dewinthemorning
Of Strange Objects and Meaning in the Universe
updated
youtube.com/watch?v=9yaqGXsSQMY
youtube.com/watch?v=qrycT5yN8U4
youtube.com/watch?v=jfyh53vb-UA
youtube.com/watch?v=rJOGBejqOmQ
It would help if you have watched my two previous videos: youtube.com/watch?v=0vcDUKC58C8
youtube.com/watch?v=hY27xSAu9DQ
I have only started. I will continue making videos applying the "Hidden If" method of refuting proponents of misleading arguments for religions and ideologies with non-factual realities.
I have already made a video with the answer to the puzzle presented here: youtube.com/watch?v=hY27xSAu9DQ
Jud Evans "Reification of the Unreal": scribd.com/user/13724035/Jud-Evans;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16377817/Reification-of-the-Unreal
Thank you for watching in advance. :)
The essay I mention is "Reification" by Judd Evans. Google it.
The books I mention here are: "Intuition Pumps" by Daniel Dennett, "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, "Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.
Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking Fast and Slow": youtube.com/watch?v=CjVQJdIrDJ0
I want to recommend to you an excellent book by David Sloan Wilson - "Evolution for Everyone". You will find valuable ideas there!
Following the logic of theists - that above our natural, physical world there exists a super-natural realm, who is to say that hierarchically above this super-natural realm there isn't a super-duper-natural realm with its own resident(s), who have created a super-natural world with laws of its own, making its resident, god, to create the natural world? It's only logical.
youtube.com/watch?v=sz2QjGHlLuM
youtube.com/watch?v=soFYCq9SiHc
The comments that Inmendham discusses are in this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZprpZwZoHho
The video in which Inmendham reports the facts about certain men from you tube (incidentally, all of them criticize him), which he can know only from personal experience:
youtube.com/watch?v=q-L8nRzf4-Y
The example that the professor gives of Inmendham's stupidity, is taken from this video, at about 47:00:
youtube.com/watch?v=FrGec5dIkZY
I don't know who has translated the poem into English.:
youtube.com/watch?v=iG7N6JZQPzY
I have used clips from this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=iG7N6JZQPzY
youtube.com/watch?v=fIfHGvCg4C0&lc=z12uvxmjgyihwhtlz23zznmjkriqsp0le
I read a text from Ernst Mayr's book "What Makes Biology Unique", chapter "Autonomy of Biology" - Evolutionary biology is a historical science.
On the way I describe how the sophisticated theologian John Haught tries, unsuccessfully, to sneak in the god explanation for the phenomena in the world in his debate with the biologist Jerry Coyne:
youtube.com/watch?v=VlQ1TunESn8
The books I mention in the video:
"The Pony Fish's Glow " by George C. Williams
""What Makes Biology Unique" by Ernst Mayr
Two more videos, very much relevant to the first half of this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ
youtube.com/watch?v=723Ce-uiaPY
I have made an addendum to this video, where I read a text on evolutionary biology as a historical science from Ernst Mayr's book "What Makes Biology Unique":
youtube.com/watch?v=PZAT0Os9Ea0&lc=z124h31obue3sdt3l23yyljjauzkgdqhh04
In this video, in our small news station, we deliver the news of a great discovery and we offer you the professional study of the discoverer by Prof. Rabbitkreuzbaum.
The previous video with the Breaking News:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZprpZwZoHho
Videos I've used clips from:
youtube.com/watch?v=JGA6DcrUlL4
youtube.com/watch?v=L_CpXiCXCN
s
1/The complexity of living systems.
2/Evolution.
3/Biopopulation.
4/Dual causation.
5/Genetic programs.
6/Natural selection.
(to be continued)
In the following video I will talk about evolutionary biology as a historical science.
This is an old video of mine on Jacques Monod's philosophy of biology, which is relevant: youtube.com/watch?v=AouCTKmybj8
I didn't include this comparison of a human to a machine because I didn't want to make the previous video longer.
For the topic in this video I want to recommend the book "The Pony Fish's Glow" (with a subtitle "And other clues to plan and purpose in nature") by George C. Williams.
The video about scientism: youtube.com/watch?v=rKmWlIKCIeY
The video on strict determinism in physics: youtube.com/watch?v=TFGJMc69BnM
An addendum to this video: youtube.com/watch?v=xBTkcpzxMIY
"What Makes Biology Unique" by Ernst Mayr
If you read "What Makes Biology Unique" by Ernst Mayr and "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod, it will be worth it .
I have put this video on my list of videos "Anti-Efilism". This is a clue, lol.
Books, mentioned in this video:
"The Unnatural Nature Of Science" by Lewis Wolpert
"What Makes Biology Unique" by Ernst Mayr
May your wishes come true!
This is just an introduction to a series of videos on the topic of philosophy of biology. Until now the major philosophies of biology have been vitalism or Cartesianism. Vitalism has been discarded already, because it postulated some occult vital force, vis vitalis, which made biology not a science. Many people still view living organisms, humans included, as machines. This is erroneous. I plan to show why biology is an autonomous science, how is it different from the physical sciences, and why a living organism is NOT a machine. Stay tuned. :)
One more video showing that the law of non-contradiction does not hold, this time in the world of quantum mechanics: youtube.com/watch?v=YbzblfdgwXY
Some examples that show that logic is not absolute.
@Juan Alejo asked me in the comments "Are you trying to say that antinatalism is impractical?" I think my answer belongs here, in the description:
That "... antinatalism is impractical" is the least objection from the BILLIONS of people who are not antinatalists/efilists. They would have numerous other objections if they ever heard of that ideology. No, the fact that "... antinatalism is impractical" is one aspect of the proposed line of actions of efilism that could interest the SEVERAL followers of that ideology, because that would affect them personally. That's what I am highlighting here.
A video, related to the topic here: youtube.com/watch?v=ux1GxExRUUY
youtube.com/watch?v=nxfkrpmRPEU
Kant's categorical imperative:
youtube.com/watch?v=RgYJnNwkJgY
A link to a video with Dr. Jacob Bronowski ("The Ascent of Man"), relevant to what I say about the human mind's capacity for imagination and transcendence:
youtube.com/watch?v=F2kiAF1GL9M
Old, and modern history give us evidence that obeying the logic of the "categorical imperative" that Kant postulated in his philosophy can lead to terrifying results. Kant was a philosopher of the Enlightenment, when Newton's science with its determinism and foundation in mathematics reigned supreme. This reliance on logic, together with Fascism's principle of "elitism" - that there are people, heroes, who can lead the majority to make drastic changes in the nature of government, and in the structure of society, has to a great extent directed the events of the 20-th century.
Link to Inmendham's video from which I've taken the clip:
youtube.com/watch?v=q-L8nRzf4-Y&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w
youtube.com/watch?v=F2kiAF1GL9M
No, logic is not our master, it is a tool for reasoning, thinking, created through evolution by humans, members of a highly social species, just as mathematics is created by the embodied human mind. We need new rules of logic, based on the comparatively new and autonomous science of biology. We need new philosophy - philosophy of biology. Biology is not covered by the existing philosophy of science, which is mainly philosophy of physics.
The book is "What Makes Biology Unique?" by Ernst Mayr
youtube.com/watch?v=_439AGRF4FU&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w
youtube.com/watch?v=RsLg1lyEUdY&list=UUS5MXpjQK2d0K2D5bnIKw4A
youtube.com/watch?v=ARUBwFW0CkE&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w
Inmendham, who claims to speak for "the little man",(the underdog) has decided to try to climb the "ivory tower" by creating a theory in physics. But he hasn't forgotten "the little man" (the underdog) - he has made the theory that, he says will "revolutionize physics", VERY SIMPLE! - As he says in the description: "All matter (including its atomic particles) is made of photons (still moving at the speed of light)". But, because the photon is the smallest package, a quantum of the energy of light, it is massless but matter has mass, we have to speculate what kind of Nobel prize will Inmendham be allotted for his theory??
Inmendham's (sort of) responses to this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=wtlyYLZBS-k&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w;
youtube.com/watch?v=q-L8nRzf4-Y&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w; and at 20:10 here: youtube.com/watch?v=f42GuIe6-ac&list=UUaqqmNAJ-WSHx2LbHV9974w
The previous breaking news item:
youtube.com/watch?v=sDO9WoN7G9A
Timothy O'Connor's lecture "Multiverse, Theodicy and Incarnation":
youtube.com/watch?v=m5yBOJEzwc0
"The Fabric of the Cosmos 4 - Universe or Multiverse":
youtube.com/watch?v=0HpDbAoEzj8&list=FLDOzhJ5voPQ0VpIU-7COsKg
"How to Find an Exoplanet"
youtube.com/watch?v=AnX7ExBjrHw
I know this refutation has probably been made in other videos, but it bears repeating, wouldn't you say?
Alvin Plantinga and WL Craig accept and use Leibniz's argument stating that god, being not only omnipotent, but omnibenevolent, had to create a world like ours, because any different world would either lack free will, or would contain more evil. Any world different from the actual one would be illogical, because then god would either be not omnipotent ot not omnibenevolent (if he doesn't give people free will). In modal arguments, like Plantinga's "Modal Ontological Argument" for god, in a thought experiment, only logical proposition can be used, no illogicalities are permitted in Modal logic. For a committed Christian, as Plantinga says he is, any "possible worlds" containing god, other than the actual world, would be illogical (because then god would be either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent). Yet he uses the concept introduced and then rendered illogical by Leibniz. In that case his "modal logic" breaks down and his New Ontological argument is invalid. The old, Anselm's, ontological is also viewed as invalid, by Dr. Plantinga himself, no less, so Christians lack any good argument for the existence of god!
As I said, the video where Plantinga proposes his "Modal Argument for the Existence of God" has been deleted, but other people took up this argument and made videos about it:
youtube.com/watch?v=zd9LjE4U-68
youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
youtube.com/watch?v=Y9WyaSccEWg
Papers by Alvin Plantinga: http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap
One of the best refutations of the Modal Ontological Argument:
youtube.com/watch?v=O135PuFm08c
My previous video where I refer to Popper: youtube.com/watch?v=DIYwFZ6t7Hk
But, seriously, nowadays it is more and more difficult to read serious (or any) books because television and you tube take a lot of time. So, I decided to combine reading and you tube to bring to your attention some good philosophy. I'll put this video in my list "History of Ideas".
I am reading Chapter 18 from Karl Popper's book "Conjectures and Refutations - The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" - "Utopia and Violence". I do think it is still relevant today!
This meaningless expression is at 1:22 here:
youtube.com/watch?v=pXF-7mwNErM
Here are some short videos about natural selection:
youtube.com/watch?v=GcjgWov7mTM
youtube.com/watch?v=dR_BFmDMRaI
youtube.com/watch?v=_VXHsjst7gg
I offer you some philosophical gym regarding the curious phrase "Defend natural selection!"
It is a meaningless expression, but funnily enough, phrases like that can help save some lives, lol.
This is a link with very general information about N400, a brain wave related to language recognition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N400_(neuroscience)
youtube.com/watch?v=pXF-7mwNErM
Talk about animism! The irony is that exactly this animism is the cause that our ancestors created religions.
This video is made as promised in:
youtube.com/watch?v=NKF6m8W0zPA
youtube.com/watch?v=owwL0Fynqak
youtube.com/watch?v=F-DNKKsK--8, at about 1:27:00
A link to Zyklon B:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B#Use_by_Nazi_Germany
youtube.com/user/TheBikermanUK
Link to the original video:
youtube.com/watch?v=zH6ajQnqOYE
I am only doing the voice-over of his text.
His video: youtube.com/watch?v=xQ7PCGtjfLI
This video helps make still more clear WLC's dishonesty - the reason that, for ex., Richard Dawkins would not participate in any debate with him.
My video, where at the beginning I clearly say "Is Efilism a hate crime? No!": youtube.com/watch?v=NKF6m8W0zPA
I am glad this misunderstanding can be quickly settled. :)
Eddie Izzard's video: youtube.com/watch?v=tia4LH8tWfc
My video, to which Inmendham responds (making that huge mistake): youtube.com/watch?v=NKF6m8W0zPA
Judson Herrick's book "The Brain of Rats and Man":
archive.org/details/brainsofratsmens00herr
My previous video on hard determinism:
youtube.com/watch?v=TFGJMc69BnM
You should watch also this video on the brain:
youtube.com/watch?v=kMKc8nfPATI&list=FLDOzhJ5voPQ0VpIU-7COsKg
Second answer: The experiences you go through in life makes you you. Nobody else will ever have exactly the same experiences.
A third answer can be given, saying that this person talks like Hegel, whose idealistic philosophy has been thoroughly refuted, starting from when he was still alive, then the Young Hegelians shortly after his death, and finishing soon after that with the philosophy of Karl Marx. The person who asks this question, like Hegel, takes a word, "consciousness", as if it's a thing (when there is a word, there is a thing, lol). Consciousness is different, it's not a thing, to be "repeated"!
I mentioned Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, who made a discovery - cognitive biases in humans. It's an irony of fate that for this discovery he got a Nobel prize in economy, because his discovery is applicable to a great extent in economy. They said in that BBC programme that this discovery is in economy text-books!
Videos, used in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcPMbqG3qHM
youtube.com/watch?v=nVLLSp2_i5M
Defend Natural Selection.mp4 (couldn't find it)
Bacteria With Brains.mp4 (couldn't find it)
fail... and than there is failer.mp4
the war to end the war.mp4
Channels of the anti-natalists (efilists), that I took videos from:
youtube.com/user/inmendham/featured
youtube.com/user/graytaich0/videos
Ricky Gervais's clip: youtube.com/watch?v=6ktBQ51iGWw&index=28&list=FLDOzhJ5voPQ0VpIU-7COsKg
This time a theologian insists (falsely) that theology is on the same level of importance as sciences like physics, chemistry and biology. In the second half of the video I explain why this is false.
We should keep firmly in mind that biological evolution is a historical science. Genes, by cooperating, have built an organism - an "emergence" with new, its own, properties, the main one - self-preservation. Another emergence, which happened in humans, is the very complex brain, giving rise to consciousness. By means of consciousness which is under the pressure of the social environment, we can "rebel" against biases. Here, an important thing that is not mentioned enough, is that natural selection selects against bad mutations. But there are "bad" mutations, which ride "piggy-back" on "good" mutations (if they don't manage to kill the organism), that's what gives us the right to say that we can "rebel" against bad human traits that are considered "natural"...
Only one short video left, with the conclusion.
"Gene morality" is likewise a figment of the imagination.
"Dawkins and the Selfish Gene" by Ed Sexton