Re: horrific video
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:48 am
It would be demeaning to respond to such tripe.
Philosophical Speculations
horrific video
Page 2 of 2
Re: horrific video
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:56 am
Btw, while perusing BK's twitter feed recently, I did come across this other critique that was brought to his attention, and which may be of some interest here. And while I was at it, I shared with him the link to the 'debunking' video above, so if he wasn't already aware of it, presumably he is now.
Re: horrific video
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:44 pm
how idealism can be taken further into areas it would seem BK would rather not venture into
discussing that would be more interesting than bashing poor little me.
discussing that would be more interesting than bashing poor little me.
Re: horrific video
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:11 pm
Clearly we have very different ideas of what constitutes bashing.Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:44 pmdiscussing that would be more interesting than bashing poor little me.
Others here may indeed also be intrigued by the 'debunking' video, and appreciate your sharing it. There was no intention of bashing that intrigue.
Re: horrific video
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:47 pm
ok keep beating me up. what would you want bk to venture into?
Re: horrific video
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:53 am
Re: horrific video
Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:00 am
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:47 pm ok keep beating me up. what would you want bk to venture into?
It would be very interesting if he read Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom - an idealist view which directly critiques Schopenhauer's idealism of "instinctive" Will - and wrote a review-critique of it. And/or if he read Cleric's critique of his "flat MAL" view with his essay Deep M@L: Beyond Flat M@L, and responded to that.
Re: horrific video
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:00 pm
You can be an amateur without officially studiying philosophy. I know a guy who read over 1000 books on philosophy and went to university readings without even officially being employed. He knows as much as a phd philosopher, sadly he went to a psychiatry because he could not stop to think about philosophy. You can do that with any subject (if it is not medicine or any other practical subject), for example Ramanujan Srinivasa (one of the biggest mathematical geniuses) studied extremely complex phd level mathematics without even going to a school for a long time....Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 1:31 am The guy seems to be an amateur youtuber with no background in philosophy and completely misses the point and confuses science with metaphysics. Science has nothing to do with and can not prove or disprove neither materialism nor idealism (nor any other ontology). Science only applies to what reality (nature) does (how it behaves) but not what it is.
Regarding the "hard problem", he confuses the "emergence" with "brutal emergence", and the "easy problem" with the "hard problem" of consciousness. Apparently he has no knowledge of Chalmers analysis of those two kinds of emergence and two kinds of problems.