Loved this episode; both Nagel and her approach to the topic(s) are incredibly accessible. I see an entertaining trend of highly educated but childlike inquiry in so many of your guests. Pictures of wisdom, maybe.
Your list of topis is wonderful. Clearly a more profound discussion than most on this topic. Scepticism is not necessary, unless one is not prepared to do the sums.
Quite so. Likewise, in philosophy Cartesian doubt is of immense value. But we don't have to doubt what we can work out as a matter of logic. I firmly believe that the truth about consciousness, or at least the truth about where the truth can be found, is just a matter of doing the sums, and that we needn't be sceptical about the effectiveness of philosophical analysis.
Descartes’s method of doubt doesn’t say anything useful about the things which can be doubted. It establishes the unique/ontological status of doubt itself, i.e. of (some) thought.
Yes, I'd be more interested in reading summaries rather than full transcripts. Full transcripts are also quite welcome.
In my long experience, in perhaps nine cases out of ten, I find myself able to find a few quotes that represent the gist of a long talk (when I say 'the gist' it's at least from my point of view).
Full transcriptions indeed would be best. AI tool can be deployed to render speech to text, pretty accurately. If I had one of the recent interviews to be full transcribed it would be the one with Friston. Thanks.
Yes, would appreciate the summaries. But ideally along with availability of the full transcripts and the audio/video recordings. Maybe AI can easily link items in the summaries to locations in the full text/recordings? So when encountering something especially interesting, can go to the full discussion of it? ~Thank you.
It seems there can be two kinds of transcripts: 1. A lightly edited AI generated transcript; 2. A hand written focused summary of the key technical issues addressed, resolved or not.
Would be interesting to see how well AI does in generating these focused summaries. Maybe worth some effort figuring out how to best prompt AI to do that. Describe the intent & goal, give AI some examples, and ask AI to suggest how to prompt it to do this?
I like Popper’s approach. He disdains fancy pants word play. (He was not impressed with Wittgenstein.)
All good explanations are logically/ontologically constrained, testable, falsifiable. It works in everyday life as well as in science. Lovely stuff. The accumulation of scientific knowledge itself proves the skeptics wrong. Could save the world. RIP Professor Popper.
Just by the way: knowing is hard work. Even accepting that no knowing can be perfect, it is never easy to “know that you know.” It’s a real workout. You have to get all the logic and facts right, and be able to convey your explanation effectively (including its limitations). Not everyone is an intellectual athlete. Curt is world class. Thanks for making it real.
It's not just a philosophical position though, its a way of seeing the world. I’m of a mediocre intellect but can’t stop myself from asking “Why is this the case?”, digging down until I find the contradictions and then looking at something else. I’m a universal agnostic in my bones and have been since I was a kid. I don't understand how people manage to stop digging and settle for that level of enquiry being “The Truth” or “How things are”.
Nice. For some, to discover and question is a thirst. For most, it's a burden. Not everyone appreciates the beauty of the trees and flowers. Not everyone appreciates the mysteries of consciousness, or the universe it reveals (maybe creates). There is so much to discover and wonder at as individuals and as a species - if we could. Did you read David Deutsch, "The Beginning of Infinity"? I can recommend that. He got me into Popper.
In short, as we reconcile direct perception as fundamentally an act of naive realism, the way to reconcile comprehension is as fundamentally an act of naive systematicity. However both are tautologies, so I don't see that there's anywhere for the novelty to get in. Which is problematic if concluding there's something comprehensive (other than just being) in such a stance.
“What knowledge is.” The assumption here is that because (1) there is a word “knowledge” which includes “fact” or “truth” in its philosophical definition, (2) the word “knowledge” therefore refers to a factual/true situation. This is a fallacious argument, exactly parallel to St Anselm’s ontological argument that God as defined by Christians must therefore/necessarily exist.
Ordinary language has no problem with “knowledge” and “skepticism”. There are no absolutes in ordinary language. Wittgenstein (the later Wittgenstein) realised that the meaning of a word is its use, and that this may be a range not just of degree, but of family resemblance. His final work was “On Certainty”, where the word “know” is shown to be highly problematic in the hands of traditional philosophers.
(The scientist and philosopher C S Peirce pointed out that there is no numerical certainty in science either: every measurement has a tolerance, and the supposed exact value of a constant is therefore the result of induction, which never yields absolute certainty.)
I am starting to think that there is a base level beyond which more knowledge becomes useless to human flourishing. Perhaps, if an idea lies beyond the realm of human analogy, beyond description in metaphorical terms, it can provide no true benefit for long-term human thriving. Beyond the level of analogy, into the world of specific, abstract equations, we enter a zone where we can no longer see things as like other things that are explicable. It becomes a realm in which nothing can be accurately mapped; the more abstract it gets, the more concepts become referenced only to themselves, in their own context, they are devoid of meaning. And meaning is vital. This is where thinking deeply, digging another layer down, becomes destabilising.
Right. Maybe we need to be a bit Zen about it. I mean, for us puny humans, knowledge will never be complete. I think it's great! Have you read David Deutsch, "The Beginning of Infinity"?
Personally, I prefer the abstractions of ToEs (and their constituents) to the mere parochial mythmaking of all religions, old and new. In ToEs (and already in post-quantum science generally) we approach a grounded, unified, yet "open" world view that can be shared by all humans. So if anomie is the problem, you may take hope in the possibility that syncretic post-quantum science may provide the basis for a common global post-quantum spirituality - if we can imagine that.
I think that, fundamentally, we need to come to terms with the fact we are incapable of fully understanding "Why there is something rather than nothing". So incapable that the quest is a bit of a farce. I also think that certain, very gifted individuals may get as close to an answer as we will ever have by thinking very, very carefully rather than thorough creating new, utterly abstract maps of theoretical objects and conditions that can, at best be somewhat proven to be true.
Agreed. But I don’t think that’s the most important question. It can’t affect how I live. So I prefer: “What are the implications of what we DO know?” That quantity keeps expanding, infinite epistemological imperfection notwithstanding. Thanks for sharing.
I don't crave certainty, I would be very happy if we started teaching people that the things they think are absolutely true are actually conditional. I want a humanity dedicated to epistemological humility. That would be something big.
Thank you, Curt. I think this is a very important topic to explore further, since our ideas on what it means 'to know' and what can be known practically influence all other intellectual discussions, the kind of questions we ask and the answers we seek.
I know you have spoken with Matt Segall (@footnotes2plato) before, but I am not sure if he had the chance to mention Rudolf Steiner's epistemological work. This was truly groundbreaking work within the stream of German idealism and 'theories of knowledge'. His early works, such as the Philosophy of Freedom (or Spiritual Activity), dismantled the epistemic skepticism of Kant et al., not in any merely theoretical way, but in a more experiential and participatory way. Perhaps you and Segall could have another discussion that focuses more on this work - I don't want to speak for him, but I have a feeling that he would be more than happy to discuss it!
THIS kind of thing is just ONE of the examples of why you are EXCEPTIONAL.
I would pay GOOD money ANY day of the week to have a coffee with you just to hear you talk and have my mental and spiritual pallettes expanded.
GREAT work!!! 🌌🍻🏆🎇
Hi Curt, make it more informative “Questions and Answers”
Loved this episode; both Nagel and her approach to the topic(s) are incredibly accessible. I see an entertaining trend of highly educated but childlike inquiry in so many of your guests. Pictures of wisdom, maybe.
Your list of topis is wonderful. Clearly a more profound discussion than most on this topic. Scepticism is not necessary, unless one is not prepared to do the sums.
“In science, doubt is a value.” Richard Feynman.
Quite so. Likewise, in philosophy Cartesian doubt is of immense value. But we don't have to doubt what we can work out as a matter of logic. I firmly believe that the truth about consciousness, or at least the truth about where the truth can be found, is just a matter of doing the sums, and that we needn't be sceptical about the effectiveness of philosophical analysis.
Descartes’s method of doubt doesn’t say anything useful about the things which can be doubted. It establishes the unique/ontological status of doubt itself, i.e. of (some) thought.
Yes, I'd be more interested in reading summaries rather than full transcripts. Full transcripts are also quite welcome.
In my long experience, in perhaps nine cases out of ten, I find myself able to find a few quotes that represent the gist of a long talk (when I say 'the gist' it's at least from my point of view).
Full transcriptions indeed would be best. AI tool can be deployed to render speech to text, pretty accurately. If I had one of the recent interviews to be full transcribed it would be the one with Friston. Thanks.
Yes, would appreciate the summaries. But ideally along with availability of the full transcripts and the audio/video recordings. Maybe AI can easily link items in the summaries to locations in the full text/recordings? So when encountering something especially interesting, can go to the full discussion of it? ~Thank you.
It seems there can be two kinds of transcripts: 1. A lightly edited AI generated transcript; 2. A hand written focused summary of the key technical issues addressed, resolved or not.
Would be interesting to see how well AI does in generating these focused summaries. Maybe worth some effort figuring out how to best prompt AI to do that. Describe the intent & goal, give AI some examples, and ask AI to suggest how to prompt it to do this?
I like Popper’s approach. He disdains fancy pants word play. (He was not impressed with Wittgenstein.)
All good explanations are logically/ontologically constrained, testable, falsifiable. It works in everyday life as well as in science. Lovely stuff. The accumulation of scientific knowledge itself proves the skeptics wrong. Could save the world. RIP Professor Popper.
Just by the way: knowing is hard work. Even accepting that no knowing can be perfect, it is never easy to “know that you know.” It’s a real workout. You have to get all the logic and facts right, and be able to convey your explanation effectively (including its limitations). Not everyone is an intellectual athlete. Curt is world class. Thanks for making it real.
It's not just a philosophical position though, its a way of seeing the world. I’m of a mediocre intellect but can’t stop myself from asking “Why is this the case?”, digging down until I find the contradictions and then looking at something else. I’m a universal agnostic in my bones and have been since I was a kid. I don't understand how people manage to stop digging and settle for that level of enquiry being “The Truth” or “How things are”.
Nice. For some, to discover and question is a thirst. For most, it's a burden. Not everyone appreciates the beauty of the trees and flowers. Not everyone appreciates the mysteries of consciousness, or the universe it reveals (maybe creates). There is so much to discover and wonder at as individuals and as a species - if we could. Did you read David Deutsch, "The Beginning of Infinity"? I can recommend that. He got me into Popper.
In short, as we reconcile direct perception as fundamentally an act of naive realism, the way to reconcile comprehension is as fundamentally an act of naive systematicity. However both are tautologies, so I don't see that there's anywhere for the novelty to get in. Which is problematic if concluding there's something comprehensive (other than just being) in such a stance.
“What knowledge is.” The assumption here is that because (1) there is a word “knowledge” which includes “fact” or “truth” in its philosophical definition, (2) the word “knowledge” therefore refers to a factual/true situation. This is a fallacious argument, exactly parallel to St Anselm’s ontological argument that God as defined by Christians must therefore/necessarily exist.
Ordinary language has no problem with “knowledge” and “skepticism”. There are no absolutes in ordinary language. Wittgenstein (the later Wittgenstein) realised that the meaning of a word is its use, and that this may be a range not just of degree, but of family resemblance. His final work was “On Certainty”, where the word “know” is shown to be highly problematic in the hands of traditional philosophers.
(The scientist and philosopher C S Peirce pointed out that there is no numerical certainty in science either: every measurement has a tolerance, and the supposed exact value of a constant is therefore the result of induction, which never yields absolute certainty.)
I am starting to think that there is a base level beyond which more knowledge becomes useless to human flourishing. Perhaps, if an idea lies beyond the realm of human analogy, beyond description in metaphorical terms, it can provide no true benefit for long-term human thriving. Beyond the level of analogy, into the world of specific, abstract equations, we enter a zone where we can no longer see things as like other things that are explicable. It becomes a realm in which nothing can be accurately mapped; the more abstract it gets, the more concepts become referenced only to themselves, in their own context, they are devoid of meaning. And meaning is vital. This is where thinking deeply, digging another layer down, becomes destabilising.
Right. Maybe we need to be a bit Zen about it. I mean, for us puny humans, knowledge will never be complete. I think it's great! Have you read David Deutsch, "The Beginning of Infinity"?
Personally, I prefer the abstractions of ToEs (and their constituents) to the mere parochial mythmaking of all religions, old and new. In ToEs (and already in post-quantum science generally) we approach a grounded, unified, yet "open" world view that can be shared by all humans. So if anomie is the problem, you may take hope in the possibility that syncretic post-quantum science may provide the basis for a common global post-quantum spirituality - if we can imagine that.
I think that, fundamentally, we need to come to terms with the fact we are incapable of fully understanding "Why there is something rather than nothing". So incapable that the quest is a bit of a farce. I also think that certain, very gifted individuals may get as close to an answer as we will ever have by thinking very, very carefully rather than thorough creating new, utterly abstract maps of theoretical objects and conditions that can, at best be somewhat proven to be true.
Agreed. But I don’t think that’s the most important question. It can’t affect how I live. So I prefer: “What are the implications of what we DO know?” That quantity keeps expanding, infinite epistemological imperfection notwithstanding. Thanks for sharing.
I second that.
I don't crave certainty, I would be very happy if we started teaching people that the things they think are absolutely true are actually conditional. I want a humanity dedicated to epistemological humility. That would be something big.
Thank you, Curt. I think this is a very important topic to explore further, since our ideas on what it means 'to know' and what can be known practically influence all other intellectual discussions, the kind of questions we ask and the answers we seek.
I know you have spoken with Matt Segall (@footnotes2plato) before, but I am not sure if he had the chance to mention Rudolf Steiner's epistemological work. This was truly groundbreaking work within the stream of German idealism and 'theories of knowledge'. His early works, such as the Philosophy of Freedom (or Spiritual Activity), dismantled the epistemic skepticism of Kant et al., not in any merely theoretical way, but in a more experiential and participatory way. Perhaps you and Segall could have another discussion that focuses more on this work - I don't want to speak for him, but I have a feeling that he would be more than happy to discuss it!
Here is a link to some YT discussions that he did on the book some time ago - https://youtu.be/m-EoLSIxG5c?si=PfK98RAQqKrtkUFh
A better test of cognitive competency, is did they take the genocide jabs?
You should talk to JL (John) Schellenberg.
THAT one would be a life-enhancer!
I didn't think about that until I had already sent my previous reply! ✨