On ''what there is''

@nandric, I have several Russian patients. They bring me Sturgeon and it is almost time for winter borsht (with sour cream and herring.)

I am also an atheist. My problem with a universal god is that he would have to have a very strange sense of humor. He would also have to be a white guy that spoke English. 

Chakster and rauliruegas have their biases but they generally have the physical science involved correct which makes their opinion valuable even if you do not agree with their bias.

For many, choices in audio are emotional. They should be practical. For me it is not "what there is" but, Why there is. 

Having knowledge is wonderful but what can you do? I am dyslexic. Philosophy was consequently, not one of my strong subjects. 

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

Bill Clinton

To recap: OP says his theme "sounds philosophical," which it does, but turns out he's simply praising the collective knowledge generated by the forum. Given that several powerful minds hang out around here, we went quickly to metaphysics, material physics, symbolic logic. Along the way I listened to the whole masterly Watts performance for the first time in years. Well, that's metaphysical, or purports to be. Doesn't strike me as "religious," though he uses the word "spiritual," which I take to mean not supernatural but noumenal: a projection of essence generated inductively. What more he may be claiming I can't tell, as he never answers the question "therefore what?" His chosen aperture, the question "what am I," seems hopelessly anthropocentric, but is saved by the answer "I/you/intelligent life am/are/is among innumerable inevitabilities of a physical universe having an infinite time span." 

Thanks to the several large minds for their learned digressions. I'm just happy knowing that when I wonder "what cartridges exist?," there's a place I can go to find out. 

Anybody who read about logic know Frege drama...

And Quine ’s meaning defense theory againt the referential behavioristic theory is not the most sophisticated metaphysic there is in history... 😁 It takes not much time to figure it out... Try to figure out Charles Sanders Peirce in one hour ? 😁😊Or the 13 century polimath genius Raimon Lulle the founder of combinatoric tree feed back calculus in the understanding of Norbert Wiener... Than so much for Frege and Quine....

Then if you want to brag about erudition pick an unknown extraordinary genius: Lucian Blaga for example and why not the polymath Hoene Wronski ? Or Simon L. Frank? I am sure that you dont even know their name...

Like some says this is an " exercise in academic vanity"...

But like another rightfully observe it is entertaining more than insults about politics...

Then welcome to the OP humor and erudition... I apologize for my answers but you do brag first about 2 "little" academic philosophers, Quine and Frege....I prefer non academic giants...



I myself are not a scientist, but i study mathematic and philosophy, some linguistic and poetry and other things i dare not to mention here... I am more able to related things than to concentrate on one only forever...For example i figure for myself the link between acoustic and audio by creating my own mechanical equalizer... So much for audio.... I listen music now at least not sounds...I will not go forever with branded names audio cult... I prefer basics here....

I am neither atheist nor a narrow believer...

Consciousness is too mysterious and evident to be reduced to materialism rant....


And way before "gavagai" there is the silent tree of symbolic forms and activities, of which language is one branch....

Then no metaphysic based on dying nominalism and on technological religion could satisfy me...

The idolatry of technology is not science but the theater on which plays the actual drama, which roots are in a spiritual battle for humanity soul... Dont take my point to be a religious one, you will miss it completely...Science is related and intertwined with technological history, but consciousness is NOT knowledge like some transhumanist want you to think of...Or like the scientist Goethe the real father of phenomenology remind us....

Instead of reading Frege i will suggest any Russian philosopher totally unknown in the US...This will be a remedy for any anglo saxon student.... 😁😊

But if you stick at all cost to english language try Whitehead....He forgot to be stupid to say the least....

Or a Serbo-croat german thinker : Rudolf steiner will do the job...

My best to all....



"All geniuses sees the same light, only moles seek their own tunnel for comfort"- Anonymus Smith

holmz-

Well I made it a minute in (almost) and it was seeming to be a religious talk.

That's because a) you only made it a minute in and b) it turned out to be one of the many Watts videos where they cut up and pieced together different talks. I just listened to the first few seconds, it started off the talk I thought it was, only later realized it was all chopped up. There are elements of religion but it is equal parts science and philosophy.  

The Cliff Notes version is there are two great Myths or ways we view the world- the Ceramic Model, and the Fully Automatic.  

The Ceramic Model is the religious one, in which everything is just mere stuff, clay in the Bible, into which God breathes life. But really it is all just dead lifeless stuff. And so in the Ceramic Model we human beings are all fundamentally different and apart from everything else. Animals to a lesser extent as well.  

The Fully Automatic Model is the one we think of as scientific and in this one everything is just lifeless dead particles just like clay only we dispense with God and say the mind and soul are nothing more than artifacts of all these billiard balls bouncing around.   

There's a lot more, like I said this is the Cliff Notes version. Expanding on each model it becomes increasingly clear just how much they each are missing. It does take a while though. Watts is good, but even he cannot convey the nature of reality in less than a minute.    

https://youtu.be/UPcs3B1omx8?t=27