Comments by "Bastiaan van Beek" (@bastiaanvanbeek) on "The Institute of Art and Ideas" channel.

Going in debate or discussion with this types such as Lowkey is totally pointless. His intentions are wrong. You should just leave these people aside from developed conversation.
16
Rupert Sheldrake as part of the world's leading thinkers? I highly doubt that. Or is "world's leading thinkers" only meant as a catchy phrase?
11
Actually, the idea of life itself having no meaning is beautiful. Because in that case humans can make life beautiful. Certain people should understand that life itself just exists, it has no purpose or meaning, it just 'is'. Of course, when you say that life has no meaning, those pepple will interpret it as if you mean that you think that human life, or nature has no meaning as in "value". But that is a mistake. Human life has value, we give meaning to our lives. So as for the rest of nature. But life itself just exists, as I mentioned before. Perhaps the religious way of think is still in de minds of.many people, were "God" would create the world, the universe, with a purpose, etc. It is a fairy tale. Life is beautiful, contains morality, is interesting and contains social structures without the need of a "purpose", "meaning" or "God". I will say it directly: grow up and learn about our planet, and about the universe.
5
Well, intuition can be more effective, but it needs intelligence and a rational approach to be balanced. You have these persons who say "... but Einstein had great intuitive ideas" as a justification te be intuitive and irrational. But this is of course a mistake. Einstein was able to be genius with intuition 'in combination with' rational thought and intelligence.
3
String theory isn't to be taken seriously at this moment. It is more of a sepculative theory, or rather a hypothesis. It can be interesting intellectually, but nothing more.
3
100% is always a bit scary though
2
Not really, he's probably more similar to how scientists thought during the Middle Ages or like during the postmodern era of the 20th century, lol.
2
When a philosopher or scientist is talking about consciousness existing outside of the brain, I usually just skip it. When they talk about objects or parts that may have consciousness, I also shy away. Consciousness is just to be explained from a neuroscientific perspective. Eventually, all our functions are controlled by the brain. Also, the notion that after we pass away, there may be something cognitive or conscious left over, is to be dismissed. I strongly recommend the works by renowned Dutch neurobiologist Dick Swaab on the subject. We are our brains (2010) and Our creative brains (2016).
2
Different times in 2023. Galileo had to fight against mainstream, religious, dogmatic, pseudoscientific superstition. in 2023, the mainstream isn't like that at all. lol
2
Well, explaining on the suphase or explaining how all the processes come to be? Neuroscience already got plenty of data that show the processes of consciousness. The causes of those are still unknown.
2
1. Why are all the words in the title capitalised? 2. Philosophers should be discussing the nature of reality with scientists not with other philosophers.
2
Science is more useful than philosophy. Philosophy can only be a valuable addition to science.
2
I don't see the big problem with consciousness. I read more serious neuroscience and psychology, and it's pretty clear to me. I think certain philosophers, and physicists, especially the more commercial and spooky ones, just take it too far and thinking in wrong directions. That's why they feel like there's a "hard problem" or deliberately posing it to keep a useless acadeic and scientific debate going. If you look at our body and its functioning - biology and psychology - it's just very clear what's happening. You can also compare certain brain processes to actual computers, which will make you understand it even better.
2
The world needs more people like Michael Schermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and so on.
1
Coincidence or not, it is happening during the same time as the immense spread of misinformation and lack of rational thought in 2023. So, perhaps a bit of correlation or causation. lol
1
Don't believe everything you read and hear. Sheldrake isn't really reliable. And he has had plenty of chances to prove himself.
1
Yes, but experiences can be false too. People can be delusions, you know. Like 3/4 of the earth's population experiences some kind of religious or spiritual things. But that doesn't make it true, lol. Our brains (humans, worldwide) are fooling us easily.
1
52:24 This! And perhaps the Institute of Art and Ideas doesn't like to hear that, but Sabine is right about these events and media creating a false image of physicists and physics. The image they create is based on popularity among a very average often naive public that will easily click on a video saying "beauty", "fantasy", "Nobel Prize-winning physicist", "string theory", "dark matter", "consciousness", or "multiverse". And of course having Michio Kaku or Slavoj Zizek as a guest speaker or a social scientist as a host isn't even slightly a red flag to many viewers, unfortunately.
1
Well, not really. Other level... Certainly not a higher level, lol.
1
You're probably an American? ... Educated very 'well' ... lol
1
String theory is just a theory, or rather a hypothesis. It has no grounds in research and thus will not be taken seriously at this point. Until it has some serious research to back it up, we should not pay too much attention to string theory.
1
You are a conspiracy thinker
1
Well, even 'if' Shermer is just all show biz, he's doing a damn great job dismanteling pseudoscientific figures such as Sheldrake. If it only takes a show biz person to break down the wall of seemingly accomplished science as a cover-up for pseudoscience, it says enough I think.
1
@anthonymccarthy4164 "published in reviewed journals" Yes, but what is the quality of that (peer) reviewing? My idea of science doesn't come from show biz. That is just a cheap trick to put me down.
1
The people on the right are wishful thinkers bathing in confirmation bias and logical fallacy, on the left side is Peter Atkins trying to say something real but the otherside isn't able to comprehent. And the saddest thing to see is Myriam François who's got a BA from the University of Cambridge and a PhD from Oxford University but nevertheless fell for dogmatic religion. And unfortunately not just a little. Not surprisingly, she's also the ost dominant in this 'coversation'. It's always the same with these types.
1