As you may be aware, I did a deep dive into Nathan Hawkin's (NH) video criticisms of Bernardo Kastrup's (BK) metaphysics, aka "Analytic Idealism" a few months back. In there NH first stated that BK did not want to come on his show to discuss his philosophy, but now it seems this has changed. I wonder if my contribution has pushed this, or it is just that BK needs to crowd-control "criticism" potentially flourishing among his congregation.
If you want to have a look and listen to my videos deconstructing HN+BK in NHs videos, before I dive into the main topic, they are right here:
"The many problems with Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism" (Parts 1-4 playlist)
--------
The recent Absolute Philosophy by Nathan Hawkins video, published Nov.30, 2024 on Youtube is what I am diving into. Rather than commenting on Youtube instead I will present it here, step by step as the video proceeds.
Kastrup responds to my criticisms of Analytic Idealism (part 1)
9:20 "Baloney in a Nutshell" !!! ... I couldn't have said it better myself :-)
9:26 So he has not even done his homework, and then proceeds to come up with pathetic excuses. He has his head so far up his own a**, looking for ripples
11:15 Necessary truth's ... what is that ?? How about a few definitions of what you are talking about before just diving in midstream. Necessary, must be a decision not an observation. But does "something" that is "true" not have to be experiential!. And if it does not have to, are you not mixing categories, because if I say "that is an elephant", elephant can be true or false, to me, depending on my experience. But if something that is not an experience, can be true (for instance metaphysics), then it is a whole different category, that can be the same as that experience that can be true (or false).
11:28. You cannot use science to "validate" that foundation (the physics and metaphysics) you are trying to settle. Science is a philosophical principle established AFTER you have established the foundation AND epistemology, to get to a definition of knowledge. Science have to be based on knowledge (the empirical observation) so it can not be used to establish that which you have to settle before you settle what you mean by knowledge. It is really stoopid !
11:44 "Apriori evidence" ?? Is that not an oxymoron ? if it is evidence, it must be experience, but then it is not Apriori, because it is supposed to arrived at without experience. If it is apriori, you don't need evidence, since it is already handed to you somehow (mind you I don't support a notion of apriori, just trying to clarify their understanding)
12:20 Hour "epistemology is what we can access in our knowledge" ... say what??? Epistemology is a kind of philsophy, more particularly the philsophy you do to arrive at a definition of knowledge. Epistemology is not something you have "access" to. And it is not the same as knowledge. This sounds like what BK thinks he knows is just a vast internal "library" that he can just tap into as he sees fit. It is a complete misunderstanding of this area of philosophy
12:30 So it sounds like BK lumps all of his phenomena (maybe except meta-consciousness) into a big bag he here calls epistemology/knowledge and then "argues" that whatever he considers "beyond" that is an inference. Then he starts talking about his personal history !! As if his personal experience has anything to do with why he is talking in general terms about how to extend from knowledge via inferences
13:20 So he is not a philosopher but a scientist ... who thinks his scientific theorising has suddenly been upgraded to philosophy. Any kind of "what if" is not philosophy, but if he attempts the "what if" argument, and then attempts to find impirical evidence for it, he is violating the standard he just mentioned, which is all of what he is trying to settle, must be inference, not experience
14:40 Two peas in a pot. Exactly. NH, have you been peaking at my critique videos :-)
15:35 Nice one ... I want to see him squirm in his seat trying to sophist his way out of that
15:36 This is the rambling answer to a very straight question: "I dont think you can ever draw an absolute or certain metaphysic conclusion from scientific results from the reasons you explained. But I also dont think human beings, bi-pedal apes, can know the truth for sure. I think that is fundamentally impossible. We are in the business of ranking hypothesis - what are the more plausible hypothesis, what are the least plausible hypothesis. I tend to think thats the best bi-pedal apes can do. Its to identify their own mistakes, allow themselves to be calibrated by empirical experience and improve on their errors and get closer to truth. A friend of mine would love this statement "Closer to truth", because hes the host of a programme that goes by this name. So thats my inner attitude. I dont think that I am in the business of unveiling the absolute truth of existence, the ultimate ontological entities and realities. I think that my business is to do better than the people who came before me and to make less mistakes or at least become more aware of our mistakes. Empirical evidence I think is supremely useful in these ends because it is out there. The risk when we are not empirically based at all philosophy will end up ... I am going to exaggerate, I don't mean this ultimate, I am exaggerating to make a point. Philosophy, if it is not empirically grounded, could ultimately become a method for defending ones own prejudices. If all of philosophy is ungrounded in empirircism, you go back to scolasticism, you go back to the 13th century, in whih things were very ungrounded and everyone would defend their views. They would say "well my intuitions tell me that". Well, that only tells me about your intuitions and not about what is true. So apriori arguments tendto fall prey to patterns of human mentation with whatever biases and prejudices or blind spots or unexamined assumptions they have. I dont think the scolastics were correct in thinking that the human mind in supreme isolation could access the ultimate truths of existence. And off course we've improved since then. Analytic philosophy is not scolasticism but i am trying to establish a contrast here to highlight why i think empirial evidence is importnat, since it is so neutral - its not completely neutral, Thomas Kuhn already explained that in 1969 - but it is more neutral than apriori syllogism and things like that, which I think are very dangerous."
18:44 So he basically does not answer either of the questions. 1. "What allows you to draw answers to metaphysical questions from science" and 2. "what methodology are you using" ... what a parody af a philosopher
21:03 "A metaphysical theory should be at least internally consistent" ... well, metaphysics is not a theory dude. A theory is what you do in science when you attempt to predict how things will behave and be composed in the future, within you empirical experience (or dashboard as BKs tends to call it). You cannot do a theory about metaphysics ... it is like saying "I am going to dance in order to brush my teeth" --- they dont go together, they dont belong together. How can you not understand this mistake you are making BK. Metaphysics supposedly is even more foundational than your ontology. Then you need an ontology to start on epistemology to get to a definition of knowledge and truth .. AND THEN you might start philosophising about what it entails to do science, because science HAS to be based on knowledge, because that is a description on what is on that dashboard (the empiricism)
22:20 "I think there is value in trying to bring some of (science) to philosphy, because empirical evidence can have metaphysical implications, at least in the sense that it can rule out certain things. It may not be positive evidence that singles out one theory ... i dont think it can go that far" ... So again, he is doing scince where he is not allowed to do science. You dont look at sh*t to figure out if your metaphysics is wrong. Metaphysics is in a sense a fabulation about what goes on outside a house you can never leave. Whatever you attempt to look at inside that house (empiricism) it can NEVER be that which is outside that house. It is just stupid fantasy to think that you can some-how penetrate those illusory doors of perception and step halfway into the other side by convincing yourself that "evidence" on the wall of your house confinement is "evidence" for this or that.
23:11 Just because physicalists and their ilk are desperately trying to somehow save physicalism, does not make your metaphysics more (or less) correct in any way. That my neighbor has a crappy car, does not have any influence on the quality of my car
24:58 Consensu .. no, but a way to agree, or make agreements on aspects of living together based on parts of each of our philosophy that we can agree on ... rather than having a "president" threaten us with murder to "regulate" everyone
25:39 "Empirical evidence is not definitive for anything metaphysical ... it can be useful, it can rule out certain things, it can guide our thinking .." ... No, metaphysics and empiricism(science) are incompatible aspects. Either he violates metaphysics or he violates science, or both. Philsophy comes BERFORE everything else, including science. Science is based on a philosophy that condensed into what is usually called the scientific method. All of that which is attempted to be described by that method is what you can experience (bicycles, bananas, apes, etc...) and how they move about. Observing that to come up with a genralised THEORY of how this is going to unfold in the future, based on the memory (data) of those prior experiences. This has NOTHING to do with metaphysics. metaphyscis is what goes on beyond, outside, before ... that which is being described in science. that goes obviously also for the philosophy done to descirbe it.
27:02 "Where does entropy occur" ... trick question, if you by where mean in some sense "outside" your experience. But NH points to one of the pile of problems in BKs philosophy. He just cherrypicks science, philosophy, pseudo science etc .. wherever and whenever he needs it and stiches it together in a (very entising) sophist manner to make it look like he has actually produced something. He hasn't. Entropy is an aestethic approach to the idea of energy ... how useful is it in the state that it is in. Useful is a "human" aestetic approach to it.
29:00 "Living being" ... is not evolution. Evolution is not an experience, it is an interpretation of an experience (that supposedly is considered evidence pointing to a theory of evolution). Evolution is even further removed from metaphysics, as it in itself is not even going on on his dahsboard but is a theory based on what is going on on his dashboard ... yet he attempts to use it as an argument for how there are things going on beyond his dashboard
29:17 "I think it is useful..." he keeps saying that over and over again as if it is some kind of argument or justification for why he is right or that can settle any metaphysics or philosophy in general. Notice that he never gets close to any tangible argument anywhere (at least not yet, I have not seen the video yet). He does not answer any direct question that he HAS to answer for what allows him to for instance use science to settle metaphysics and what methodology he uses. Because he has none, he only has his wishful thinking and his confused couldron of semi-science-semi-philosophy mashup that is completly dysfunctional imo
"we know it is a fabric of space-time" ... what do you mean "we" know. ?? Define knowledge so that I understand what entails in that "we" that knows. Oh no, definition of knowledge, no he will never go there, because he cannot.. He stays, and have stayed in, metaphysics for a decade+ nad will never systematically philsophize towards an actual ontology > epistemology > ethics
32:00 "....the world I see is the world that there actually is" ... What do you mean world. Do you mean the same as what BK calls the dashboard? Use the same term so not to confuse. If what you "see" is what you call the world, then fine ... hose are then just different term to reference the same. If you imply that what you see is not the "real world" the first you have to establish what that other thing (world) you are implying all of a sudden appears in your philosophy. What do you mean NH
32:05 "Things on the dashboard are modulated by the noumena right, by the real states of the world" ... So Bernardo takes it for granted that NH is taking about another world outside his dashboard world. I would VERY MUCH like a solid argument for what makes you able to establish that other (external) world. It must be because of something on tht dashboard right, otherwise it would not be empirical would it. Even if I dont believe in that kind of argument, BK would have to use it since that is what he has said he is doing. Another thing then is, not only does this external wworld all of a sudden appear out of nowhere but he can go even further and say that it "modulates" his dashboard. How the f*ck does he do that. According to his own standards, he infers a metaphysics, from a dashboard. Then says, without any argument, that that inference is modulating his dashboard. Anyone who can see the circularity of this :-) I infer something from my dshboard that modulates my dashboard. Holy sh*t it is bad argumentation
33:00 BK cannot argue for correspondence to anything outside his dashboard unless he has acces to it to establish it. You cannot infer a world, and then establish a connection based on that ... it is imagination upon imagination and so on.
41:13 BK "When a pilot uses the dashboard" ... you mean "when the pilot uses "the dashboard on his dashboard" right .. Or are you trying sophistically to compare the metaphor of a dashboard with an actual dashboard ...or lump them together to crete the notion that because you call it a dashboard, all of a sudden you have some kind of access to something beyond the dashboard, because, you know that why it is called a dashboard (it is a representation of some kind of something else that is somewhere else that the dashboard). But if a pilot uses his dashboard to look at a dashboard. What you are mixing up is an outside nad an inside world as if you have access to both. The metaphor dashboard looking at a dashboard ... no the metaophor has to be kicked out now if you bring in a n actual experiential dashboard. And the only reason you use the metaphorical dashboard is because an actual dashboard is known to have an outside, while your metaphorical one doesnt. It is pure manipulation.
41:27 "... it is a proxy for the sky" ?? Say what? .. The sky is on the dashboard right, so it cannot be a proxy for itself. If you go with the idea of an external world (and I am still waiting for a good argument for it), then the sky an at most be regarded as a proxy for something that you have no clue what actually is. The sky is not a proxy for a sky. It sounds ridiculous. You could call that which you dont know what is a sky, but then you have screwed up any rigid description of this philsophy where you are never sure what is being talked about and where we are.
41:48 "Your body is your minds representation of itself" ... Really ... how about the brain then, is that something special ... because it seems to me that if I lost both arms and legs (like the knight in Monty python) I would still function mentally as I did before I lost them, but if I "lost" my brain ... I believe my "mind" would go with it. What is the difference .. because if all of my body is a representation of my mind, there should not be this difference in effect.
46:05 "I think mind at large is not meta-conscious" ... It is incredible how his opinion and potential bias about what is going out there, all of a sudden seem to become valid argumetns, even if he minutes before critisised materialists for doing just that - understood as that is a bad way of arguing. I guess he considers himself special.
46:10 "A bacteria would not be metaconscious" .. well aren't bacteria a dissociation just like you think you are ... because you are alive. Body/dissociation was how he spotted where it could be and since I suppose he cannot get utside his own consciousness he cannot say anything about potential meta-consciousness outside himself. The "bacteria" is as he says just a correlation symbol on his dashboard ... But again, he must be special, his prejudice can off course become arguments if he needs them to be.
52:10 NH don't fall for the trap of letting him get the upperhand by pretending you can in any way argue this, that and the other about "mind at large" or "reality" or "external world" or whatever you call it. BK himself appeals to some kind of falsifiability of his metaphysics ... but none of what he states is argued in any way that can be falsified. First of all as I say, doing science have nothing to do in philosophy. Secondly, The problem is that most people think that science tells you how things work. No your theory attempts to tell how things work and then you use science (method) to try and falsify that that, try to invalidate the theory. but just because the theory has not (yet) been invalidated, does not mean that what is entailed in the theory is an actual world. it is not even the actual experience which it is based on (empiricism). It is an abstraction to represent something going on in the dashboard you dont have access to. Why does things move about on the dashboard ? I cannot get to that, but tht does not mean that I cannot create an abstract, scientific theory that attempts to predict when it is going to happen that way again.
53:10 Well, if you are one of these stoopid bi-pedal apes, why don't you shut up about what is going on beyond that socalled dashboard of yours, since you seem to say that you are not really able to say anything precise about it. Unless off course it is a gaslighting tactic to get listeners to give up thinking for themselves and "PAY ATTENTION" to your brilliance, because you a special monkey with PhDs. Why are you so hung up on that external world? It seems to me to be an obsession that is of purely intellectual nature. It has no use in my everyday what so ever. I have to deal with bicycles, pints of milk, rain, blurays etc ... I dont care whatever it is that these things may be on the other side of themselves because at the end of the day all I have are bicycles, pints of milk, rain, blurays and so on. And I have to deal with those. You can sit there in your attic all you want and come up with all sorts of weird stories about what goes on out there ... it does not change what I have to deal with, and if it did, I would not be able to know. Imo there is no difference in discussing the composition nad nature of an external world and discussing whether trolls or orcs are the most dangerous creatures.
55:09 "Can we make good theoretical guesses. ? I think we can .. we surely can". How about that argument ... BK thinks we can, so we surely can.
1:04:22 BK equates an idea of entropy, which is an interpretation of the dashboard and "the mind at large" which is his idealist term for an external world (and what it is "made of"). You cannot do that. it is an invalid step. I don't know how to flesh it out more, it is pretty obvious to me that the borders of his thinking are flowing together and mind, dashboard, interpretations and so on are mixed up and are being used as he sees fit whenever he needs it.
1:05:05 Big Bang + inflation. Again he takes an interpretation of the dashboard as a story of what goes on in a world outside the dashboard. Invalid.
1:05:44 Well if BK takes evlution as a reason for why the dashboard is at it is, then the dashboar must in the beginning start from nothing. Before dashboard there was no dashboard. When dashboard appeared in an evolutionary way it must have been very simple and not a very complex aspect that then was simplified because some of it was not evolutionarily advantageous. So in short. sahboard is something from nothing going towards a more complex appearance than I have now. Then first of all it cannot be other than slowly moulded from simpler to more complex, and thus never had any idea why it is why it is, let alone me having access to any idea of what may be beyond that dashboard, based on that dashboard. I cannot derive understanding from something that never could have that understanding. Then metaphysics is pure abstraction, based on bad thinking.
1:07:07 "Since the dials (dashboard) are constructed so to convey salient information about the world outside, indirectly, physics models the world, it describes and predicts the states of nature through the intermediation through their representations on the dashboard, the dials". This sounds very smart and intellectual. Granted, it may be taken out of context, I dont have the book. But the statement "Since the dials are constructed so to convey information ..." Is just grabbed out of nowhere. So far since I first saw a video of BKs maybe 5 years ago and everywhere else ... including all other "philsoophers" dealing with hte idea of "an external world" I have never seen any non-bs argument for why there is an external world. And then let alone any idea of what it might be made of (mind for instance). If you cannot make a coherent argument for an external world, you cannot get to tell me what it is made of and how it "influences your "dashboard" to give you salient information about that world you have not argued for. Imo the only way to deal with an external world is to state it as an axiom, which implicitly means "I cannot argue for it but I am going to use it in my philosophy". But even then, this does not give you any sudden access to an external world, just because you established that axiom. It would be the same as saying I just have to say "now I am on the moon" and then you would actually be on the moon. Does not work. And since it imo is impossible to get any access of any kind to any external world, even with an axiom as mentioned, ther is no way of telling why or how the "dashboard" the way it is or why it does as it does, and specifically it cannot be correllated with any externality beyond pure imagination.
1:08:10 Again he says the dashboard conveys information about "the world" and therefore he can "indirectly" describe the world. Well it sounds very much like a circular argument because he does not present a valid argument to establish that external world. it is like he thinks that an outside world is talking to him in some kind of coded language that he just has to decipher correctly to get "closer to truth". This is mysticism imo, cloaked in science-philosophy mumbu-jumbo. he brings in again the analogy of an actual cockpit dashboard. But as stated earlier, a dashboard experience of a dashboar that is known to have an external (to the airplane) does not mean that he can then say that ther then must be an external world to his metaphorical dashboard. This is sophist manipulation. He is screwing around with you and confusing the ideas. The information they convey is also a strange idea. Information is an interpretation of what is going on. If I experience red for instance is that information ? Well it depends on what I need it for and what value that brigs. If I say to you there are three apples on my table. Is that information to me? Only if I need to do something with them, or maybe need to avoid them something. If I told BK that I have 3 apples on my table is that information to him. Hard to argue that it is. he could call it information i suppose, but then what is he adding to that story other than bringing on a new word to describe those supposed 3 apples. he then say that you can get truth from the dials ?? I would like a serious and regid definition of what he means by "true". it completely floats for me what he means. A dial in a cockpit is created to move in a certain way based on some wired construction and pieces of metal etc... At what point do these bits and pieces lying around in a workshop aæl of a sudden become "truth" about weather ?? There must be a point. No there is no truth in little bits and pieces of metal other than if you propose "these are bits of metal" and you experience bits of metal, then "bits of metal" is true. You can point to the bits of metal and say "that is a storm", but the answer would be "false" or wtf are you talking about ?? This here is basically some epistemology, but again that is something to be done after ontology. And if he keeps roaming around in his mind at large, he never gets there anyway. Stay in the clouds. You clearly don't want to do actual functional philosophy. Finally he says that all we can predict is how the dashboard will behave and that is all we need. Hang on mate. This is exactly what I am trying to say. Then why are you wasting all this time on the fantasy of trying to figure out something going on beyond that dashboard. I don't get it, other than, you can't help yourself ... you desperately need to try and go where you cannot go, because it annoys your sense of completeness and closure or whatever. maybe it is also reflecting a need for control. The one who controls the understanding, controls the world. And if somebody else can convince a majority of something he does not want to be "out there", it would scare him shitless and thus he needs to get to that story before anyone else and attempt to convince everyone using his bs fluffy, pseudo philosophy. He wants to be a metaphysical dictator.
1:23:40 BK starts to get on my nerves here. When NH tries to get deep into the actual argumetation BK supposedly uses (and maybe self-contradicts), he starts o these fluffy tirades on "i don't think we bi-pedal monkeys can get to the right understanding ... we can just be less wrong than htose who are very wrong". Address the fricking criticism. Dont tell me you are a stupid monkey on a rock, when in the next breath you attempt to tell me about 13,7 billion years of universal development and what goes on beyond týour dashboard.
1:26:00 BK does not believe in syllogisms saying that it is an attempt through cognition to get to the ground of reality ! Is that what a syllogism is ? I am not so sure about that. I thought it was more like"If this is a banana, then it is yellow". But nevermind. He also states that some logic axioms are up for grabs. What about "If I threaten another youtuber with government violence, he may stop deconstructing my videos" is that up for grabs ?
1:26:53 NH "Numena is unknowable" well off course it is ... and if you don't even have a VERY VERY good argument for that external world, I don't see any reason to bother with your ideas of knowledge of that realm.
1:27:26 The Schopenhauer argument BK is referring to that because you have "experience of "yourself" you can reasonably infer that to an external world. Again it is these supposed inferences. Just throwing the term "reasonable" and "inference" ou there does not give you enough argument to actually make that inference. It seems like attempting to make a virtue out of a necessity. I need to find a way to describe an external world, so I am just forcing my way there, tricking myself to believe I am actually arguing for it. This whole metaphysics discussion rests on an argument for the existence of an external world. I have not seen it yet and until then, I have no interest in (this) metaphysics other than to tell you how pathetic this philosophy is. Thats what keeps me on my toes here. I friggin hate bad and pretentious philosophy with a vengeance.
1:28:06 BK talks about particles constituting his body. This is physicalism, wrapped in idealism. If you talk about your body it must be on your dashboard. But the atoms are abstractions creted in a theory to describe particular behaviours on that dashboard. Sure. But then if you by body mean something outside your dashboard, you can no longer talk of being constituted by atoms, since they are a part of the dashboard induced abstraction. It is extremely confusing to settle what and where he is talking about. He is basically all over the place and nowhere at the same time.
1:28:28 Why is he pointing to his skull to describe his "locked in" mentality. If all his body is a rerpesentation of his mind, why is he not pointing forinstance to his stomach or his ass ? They must be equally much a part of that mind of his, according to his own standards described earlier.
1:29:21 now he screws around with that cockpit analogy again. A metaphor is an abstraction. A dashboard is a cognition based on some experienced qualia (colour, sound, taste ...). So that dashboard metaphor refers to a conceptual cognition, not something outside anything. It is completely cofined to You. You cannot just take that concept as an explanation of how that dashboard works, on which you (potentially) have the qualia resposnible for you cognising a dashboard. It just goes around in these hoops of imagination. This is not philosophy, at least not good phis´losophy. It is more like "ill just throw a few metaphors around and then done. Metaphysics is created." I am not buying it.
1:31:00 Now again he attempts to equate the "physical" world (behaviour of cognitions) with "falling in love" or "taste of strawberry". Emotions are particular to me. You cannot point to my stomach ache, but we can both point at the elephant (cognition) over there. He mixes the categories to gaslight you. It really pisses me off. This trick he has attempted numerous times. It is to sophistically establish more than "just2 the dashboard and that is where he uses Schopenhauers weird inference argument as ( i suppose) another way of establishing an external world and what its made of (u know, pure subjectivity) ... the dashboard is just stupid monkey stuff, to help you find the toilet, while pure subjectivity and the mind at large is like ... whoaaaa ... nah, I'll stick to my ontology based on Qualia being the reductionbase.
1:32:08 "The world appears..." and he then spreads his arms... What is he actually trying to convey there. i am experiencing bernardoarms move on my dashboard it is not a world "out there". Yes he says the word "world" as he spread his arms. But it is still going on on my dashboard. Is this the point where he expects me to suddenly understand that as an outside world. Because even if there is some outside world and there is something going on there. What I am experiencing is still some colours and sounds on my dashboard, they are not an outside world. Him claiming that they rare some representation is unsubstantiated. But even if they were substantiated, they are still just "representations".
1:38:00 "You are happy because you are smiling" .. are you joking mate. have you heard of actors etc. This is a pathetic attempt at bridging subjective experience, with a supposed exterior expression of that experience so that a second person can get to a notion that they "know" what you are subjectively experiencing. I struggle to understand if someone cannot see the problem in this line of arguemnt since there is no way to get to a subjective experience other than having that subjective experience. The photograph of the moon is not the moon, no matter how many similar photos you take or how close you may think you are to that moon. They are not the moon.
1:57:00 The hard problem is not a part of Analytic Idealism because of the cocked up notion that "everything is X". And if everything is X, then there is nothing that is ultimately responsible for anything else, and the hard problem goes away because you dont have to explain how matter is responsible for mind.
2:08:00 Oh so the dashboard BK actually says is ON the boundary. This is interesting becasue I cannot detect any boundaries from my dashboard. It is literally infinite in all directions so to say. What nakes him say that there is a boundary ? It must be imagined (and a hidden axiom actually)
2:08:11 "dashboard has evolved to collect information about the environment. Because we are surrounded by an environment". How does the dashboard know there is an environment? And if the dashboard does not know, where does the knowledge come from? If the dashboard has evolved something must have told it what it is supposed to be doing right. Or how does this work?? It seems completely rdiculous to me. And, This is again the implicit appeal to an external world that is just there without ANY justification.
2:12:28 "Marko blanket" is perception. Ok, then why do you need to invent the term Markov Blanket if it is the same as something already encompassed by another term that is also already being used. I friggin hate these academics. They drown everything in stupid new terms.
2:13:19 So physical objects are classified as excitations by BK. Why ? Is it not enough to call them by their conceptual name, like "elephant" ?? Why invent new terms. Another and more important point is - I would say that you would not have any idea of an external world if you did not first have experiences of elephants, bicycles, bananas and so on. But then because you have those, you suddenly start to ponder about an external world and come up with excitations and then say they are responsible for elephants, bicycles and so on... This is a stupid circular argument. You are standing in your bucket and trying to lift yourself up. Lastly a dangerous point is. You cannot allow yourself to change your understanding of those mentioned concepts (cognitions) based on your fabulations on metaphysics. Since your metaphysics is done because of the concepts and their dashboard, they are responsible for that philosophy. But it cannot be allowed to change the understanding of the concepts unless you change the philsophy based on them also. So in any case, it does not matter whatever brainy shit you can conjure up about metaphysics, it cannot be allowed to change the understanding of the dashboard experience any way.
2:22:37 So BK defines his way to a metaphysics. Basically he makes up shit and claim that is philosophy. The problem with metaphysics, by definition, there is no possible falsification - so no matter what crazy shit someone comes up with they can never be refuted. I could say whatever i want is responsible for the appearance of elephant and no one can reject it because they have no access to it. At least he calls it a theory and not philsoophy. But then why does he call himself a philosopher if he is actually just theorizing about an external world and never come back down and proceed with an actual ontology, epistemology or even a rigid moral principle. I honestly don't give a flying fucl about whirlpools, ripples and excitations. It is pure imagination completely disconnected from everything i actually care to philosophize about.
...
.jpeg)
.jpeg)