Comments by "Andrew Wilson" (@andrewwilson9183) on "The Greatest Lie Ever Told" video.
-
65
-
32
-
25
-
24
-
18
-
13
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wuthering_Waifus
The unmoved mover is a philosophical not religious concept. Though I suppose you could classify it as a natural religious concept, if you exclude natural religion it isn’t.
Second, I don’t see how modern science diverged all that significantly from Aristotle or the book of Genesis.
Inductive logic is implied by Aristotle, and much of Bacons teleology of science comes from Genesis
Thirdly, I meant relative isolation. Yes there was influence from Egypt in Math.
Fourthly, my problem with Hinduism, and why I think it is inferior to Greek Philosophy and middle eastern religion is that Hinduism doesn’t respect the material world enough. I understand empirically why that is, India has both the best and worst geography in the world, with plentiful farmland and land plentiful disease, so understandably the people there would come to that conclusion, however I would still argue that it a conclusion in error. Yes the contemplative life is important, as Hinduism rightfully teaches. However, the fullness of contemplative virtue requires scientific knowledge, and physical life seems to exist to express creativity, we are physical life, therefore that is our purpose as well.
Given the empirical biases that are inevitable in a tropical environment, in my opinion the most objective philosophies and religions will be the ones from temperate climates. As such it is no coincidence that even the Chinese who are part temperate came to a conclusion partially that of Genesis and Aristotle, with their obsession with terraforming the land around them, and the numerous technological innovations given to us from China, compared to India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atheistbushman
That is a diverse and somewhat contradictory list of thinkers. A Greek Philosopher, the founder of Buddhism, two atheists and a Christian Apologist. Fascinating.
For me I would say Aristotle, Cicero, St Thomas Aquinas, Sir Francis Bacon, and John Locke.
Now if I may ask, what do you think that list says about me?
From your I can guess that you are an empiricist, you value critical thinking, you’re a classical liberal?, and someone who really likes Buddhism, although you have already made that clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
I will have to read the article, though it may be that he was misunderstanding. There is also a lot of sensationalism in popular scientific articles, which should give reason for doubt.
Yeah I understand that in many cases our society is very authoritarian, however, in the case of Snowden he did arguably commit treason, which is a bit different. He did not mention economics or the Anthropocene so I do not think those are what he meant. I agree with the rest of the video. To your point I should read up on the quantum mechanics issue.
So what quantum mechanics says as far as super position is concerned, if you use the example of what are called quantum computers, there are Qbits that can be one and zero at the same time. A normal bit is either one or zero. When a "measurement" happens, or some interference, the Qbit takes on either the form of one or zero. In Aristotelian philosophy, there is the "substance" of a thing, and there is the "accident" of a thing. The subtance is that which essentially defines a thing, and the accident are properties that are optional. For example, I am a substance that has the accident of green eyes. An accidental change would be if I got some procedure to have blue eyes, a substantial change would be for a thing to be destroyed. A subatomic particle is in superpostion in which it is a substance that occupies multiple accidents. Interference, causes an accidental change in the particle, to occuply a singuler accident. The accidents in this case are the particles spin. Thus even if consciousness effects reality, it can only be doing so accidentally, not substantially. Furthermore, I do not believe he was at all talking about the creation of artificial things.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
Regarding Consciousness, or awareness, it is the state of an agent possessing information. Now there are different levels of consciousness. Consciousness requires to components, a capacity of possession and reaction. So a fish has a very basic level of consciousness, its recieves impressions of external objects onto itself, specifically the possessive component, and its reactive component that enages with the information has control over that information. As it is said "knowledge is power". If an agent were to have only a possessive component then the agent would be no different than a white board. Regarding human consciousness, we have self awarness, in which our minds in a sense has an impression of itself, and control of itself. Now Rudyard speaks of an immateriality to the human mind. Now it is the position of Aristotelian philosophy, which includes Aristotle and Aquinas, that this is the case. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, than we would not knowledge of abstracts which immaterial. If the mind were physical it could only have physical impressions, thus there must be something that is immaterial that grants knowledge of abstracts. For Aristotle this is the Active Intellect. For Aquinas there is also the Will, as knowledge comes with control. The Intellect is the possessing component of abstract consciousness and the Will is the reactive.
Regarding Religion and Agnosticism. The definition of agnosticism is people who are ambivelant as to a proposition. He uses it interchangably with "secular" even though it is possible for people to be agnostic and religious. He will sometimes define religion as a system of ethics, metaphysics, ritual, and community, and then he will alternatively speak of it as an opposition to atheism, even though he has also said that religions can be atheistic. So very confusing. He doesn't seem to have a placement for Deists, its pretty ambiguous. He once said that people who think that traditional religion is false should just support them anyway. I do not think he takes the different beliefs of different religions seriously. He also doesn't have a clear definition of faith, he is pretty vague. Jordan Peterson does the same thing. I understand that Rudyard is self described Christian, but his beliefs confuse me. When asked on a podcast why he supports Christianity, he simply said it is because it helps people. I think he what would be classified as an Agnostic Christian " a person who believes that Christianity is true somehow" but he has already used the term agnostic so negatively and inappropriately he would not be able to admit that, especially, to much of his audience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
1. He is inconsisted with his use of the term religion, sometimes he will use it to refer to any set of beliefs with a defined metaphysics, ethics, rituals, and community. However, he will sometimes use it interchangably with a belief in God. This of course complicates what he means by secular. Where do Deists fit in, those that believe in God yet reject divine revelation.
2. Likewise, he misuses the term Agnostic. Agnostic refers to ambivelance or skepticism regarding a proposition. He however, uses it as a synonym for atheism or secularism.
3. He doesn't seem to take traditional Christian beliefs all that seriously. He claims to be Christian, yet he appears very agnostic about it. His answer on this one podcast as to why he supports Christianity, is that it helps people.
1
-
@
Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
4. Self awareness, I would contend, is where an agent possesses impressions itself. Whereby the agent perceives itself perceives externally, and perceives itself perceiving itself.
5. Now it argued by many that there is a part of the human mind that is immaterial, or “spiritual”. That would be Aristotelian view. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, then it would only be able to have impressions of physical objects, or physical impressions. Not impressions of abstracts which are immaterial. Thus it is believed that the part of the mind that thinks of abstracts is immaterial, this is called the Intellect. Which is the possessive potency for abstract thinking. Later the concept of an immaterial Will was also conceived, as a fitting counterpart to the Intellect. The Will is the reactive potency of abstract thought. This perspective so far makes the most sense to me.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
4. Self awareness, I would contend, is where an agent possesses impressions itself. Whereby the agent perceives itself perceives externally, and perceives itself perceiving itself.
5. Now it is argued by many that there is a part of the human mind that is immaterial, or “spiritual”. That would be the Aristotelian view. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, then it would only be able to have impressions of physical objects, or physical impressions. Not impressions of abstracts which are immaterial. Thus it is believed that the part of the mind that thinks of abstracts is immaterial, this is called the Intellect. Which is the possessive potency for abstract thinking. Later the concept of an immaterial Will was also conceived, as a fitting counterpart to the Intellect. The Will is the reactive potency of abstract thought. This perspective so far makes the most sense to me.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1