Well, I can't make a timely comment AND watch a three hour video that in the end might make no distinction between 'truth and madness'. So, I'll go just for the comment. 😗
1) The human mind, in its rational and emotive functions, quite plainly requires 'points of fixity' to exist.
2) It then follows that the human mind requires something we call 'objective reality'.
3) It may be conceded that there can be a host of problems with the mind's perception of reality, but such problems do not invalidate the existence of an objective reality - and in fact, if I understand the implications of Steve's thumbnail sketch, CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE invalidate it. This idea smells to me suspiciously like the idea that since the scientific method is inherently atheistic (it is, just as driving your car is) then we must conclude that atheists are correct about God.
Here's one from the world of physics. In the famous 1935 EPR paradox thought experiment, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that quantum theory predicted via quantum entanglement than faster that light 'spooky action at a distance' would happen, and since relativity prohibited such action quantum theory was incomplete.
Then in 1964, John Bell published his theorem which, in layman's terms stated that either faster than light 'spooky action at a distance' MUST happen, or else objective reality must not exist. So then we saw two decades of physicists publicly stating that this meant the universe did not exist (meaning that their subject of interest, their profession, and they themselves didn't either!). What is it that leads people to such conclusions? I think it's because they are black-white thinkers who can't allow uncertainty to exist [in their] minds.
And then faster than light 'spooky action at a distance' was demonstrated in the lab, over and over.
Steve, you posted: "...the probability of organic life evolving sense organs that accurately perceive reality is zero...Once a comfortable survival equilibrium is reached..." is a contradiction. The reason is that, once a comfortable survival equilibrium is reached, the evolved sense organs accurately perceive reality WELL ENOUGH, and so the ACTUALITY, not the probability, is already NOT zero.
Steve, I believe that you are accurately quoting all this. Fact from my library: some form of vision has independently evolved on earth about 40 times, and 5 times it has independently evolved to photographic quality. None of these invalidates the others, and all have limits which are not invalidations. To say that the existence of such limitations are in some way proof that reality is all 'virtual' is a huge leap. I don't see how it works. I think the probabilistic dice have been loaded.
So why do scientists 'load the dice', as they did for years after John Bell? Why the desire to deny objective reality? I've taught science and worked with science teachers, and I'm convinced that the reason is the siren call of relativism.
For example, I am an admirer of Karl Popper's philosophy of science. It is a clear cut and useful guide to what is science and what is not, and how in general to conduct its methods. It is also thanks to this clarity the legal definition of science in the U.S. However, I find that Thomas Kuhn's ideas are much more popular despite their imprecision and negative implications (according to Kuhn, astronaut David Bowman in 2001 could no longer do science once he passed through the Stargate and was cut off from human civilization, an absurd conclusion). I am convinced that this is because Popper leave[s] no wiggle room for relativism, while Kuhn does. I don't think Kuhn is WRONG, but his ideas are really a sociology of science, not a philosophy.
You made my day Steve by using the term "grok". I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the early 70's when it was "a thing". I've never forgotten it and lament that there still hasn't been a film adaptation.
Lex Fridman is a terrific interviewer and seems like an all around good guy. I have listened to Hoffman in a number of interviews and find his ideas (to the extent I can understand them) really interesting. What would some of our stiff Thomists make of his views? Wasn't Aristotle's big claim that through our senses we perceive reality as it is?
Well, I can't make a timely comment AND watch a three hour video that in the end might make no distinction between 'truth and madness'. So, I'll go just for the comment. 😗
1) The human mind, in its rational and emotive functions, quite plainly requires 'points of fixity' to exist.
2) It then follows that the human mind requires something we call 'objective reality'.
3) It may be conceded that there can be a host of problems with the mind's perception of reality, but such problems do not invalidate the existence of an objective reality - and in fact, if I understand the implications of Steve's thumbnail sketch, CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE invalidate it. This idea smells to me suspiciously like the idea that since the scientific method is inherently atheistic (it is, just as driving your car is) then we must conclude that atheists are correct about God.
Allow me a few examples:
Here's one from the world of physics. In the famous 1935 EPR paradox thought experiment, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that quantum theory predicted via quantum entanglement than faster that light 'spooky action at a distance' would happen, and since relativity prohibited such action quantum theory was incomplete.
Then in 1964, John Bell published his theorem which, in layman's terms stated that either faster than light 'spooky action at a distance' MUST happen, or else objective reality must not exist. So then we saw two decades of physicists publicly stating that this meant the universe did not exist (meaning that their subject of interest, their profession, and they themselves didn't either!). What is it that leads people to such conclusions? I think it's because they are black-white thinkers who can't allow uncertainty to exist [in their] minds.
And then faster than light 'spooky action at a distance' was demonstrated in the lab, over and over.
Steve, you posted: "...the probability of organic life evolving sense organs that accurately perceive reality is zero...Once a comfortable survival equilibrium is reached..." is a contradiction. The reason is that, once a comfortable survival equilibrium is reached, the evolved sense organs accurately perceive reality WELL ENOUGH, and so the ACTUALITY, not the probability, is already NOT zero.
Steve, I believe that you are accurately quoting all this. Fact from my library: some form of vision has independently evolved on earth about 40 times, and 5 times it has independently evolved to photographic quality. None of these invalidates the others, and all have limits which are not invalidations. To say that the existence of such limitations are in some way proof that reality is all 'virtual' is a huge leap. I don't see how it works. I think the probabilistic dice have been loaded.
So why do scientists 'load the dice', as they did for years after John Bell? Why the desire to deny objective reality? I've taught science and worked with science teachers, and I'm convinced that the reason is the siren call of relativism.
For example, I am an admirer of Karl Popper's philosophy of science. It is a clear cut and useful guide to what is science and what is not, and how in general to conduct its methods. It is also thanks to this clarity the legal definition of science in the U.S. However, I find that Thomas Kuhn's ideas are much more popular despite their imprecision and negative implications (according to Kuhn, astronaut David Bowman in 2001 could no longer do science once he passed through the Stargate and was cut off from human civilization, an absurd conclusion). I am convinced that this is because Popper leave[s] no wiggle room for relativism, while Kuhn does. I don't think Kuhn is WRONG, but his ideas are really a sociology of science, not a philosophy.
You made my day Steve by using the term "grok". I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the early 70's when it was "a thing". I've never forgotten it and lament that there still hasn't been a film adaptation.
Lex Fridman is a terrific interviewer and seems like an all around good guy. I have listened to Hoffman in a number of interviews and find his ideas (to the extent I can understand them) really interesting. What would some of our stiff Thomists make of his views? Wasn't Aristotle's big claim that through our senses we perceive reality as it is?