Video

So they postulated the principles of bioethics and then retroactively condemned doctors who didnt follow them? 😂😂

Problem 2 can be stated in a more interesting way I believe. Tell me what you think of this. Imagine if some Event A were the cause of some Event B in the future, and Event A were to be defined as you acquiring the foreknowledge of Event B, then did you predict the future or did you cause the future? I would argue that you actually caused the future. It would be physically and logically impossible for you to predict the future if your knowledge of the future resulted in that future occurring. And here is my extrapolation from this: Since all past events collectively cause all future events, our "predictions" of the future are, in fact, contributing to shaping/causing the future. And here’s where it gets even more intriguing. All our present predictions of the future were, in some small way, caused by our past predictions of the future. This means even our predictions of the future are in a way being shaped by our past predictions of the future. I think I just blew my own mind. lol!

I think this is more of a linguistic naming of an object problem than a physical material world problem. If we know what properties of an object we are ascribing the name "Ship of Theseus" (SoT) to, we will know which of the two is the Ship of Theseus. If the defining property of the object we're calling SoT is that it is a ship that had been in physical contact with Theseus, then every plank replaced from the original SoT makes it less of SoT, or not an SoT at all in some strict sense of the name SoT. Once the last plank of the original SoT is replaced, it can no longer be called SoT as it has lost the defining property of the name SoT. If we were to rebuild the ship using the original planks, then the new ship will be called the SoT as it fulfills the defining properties of the object referred to as SoT. On a side note, there is no such thing as year zero. The first day of the first year of any calendar is called year 1 of that calendar. Once it completes the first year, then the first day of the next year is called the year 2 of that calendar. This is why we are in the 21st century even though we have only completed 2023 years in our calendar.

The statement “all non-black things are non-ravens” doesn’t actually say anything about ravens though, does it? Or I guess it doesn’t say anything about all black things being ravens. Like the statement could be true, but the statement doesn’t assert that all black things are ravens, just that anything that isn’t black, can’t be a raven. Am I missing something that makes this more paradoxical? I don’t know, I should probably get back to work.

My comment was interrupted and cut off. I believe in America the God first mentality being the morality connected to the ten commandments, applies to those practice and represent lawful law. My example as a visual is ? Anyone playing or learning chess, play themselves against an opponent. Today's law feels like I should hire someone knows more about chess to play for me against an opponent may have hired someone else to play for them - I count on those in law to fight for my constitutional rights. That is something understood and a weak link if lawyers are changing the rules of law and subtracting God to do it.

This irritates me. This conveys to me that law is no longer interested in truthful. It's a game of clever , instead of insisting on saying what you mean. Your arguments might go over my head not being as educated as you. Did I say I wasn't educated? In a way, yes. Am I offended if you suggest I am not educated in your field of of study? I shouldn't be. Ego in law is ungodly and above the law. But it should apply to maturity? And so now this restoration effort has an open door? It's not exactly right. Because my lawyer or public defender is supposed to buffet any sensitivities. Back in the arena of those play chess. Fq you Chris? Who else would edit me ? I'm not amused. What are having me believe? I said no.

Doesn’t the first premise contain the conclusion? I’m confused

I think I might be the second ship...

Theseus isn’t two, but one. Our identity isn’t two, but one. We don’t command two ships, but one. If someone picks up old ship parts, they have simply adopted old ship parts. They don’t work for me, we have no relation, no shared motivation, no shared ship trips….

7:30 Doesn’t Wolfram address the human experience dimension in science?

Read Ramana Maharshi, Who am i?

so the crucks - we continue to be at the crossroads

WGU? 👀

I enjoy philosophy but I feel its concepts touch into realms which are not grounded in reality. They taint upon the spiritual going into psychology and cognition which deprives away from the majority of entering into the ifs and buts which are not always reasonable or logical but nonetheless possible. Does It leave more questions than answers?

Going over the comments there seems to be a lot of Kant fan boys that understand Kant better than the maker of this video. I guess if you are a wanna be youtuber you cant really wait to understand something correctly before you put your video out there and seek attention 😂

I think most scientist Dont understand kant and dont understand the theory of relativity. Since it seems that they are describing both incorrectly. Last time I checked, I did not perceive the world in non-Eucladian geometry and even non-Eucladian geometry is described in terms of Eucladian geometry. That's the only way to make it intelligible to humans. So the first objection misses the mark.😂

Animals As Leaders brought me here

Sam Bankman-Fried was jailed for believeing in this nonsence called funds commingling. Your sources of funds are real and have real legal consequences if you don't consider it.

You state that "each of the premises when considered independently is true." I disagree. One type of star is made of gas, another type of star is made of flesh. Thus "all stars are exploding balls of gas" is FALSE since all stars are NOT exploding balls of gas. Even considered independently, premise 1 is false. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Fun fact, MOST people, don't kknow how to seek truth, they live a lie thinking they know, it's sad. I have only meet 1 person that knows more about truth than anyone else Ive ever meet, atleast from my perspective.

Donald Trump is the fallacy king.

Taxes aren’t legal and we keep voluntarily paying them.

Our focus should be on the Elites who have purposely withheld cures for painful illnesses. It's about money and power. Doctors are complicit and the masses are focused on death.

Wrong assumption at the coat example: if you remove a button, it's not a "coat" anymore, it's a "coat without a button". No object or being is the same anytime: their atoms are always changing. They can keep most of their characteristics, but they are not the same. Change the smell of a pup, and his mother would not recognize him as his son anymore. This "same" is just a convention humans do. Nothing is the same. Never.

May I ask , was there a software used to draw the imagery on? Looks familiar

What is wrong with doping in compettitive sports is that doping isnt handled by the rules of the sport alone, it was also made a crime by law within most countries. Thats in so far a problem, as the one who uses doping extra to breaking the game rules only endangers himself, which on its own (without taking part in that game/competition) wouldnt be considered a crime at all. Countries needed to make doping a crime because they want to keep earning from the betting business. - So, does it feel correct if one goes to jail for doping within a game just so that the gouvernment can give out licenses for betting shops, even though the athletes have nothing to do with the betting shops? - Wouldnt it be more fair to make betting on sports illegal and have doping athletes punished by their sports rules alone, instead?

All political wings have come together here in this video

Very interesting, I look forward to watching the rest of the series. I've just had a baby and have become a full-time dad so I need things like this that'll keep me entertained as well as educated.

U r a bad teacher.

All the arguments I ever hear against utilitarianism tend to be ridiculous hypothetical and simplistic thought experiments with completely made up situations with binary choices that would never happen in the actual reel world and no wider consequences of each possible choice taken into consideration nor any context given to the situation nor the wider consequences of such a scenario being set up in the first place.

Note: two sides to every story unless you put them in the hot seat. Or brainwashed by lying government pedophiles.

When you move into shitty area of KC and think they are rich…

Daily dose of delusion silver spoons.

"how do we know these things about stuff?" ..books?

I would newer dream of video on epistemology.that s why I know I am not asleep.

Man todays liberals NEED this

God is all-powerful. Yet he cannot do illogical things. Therefore, logic is more powerful than God. Is this your argument in favor of theism?

there is no spoon

5:39 No. If I had 100% faith in this drive, I'd keep driving even if I was having a stroke or if a blizzard hit. Faith is, in this respect, a form of insanity divorced from reason.

What a beautiful philosophical system :)

Strawman

Hayuf Wala Ako naintindihan

If the premise is true the conclusion is true

Does the scientific methodology have limits of applicability? Where does the scientific method end and devine revelation begin?

Stupidity or malice?

I would define the ship by its agency or utility. Once Theseus died so did the ship, because it’s now just a ship, no longer Theseus’s ship, the ship *of* Theseus. Like a house when the occupiers move out, it feels dead, and quickly turns to a ruin, no longer the home it once was.

Seems to me belief is not something you consciously choose. You either do or you don’t. You can act like you believe or pretend, but I can’t believe something because I want to or think I should believe it

Hmmm, I think your example takes the human perception of time for granted (and its existence altogether, really), but doesn’t account for its relativity. To me, I’m not sure you can have a clear epistemological discussion without understanding how time plays into our conceptualization of knowledge, and so then, what might change about it if time were no longer a factor (i.e. God). Is that even possible? Does knowledge mean anything without time? If you ask me, this is more the ‘crux’ of the dilemma.

wrong it all breaks down at the planck length and time where the creation of time first occurs in our universe ,,....

Question seems to assume uniform distribution in length, but not area. So ans should be 1/2 ?