce concepts includes ALL TYPES of empirical methods that are able to produce objective facts.

I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one — Tobias

-Correct we totally agree on those points.
But your initial statement promoted an insufficient condition. I quote :"Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.."
As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities.

Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. This is why fantasy or creative don't play a huge role in defining them.
That doesn't mean that in a Descriptive Framework of science (Evolution,Relativity) Imagination and creativity don't have a really important role).

What I ispute is objective access to the outside world. — Tobias

I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world?

So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right.
The topic has shifted to : your objecting to Induction(problem of induction), the questionable value of scientific material and resources in Philosophical arguments and you reject our ability to produce objective descriptions about the outside world.
Pls correct if I don't present your positions correctly and feel free to make your case on any of them.

I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem.

The video is very interesting. Maybe we can use it as a starting point for a discussion and see where the road takes us — Hillary

Have you watched the full 3.5h podcast for April?
Sure, you could start a thread on an aspect of Sean's cosmology viewpoints. I would certainly contribute and TPF does have a category for science-based threads. Sean has just accepted a professorship in 'natural philosophy' (just an old name for physics I think) at John Hopkins University (I think that's the name he stated). The course he is offering is called 'The philosophy of physics.'
Would that be a good thread title on TPF?

You can ask on many websites for free, like here or physics fora. What money it costs Carroll to answer? — Hillary

There are certainly costs involved in recording a podcast plus there is his time and expertise.
A joiner/plumber/plasterer etc will charge you for their time and expertise, what's the difference?

Tennyson, quite possibly, had never lost in love or suffered in life. — Agent Smith

Oui! C'est comme' ça! Probablement!

Have you watched the full 3.5h podcast for April? — universeness

Not all, but fragments. I will look and see what needs clarification or whatever. He believes in a mirror universe too but differently from "mine". The CPT theorem is differently used. So, let's see. Maybe we can privately exchange and discuss a new thread. But first Im gonna sleep for a few hours. Eyelids dropping...

Maybe somewhat off the beaten track, but do you know if new ST movies are planned? Is Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness something? Seems great! — Hillary

As you say, a bit off the track of the OP. Folks often stray from the OP. I apologise to all who find this particularly annoying and I accept that we all have a responsibility to minimise this.
There are always new sci-fi stuff in the pipeline, you just have to watch for the relevant adverts.
One of the only useful things about 'cookie software.'
I just bought the new Matrix movie on DVD, not watched it yet but it has bad reviews. Yeah I will probably buy the Dr Strange movie or I will lose my geek status.
OK!! I CAN FEEL THE ANNOYANCE FROM THE LONG TERM TPFers.
I will try harder to relate to the OP more. I hope you hear them too Hillary!

Btw I find the moment of miscommunication that caused us talking past each other.

-" No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar

-Verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation."
So I think we agree with the following orders 1. we observe a reoccurring rule 2. we hypothesize 3. we observe and objectively verify the hypothesis.
Without objective verification none of our hypotheses can be accepted as a principle no matter how good our initial observation was or how good our hypothesis.

Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise? — Hillary

The OP says "it is better to live." That's why I would be too scared to make the statement you made above. The geek army will get medieval on you for such sacrilege. As a polytheist, you should know better than to blaspheme like that.

The ship was designed by just putting a model upside down. — Hillary

W (Double-U) $\to$ M (Emm)...New letter!

:snicker: Creativity at its best, si señor/señorita?

So, let's see. Maybe we can privately exchange and discuss a new thread. But first Im gonna sleep for a few hours. Eyelids dropping.. — Hillary

If you dream and them pesky gods try to set up a comlink, Spoiler alert! trust me!! it's just a dream!

Yes, I heared them. I saw a reference made to the best timetravel movie ever made, for 7000 dollars! Can't remember the name, but sounds interesting. "Primer", its called! But it ranks nr. 15 in this list. And now Im really gonna nap for a few hours! :wink:

If you dream and them pesky gods try to set up a comlink, Spoiler alert! trust me!! it's just a dream! — universeness

Haha! Ill ask them...

W (double-U) →→ M (Emm)...New letter — Agent Smith

A great old maths teacher told my class the following, (perhaps our resident maths prof @jgill would comment)
'There is one school of thought that the roman numerals were based on a Greek system which was based on the greek column which held up all their important buildings.
The 'tally' marks are just representations of the greek collumn I.
So four would be IIII and five was IIII with a diagonal column drawn through it.
The Roman Numerals are just greek columns positioned differently.
V, C, X, M
A pupil pointed out that C and D had a curved part but the teacher said the original Roman C and D were made from connected straight lines but there was a theory that some Greeks were aware of the curved dome aspect of other civilisations and could have employed curved parts based on that.
He also stated that our decimal numbers came from curved and straight-line architecture as well.
2 for example being a curved top connected to two straight lines.
I have never found strong evidence in support of his claim but I admit to repeating his lesson to some of my own maths classes but I emphasised the point that the supporting evidence for this was very tenuous.
It is a fun idea!

Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise?
— Hillary

The OP says "it is better to live." That's why I would be too scared to make the statement you made above. The geek army will get medieval on you for such sacrilege. As a polytheist, you should know better than to blaspheme like that. — universeness

Picard is captain on the Enterprise of life and is grateful for that!

First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept. — Nickolasgaspar

No, because empirical observation does not come out of nowehere. One needs concepts and categories to give meaning to observation. Therefore, instead of your linear approach, from observation to conceptualization, I hold on to a circular, hermeneutic appproach.

-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not think your linear model points out 'the correct order of things'.

I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try. — Nickolasgaspar

To see if I can do it, or to explain it to you? The second is not necessary and the first is uncalled for. I do not need to prove anything to you. As for the second, read Hume and then Kant for the solution.

As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities. — Nickolasgaspar

thre you have it, the problem of induction. We can never verify if anything produces a result 'constantly'. 'Constantly' is obtained by a leap of faith, a generalization into the fuuture of past results. Next, one needs a kind of measure for credibility. The yardstick for credibility is never never free from authority, beliefs held in our current epoch etc.

"Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.." — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe.

Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohhh 'direct', now I get it... By magic they are directly transferred to our brain. Who believen in magic now?

I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world? — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed, but mostly because I have no idea what 'objective value' means. 'Objective' means pertaining to the object, so every claim about the world is in this sense objective. Most people use objective in a different way, pertaining to the world as it really really is. Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world.

So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right. — Nickolasgaspar

No, because I do not hold empirical observation to be foundational. It is necessary yes, for every claim and argument, but not a fundament in the sense of an absolute standpoint from which to judge.

I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not disputing that it is important, in fact I think it is crucial. I do not think however, it does the work you want it to do, oferring a fundament from which you can judge all claims to knowledge.

No, because empirical observation does not come out of nowehere. One needs concepts and categories to give meaning to observation. Therefore, instead of your linear approach, from observation to conceptualization, I hold on to a circular, hermeneutic appproach. — Tobias

I am not arguing for a linear approach. I only argue for an order of importance of Objective verification in the process of justifying our Descriptions. Sure a theoretical quantity is always necessary.
This is why toddlers do not have the way to communicate concepts. They lack the theory but they also lack the observations that will allow the emergence of concepts.
Those depend on each other as you said..but your argument was not about the importance of theory, but on how fundamental imagination is.
We are off topic again.

I do not think your linear model points out 'the correct order of things'. — Tobias

I think I addressed this. Nothing is linear in real life or in science...a constant feedback is in action all the time.(this is why we don't have A scientific method but many methodologies). What we can say though Empirical interaction and theory can produce concepts. Imagination as a secondary quality can advance our concepts.

To see if I can do it, or to explain it to you? The second is not necessary and the first is uncalled for. I do not need to prove anything to you. As for the second, read Hume and then Kant for the solution. — Tobias

-You misunderstood me. It wasn't a personal attack!!!My comment was based on the fact that no critique fully understands the value of induction.
The main argument and correct me if I am wrong rests on the claim that induction introduces a risk in all our conclusions....and my answer is of course it does!!!!!And this is what makes Induction far more valuable compared to all Deductive Tautologies!
IT's the risks that renders our conclusions capable to produce predictions and knowledge that we previously ignored,
Who even bothers with tautologies when we can introduce risk in our syllogisms and elevate the value of our conclusions thus allowing them to rise at a Knowledge Status!

We can never verify if anything produces a result 'constantly'. 'Constantly' is obtained by a leap of faith, a generalization into the fuuture of past results. Next, one needs a kind of measure for credibility. The yardstick for credibility is never never free from authority, beliefs held in our current epoch etc. — Tobias

-So if I am correct you are using the example of our "uncertainty" for the Assumed Constant Regularity of our world.
First of all our acceptance of that principle is not a matter of faith.
Like all our principles and axioms, its an educated conclusion based on all available observations from the past and present and the success we get from our predictions. None of our faith based claims enjoys such epistemic foundations.
Now the argument you represent refers to "absolute verification" which is more of a red herring than a real problem for induction.
We can never offer an absolute verification (proof) but we can verify Regularity in Nature with every observation and quantification attempt. Sure the additional Dimension of Time adds extra risk but again the risk of a framework and its ability to deliver testable predictions is what makes its valuable.

So both sides should avoid the extreme positions. Induction is not an absolute tool for risk free knowledge, but the risk is what elevates induction far above other approaches. To try to call principles products of induction....faith..I won't even bother addressing that factually wrong claim again.

Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe. — Tobias

We are addressing basic Principles and axioms not rules about concepts (laws of evidence). Those are two different things and we do need intelligence and creativity for such more complex mental structures.But even those rules need to be demonstrated objectively before we can accept them as laws.
You can not dismiss a fact by declaring it circular.
Objective verification yields results and that can be objectively validated.
Subjective verification yields religions, superstitious beliefs and metaphysical worldviews...and that can objectively verify it.
The fact that an empirical standard can be used to evaluate different standards of evaluation is something that we can not avoid doing!
Our body of knowledge and the principles by which we do our evaluations are all based on the simple principle of Objectivism. How we arrived to them (by using imagination, critical thinking , defuse thing, intuition) is irreverent. The important thing is that they are all evaluated by that standard.

Ohhh 'direct', now I get it... By magic they are directly transferred to our brain. Who believen in magic now? — Tobias

that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!
Our empirical interactions and observations are the direct source of the information we need to identify the value of a practice(objective verification).
We don't need to assume external systems... Even our imagination is shaped by our empirical experiences...Imagination doesn't create things magically out of thin air...right? we agreed on that.

Indeed, but mostly because I have no idea what 'objective value' means. 'Objective' means pertaining to the object, so every claim about the world is in this sense objective. Most people use objective in a different way, pertaining to the world as it really really is. Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world. — Tobias

-We need to see the word from its practical aspect in order to understand its meaning value and application.
In oxford university-logic 101..Objective, subjective, true,knowledge etc are all evaluations terms that we use on claims. Only claims (Premises or arguments) can be True, wrong, Objective subjective etc.
If we understand that simple fact then we can look out which characteristics render a claim objective or not.
So if a claim is in agreement with facts that are accessible to everyone then we identify that claim as Objective.
i.e. I can not run through solid brick walls. IF we don't distort the common usages of those words then all the facts available to us render this claim an objective one.
Your angle projects this quality on the facts "'Objective' means pertaining to the object"...but again facts are neutral. The facts are what we evaluate to render the value of a claim.
So objectivity is not an intrinsic feature of the world(Regularity is) but a value in the claims of the observer. When things and processes display regularity, that enables the value of objectivity for our claims.


-" Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world."
I don't know how one can take either position. We don't know and we need to focus with what we can work with and see if everyone can verify the same picture by using the best methods available to us.
Its more of a Pragmatic Necessity than a buffet of choice.
We should use our inability to verify that as an argument from ignorance fallacy and dismiss principles that are far more successful than any other!

No, because I do not hold empirical observation to be foundational. It is necessary yes, for every claim and argument, but not a fundament in the sense of an absolute standpoint from which to judge. — Tobias

-Fundamental does mean that. Fundamental refers to its role to feed facts for our hypotheses and to provide the facts necessary for their final or temporal verification.
Fundamental from the aspect that NOT all mind properties are need for an thinking agent to survive,

I am not disputing that it is important, in fact I think it is crucial. I do not think however, it does the work you want it to do, oferring a fundament from which you can judge all claims to knowledge. — Tobias

I am sure you didn't know the work I expect from induction but if you read my post...now you know.

'Objective' means pertaining to the object" — Nickolasgaspar

'Objective' means pertaining to the object — Tobias

Gracias! I didn't know that!

lol......that is a metaphysical assumption.

lol......that is a metaphysical assumption. — Nickolasgaspar

You mean it's wrong? :groan:

Metaphysical means that a claim lies beyond our current knowledge.
So the truth value of it is unknown. So no its not wrong.
In my comment I explain that , in order to avoid all metaphysical assumptions we will have to accept Objectivity as an observer dependent term based on the regular nature of reality that our methods and senses detect , register and verify.
Do you agree with that statement?

that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!
Our empirical interactions and observations are the direct source of the information we need to identify the value of a practice(objective verification).
We don't need to assume external systems... Even our imagination is shaped by our empirical experiences...Imagination doesn't create things magically out of thin air...right? we agreed on that. — Nickolasgaspar

You do rely on magic just the same. Without an angle, perspective, frame, reference, vision, subject, etc. the objective reality has no real shape yet. It's us, or other organisms, projecting on reality. Any claim on objectivity is subjective. Where you might see a continuous material, I see a discrete structure. Where you see no gods, I see gods. I can even make it clear to you what I mean with them.

lol......

Now that's the first convincing argument from your side! :rofl:

'Objective' means pertaining to the object"
— Nickolasgaspar

'Objective' means pertaining to the object
— Tobias

Gracias! I didn't know that! — Agent Smith

:lol: