Comments by "Scott K" (@scottk1525) on "God, Death, Space u0026 Time Are An Illusion! - How Evolution Hide The Truth From You | Donald Hoffman" video.

Donald: There is cause and effect, but it's not what we see. Tom: Ok, so what is it? Donald: Who knows? Tom: Ok then. Thanks for coming on.
20
Nah. This is just pointless intellectual masturbation. Just a word salad of metaphors, analogies, and philosophical buzz words. This is what happens when somebody gets so deep in the weeds of armchair pontification that they forget they're supposed to be speaking about the real world. I'm saying this as somebody with a Masters in philosophy.
8
This guy is an example of the danger of thinking exclusively in analogy. You get so lost in the weeds of metaphors and philosophical buzz words that you forget you're supposed to be speaking about reality.
7
Yeah. And unfortunately, Donald here has only thought it through about as much as a drunk teenager. He's basically speaking nonsense.
3
@Christianradke03 What "sides?" I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm saying he hasn't really said anything. All he's said is a much wordier and more academic sounding version of "nothing is what it seems brooooo." For instance, claiming that the self, or reality, or cause and effect are "constructs" is just a metaphor that doesn't actually teach explain anything about the nuts and bolts of what is real or true. When pressed for details, clarification, or an explanation of what exactly he means by any given claim, or for what he thinks replaces our current understanding of cause and effect, he's got nothing. Nothing but more metaphors and analogies. In other words, it's not that I'm disagreeing with him so much as I'm saying that he's not really saying anything.
3
@ohgoosey6233 Agreed. It's ok to wonder, speculate, or hypothesize. But making empty claims that you can't justify with anything tangible is just academic masturbation.
3
@ronaldreagan5981 " central America has changed shape drastically twice, and south America moved 1300 miles to the east. Australia moved 1000 miles north. Those are observations that allowed a discovery " Not sure why you're referencing these observations. They are objective, empirical measurements. Aka: actual, tangible, provable, evidence-based discoveries about the physical world. But what you're talking about when you say you've "discovered" whatever poetic gibberish you're trying to spin here, you're not talking about objective empirical measurements. You're talking about strictly theoretical speculations that you've cooked up in your head. Not sure how you could confuse objective geographical measurements of land masses with vague armchair pontifications about the nature of reality. Do you honestly not see the difference between these two very difference categories of analysis? Yikes.
2
Donald "Yep Right Mm-Hmm Right Yep Right Right Hmm Yep Right" Hoffman
1
@jeffneptune2922 Either he hasn't, or he just has a helluva time articulating clearly. In any case, this interview was a jumbled word salad of abstract philosophy jargon that accomplished basically nothing. I honestly can't even make any sense of his theories beyond vague skepticism of our experience of reality. Which is basically just the academic version of stoner philosophy (ie: bro, what if like, nothing is real man?)
1
This kind of nonsense i what happens when you start inventing your own definitions of words. In this case, "real." If you want to stipulate that permanence is an essential part of something being "real," and then pontificate about what that means, nobody is stopping you. But it's a difference version of "real" than the rest of us are discussing. Things need not be permanent to be "real."
1
@NowisEvollovetion " Have you ever heard the words 'eternal' or eternity? Other words that are often used to describe our 'underlying reality' " What do you mean by "underlying reality?" I don't think you even know what you mean. In any case, it's beside the point. I'm not talking about whether "reality" is eternal or real. I'm saying that things within reality need not be eternal in order to be real. My smoothie is real (that is, the atoms comprising my smoothie are in fact in a certain arrangement right now that I'm calling a smoothie,) even though these atoms weren't arranged as a smoothie 10 minutes ago and won't be arranged as one 30 minutes from now. At this moment, they are arranged as a smoothie and so the smoothie is real. Why do you think this is false? Why does my smoothie have to be eternal in order to be real? If I'm seeing, holding, drinking, tasting, and digesting this smoothie right now, what does it even mean to claim it's not "real?" Seems to me your definition of "real" is so restrictive that literally nothing qualifies as real. " Now, for something to be correctly classed as 'eternal' it must of course be 'never ending'. It must be 'beyond time' in other words " Great. We've defined eternal. Moving on... " It must be 'beyond time' in other words. Unlike everything in this existence of course " I would argue that the most fundamental form of matter from which the universe is created is in fact eternal. I don't know what that smallest, indivisible form of matter is (probably something on the sub-atomic quantum scale,) but I think it should be self evident that you can't un-exist matter.You can change its shape, constitution, and arrangement, but you can't banish it from existence. But back to the point at hand, you seem to be arguing that something isn't "real" unless it's permanent. But you haven't explained why, other than stating that reality is "often described" as eternal. Which isn't an explanation at all. It's almost as if this is your argument: P1: Some people call reality eternal P2: Nothing is eternal C: Therefore, nothing is real Premise 1 doesn't matter, because what some people believe about reality doesn't really tell us anything about reality itself. It also doesn't tell us anything about things within reality (ie: my smoothie is not synonymous with reality. So when somebody says "reality itself is eternal," it doesn't really address whether or not my smoothie is real.) Premise 2 is just an empty claim. You need to explain to me why my smoothie needs to be eternal in order to be real. The conclusion doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? Even if we all agree that "nothing is real," ok now what? I still have to type the non-real keys on this non-real keyboard to type this non-real comment into my non-real computer on the non-real internet. I still have to eat non-real food or my non-real body will not-really die.
1
@NowisEvollovetion What a word salad of incoherent gibberish. Are you able to state any of that plainly and clearly by chance? And are you planning to respond to any of the points I made? Or are you just here to be poetic and talk like an oracle?
1
@NowisEvollovetion I take nothing because nothing was said. Warmest regards and all that.
1
@NowisEvollovetion Yeah thanks, Morpheus. Warmest most specialist wishes and regards.
1
@controllerbrain And?
1
@ronaldreagan5981 lol "discovered." Sitting in your armchair fantasizing vague concepts of what reality may or may not entail is in no way "discovery."
1