"Is the picture distorted or is it me?" asked the camera to the other camera. Neither understood how they were built.
@ToriKo_
Жыл бұрын
Wow, it’s pretty cool to come across this argument from a place completely different to where I did. I found learning about Relevance Realization from John Vervaeke really interesting, and it’s one of those things that have stuck with me beyond most others, and I find myself using it/thinking about it almost everyday. I read ‘Data Detective: 10 rules for thinking about numbers’ by Tim Harford, and was hoping for a epistemological, practical, and maybe an ontological approach to Thinking (about numbers) and Truth. It didn’t live up to my hopes but it wasn’t terrible. But the point is that I found myself catching the numerous times Tim mistook different instances of Relevance Realization for something that was more or less “objective”. I found that learning about RR made catching this mistake way more obvious that it would have been otherwise. And yeah so I found it cool to hear this confusion explained separately and from a different viewpoint For an example, in chapter 5, he tells the reader that familiarizing themselves with ‘landmark numbers’ is useful for being more objective with numbers we are not used to. For example, knowing a country spends $7 gazillion on its annual healthcare is not very understandable, but knowing a landmark number, ~*that it spends $64 zabillion trillion on its military annually*~ helps us realize that healthcare spending is only 4% he size of military spending. These landmark numbers make the information much more *useful* . You can be more objective about it. But useful to ~who~ ? In what way? You’ve slipped into assuming that being able to compare those “landmark numbers” is more “objective” somehow, that not doing so. End of story. But if we want to go a little deeper, how do you choose those landmark numbers? Which ones do you pay attention to. Which ones do you not. And even if you manage to figure that one out, what does healthcare being 4% the size of military spending really tell you? How does that actually inform your actions? It can only do so... completely and utterly subjectively. Sorry for giving you my whole life story’s worth of sentences in a comment
@THUNKShow
Жыл бұрын
No apologies necessary - this is a fantastic perspective on the View from Nowhere! I love how your example illustrates that simply tagging on "...for whom?" is really all it takes to gain access to a whole different level of analysis! ❤️
@ToriKo_
Жыл бұрын
@@THUNKShow appreciate your response
@PetersonSilva
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for not only mentioning the other references that came to your mind but also explaining them for people like me who haven't read them; I found this comment very illuminating!
@TheGemsbok
Жыл бұрын
Happy to hear you're reading Nagel. I'm very fond of his work across several of philosophy's big topics.
@THUNKShow
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely - good stuff. I was struck by how similar the move in TVFN is to the move in "What it is Like to Be a Bat," sort of a "You're imagining what it's like, but imagining experiencing a thing isn't actually experiencing it!"
@Xob_Driesestig
Жыл бұрын
When I try to be more impartial I don't try "the view from nowhere" but instead try to imagine myself in the other persons position. The ideal wouldn't be a "view from nowhere" but instead a "view from everywhere", and I think thought experiments like Harsanyi's veil of ignorance help with that. Of course that still leaves open the question of who counts as "another person", a century ago philosophers wouldn't consider the perspective of a pig to be relevant to how we should structure society, but now a lot of philosophers do. The thought-experiment doesn't make us impartial, but it does make us less partial.
@5hirtandtieler
Жыл бұрын
Your first sentence makes it sound more like the “view from relevant”, no? Not to mention that I think viewing from (literally) everywhere nets you the similar results as nowhere, as it’s infeasible to find a balance for all parties with conflicting possibilities
@Xob_Driesestig
Жыл бұрын
@@5hirtandtieler Well I don't believe some people are "irrelevant" in a conflict, even a tiny conflict like me and my neighbor arguing over our shared lawn has social knock-on effects (e.g our quarrel shifts the social dynamics of our street, which affects our other neighbors, which in turn causes some people to see vegans like me as more annoying, which decreases the likelihood that they will stop eating pigs etc). Of course given our limit thinking capacity it's best to focus on those that are immediately affected, but the platonically ideal target would be a "view from eveywhere". I do think it's logically feasible to find a balance between all parties, although in reality "social choice theory" will run into problems of logistics and ballot design, but those can be improved upon becoming slowly less partial over time (though in reality never impartial).
@marcnorderland9400
Жыл бұрын
Haven't watched the video yet, but being a huge Star Trek TNG nerd, I'm in for a treat.
@bthomson
Жыл бұрын
Hey! I actually have that book "Power of Ten!" 🤔🤗
@natealbatros3848
Жыл бұрын
really intersting video and concept thanks
@nikita1351
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video
@bthomson
Жыл бұрын
Would love to know what that edit was? 🤔🤗
@PetersonSilva
Жыл бұрын
Amazing episode! Thank you
@timshel1499
5 күн бұрын
5:20 movie: powers of ten
@doktor_ghul
Жыл бұрын
The main conceptual difficulty with Q is that he's created by human writers, and share their, and our, conceptual and perceptual limitations. A true Q-like being would not think remotely like humans, would not have our limitations, and would not be a petty trickster who, when judging us, would act like a cranky child, aka Trelane. We can't conceive of a being that truly removed, because we cannot BE that removed. The best we can do is imagine a human ACTING like we would imagine that being would. Marvel's Watcher is closer to that conception than either Q or Trelane...
@nikita1351
Жыл бұрын
But how would we perceive a being so complex? If a human could comtrol an ant's body, to act as his/her representative, how will other ants perceive that human? Maybe to them, the human pretending to be an ant will appear like some sort of personality?
@PetersonSilva
Жыл бұрын
@@nikita1351great point
@ngoriyasjil2085
Жыл бұрын
What are we actually achieving when we play the "objective observer" game? Nothing? Or is the game still useful somehow even if the perspective we imagine is constructed within our own perspective and own limitations? Great episode, great concept!
@ToriKo_
Жыл бұрын
I think this is the key subtlety. It *is* helpful, but it’s helpful to people who have some entirely subjectively-chosen, subjective goals, like wanting to consider another persons pov in some limited way. Or trying to find an alternative solution to a badly framed problem, in some limited way, etc etc
@PetersonSilva
Жыл бұрын
Perhaps zooming is interesting as a prelude to the subjective observer game in which we notice other perspectives around us and try them on for size
@mattdangerg
Жыл бұрын
Perspective without a perceiver harkens to special relativity to me
@bthomson
Жыл бұрын
What is important and what is not? How should we behave in any given situation? Is hedonism better than selflessness? Should we always strive for moderation? Why get out of bed? Is friendship worth the effort? Will AI destroy us or help us? Are the ins and outs of climate change just too complicated? Is homelessness just so intricate a problem it can never be solved? Will the widening monetary gap destroy capitalism? Will the lure of drugs and alcohol (the deadening of our pain) continue to side track so many? Will nationalism stay stronger than globalism? Asking for a friend! 🤔
@examinatorant4522
Жыл бұрын
Clearly, you haven't seen the last episode of Picard ( amazon prime) nor have you read Starry Messenger a cosmic perspective By Degrass-Tyson. Not to give everything away Q is featured. In DT's book and his youtube "star talk" he takes the perspective of Groot (a plant life form ) from the Guardians of the Galaxy and asks what do we suppose they would see with our species eating their fellow plants and decapitating them in their prime or eating their young ( seeds). With the advancing of technology I have become increasingly skeptical of SETI Because : - Of the distances involved, the time a real "intelligent " signal would take to get to us meaning millions of light years possibly before our solar system existed or human life on earth... They or their planet may not even exist now. Then there is the movement i.e. the stars we see from the earth today would have been in a very different place now... ergo would we be looking in the right place. - then there's the answering any signal.... a conversation forget it. - Getting there again forget it - let's suppose HGWells (?) was right and the first contact was with a honeymoon ( alien) couple on a camping trip, they sprayed the local farmer's crops with a spray and the crops grew several times larger but changed in taste. The farmer cut his thumb and noticed his blood tasted like the enlarged vegetables and chickens .......!! Would we really want to tell an alien where we are? If they were far more advanced than us well? But seriously I have issues with the whole point of space exploration ... the reality of Physics etc I don't believe it's value for effort. My biggest issue with your philosopher is that he/ you are limited ( blessed) by a standard "normal" mind. i.e. I am on the autism spectrum but clearly not nonverbal etc. But I lack the limitation of predominant emotional constraints ... I have difficulty with social cues and that includes some societal givens. i.e. I don't have the same human responses I tend to think in analytic terms... If a family member raises a topic with me ( in their mind gossip/news) my reaction is to analyze it and consider plausible alternative interpretations. Or I watch a KZitem on an event on American politics. I automatically start considering plausible alternative interpretations of some pivotal conclusion the KZitemr has ( jumped ?) to. The point here is their conclusion is colored by their emotional ( comfort zone) inclinations. Which I take is your point. But I'm not so inclined. Objective to me is based on context and is the argument based on reasoned provable facts. I don't have a real difficulty in ( after the fact) being able to change the whole argument around to a different perspective. The issue is when it comes to "alien life's perspective ", clearly I'm almost human and I would need some parameters, to begin with, see 'Groot' although he/ she ? had been somewhat anthropized to maximize the human acceptance. In short, it all depends on your definition of objective i.e. I take the emotion out. And treat every issue as an object but you must have a perspective to see the item. Think in terms of the maths problem ... you run an infinitely large motel, with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. Suddenly 2 more guests arrive where do you put them. The mathematician fills up the page with numbers....charts with diagonals to me the issue is one of the definition of "infinity" i.e. Clearly the motel isn't infinite etc. ergo infinity is an unknown and thereby theoretical concept. ( unknowable) ... to know everything one must be everything. FYI I was a relatively successful Volunteer Telephone Crisis Counselor Almost owning the holiday/ bad weather graveyard shift ( a time when the suicide threats and the most traumatic calls came in.) Off and on for nearly 20 years.
Пікірлер: 33