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.
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:
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?