The Problem With Invisible Claims

Añadido: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Got two more callers over here on the YouTube. We're going to go ahead and get up. Uh Aedro, what is upro?

[00:00:12]>> How you doing? Can you hear me?

[00:00:13]>> Yes. Yes, I can. How are you doing, man?

[00:00:15]>> Good. Yeah.

[00:00:16]>> Awesome. You over the age of 18, brother?

[00:00:19]>> Yeah. 33.

[00:00:20]>> Awesome. Which religion do you follow?

[00:00:23]Uh, I guess identify as a more as like a pantheist, but I do use like some I go to a Christian church, so I use like some Christian themes too as well to like I guess have do like introspection and I guess uh work through faith, I guess. Is there I feel like I'm really dumb right now. One second. I Okay, pantheism posits that the divine permeates every part of the universe but also exists behind it. Where the hell is panentheism? Okay, panentheism for me it's every part of the universe but also exists beyond it. Meaning God is greater than the sum of creation can interact.

[00:01:01]Okay. So that's kind of like some sort of a deity exists external of the universe kind of like dism.

[00:01:07]>> Yeah, kind of. And then I guess like we also like evolve with God, right? And then I'm also at I'm defining God as like the greatest possible being. So like I would just reality >> it's like reality itself. like I'm identifying reality.

[00:01:20]>> So I mean I I grant pantheism and Spinosa is God.

[00:01:24]>> Yeah.

[00:01:24]>> But why should we believe that anything created or exists beyond?

[00:01:32]>> Um I guess it doesn't really matter. I mean at the end of the day what matters is like what is your relationship to reality, right? Um so I guess like some of those details are probably less important, right? So when it here's here's the hardship with your uh system is it's super [ __ ] similar to our own in atheism and pantheism. It's like super [ __ ] similar. So I >> there's a lot of overlap.

[00:01:59]>> There's so much overlap that I can't really argue too much with you. The only thing that I can argue against is the idea of something external.

[00:02:08]>> Yeah. Well, I guess also um just that faith that like I guess there is like a sort of persistence to your awareness and maybe in some abstract sense like post death and that there is like maybe like there is like some definable relationship that you have with reality and I guess >> believe the afterlife exists.

[00:02:30]Yeah, I guess in like a very small way.

[00:02:32]Um, in that like um I guess there's like have you heard of like terror management or terror response like sometimes people like come up with these ideas just to like um protect from being like the terrifying idea that you might not exist for eternity. Um so like that could be a response to that. But there's also like um like I think it like it could be actual possible in like an eternal sense that like I guess like if like your experience is that of a physical phenomena why can't it happen again in some abstract sense right >> I the the only part I have a problem with here is a I don't accept universal consciousness uh we that's in integrated information theory which is not accurate at all for consciousness nor is it It's not able to make any accurate predictions. Like it's one of the worst theories that's ever been made for consciousness ever. What we do use is global workspace which is uh stating that consciousness is an emergent property from the brain which we have all the evidence in the world to justify. So what we do know about death is when your brain goes away so does your consciousness. Where does the brain go? Well, it turns into heat and just gets sucked back into the ground as energy. So in that idea, yes, we quote unquote live on because our energy continues on. Energy can't be destroyed.

[00:03:53]Correct. So it continues, but there's no consciousness to that. The only thing that I could grant for you is if we found out someday that that energy could recirculate and that there's some sort of memory aspect that like, how could I say this?

[00:04:09]Like if energy, if we found out energy could somehow hold memories, then there could be some possibility or potential that someday when a new baby is being formed, that that energy could also form a brain and that that memory could be restored back into another body, that could be the closest possibility of reincarnation. But there's no justification to believe that to any degree at all.

[00:04:35]>> Sure. I appreciate you diving into this.

[00:04:37]And like I'm I'm still like >> I think it's awesome. I [ __ ] love reincarnation so much. But it's it's as much as I love it and as much as I want it to be real, there's zero [ __ ] reason for me to believe in it.

[00:04:49]>> Sure. Well, I guess I I I don't even know if I would say I believe in it. I just sort of like have faith that like whatever is like I trust and like I sort of just give myself to it.

[00:04:59]>> Can I ask you, do you have faith that it is true or do you have a hope that it could be true? I sort of just have like when I say faith I'm sort of more equating that to trust like or like faith and action in a sense.

[00:05:09]>> Well, so like >> my definition of faith is alongside Oxford which is belief without evidence.

[00:05:16]>> Is is there more of like Christian interpretation of faith that is >> it's the same Hebrews 11 states that uh faith is the evidence for things unseen and hoped for.

[00:05:26]>> So it's still nothing. Faith is just like a >> I just want to believe it so therefore I do. Okay, maybe it's just then it's I then I I guess I would line more with trust than >> I I could grant the the hope. Trusting still is like it's like a it's it's just a blind hope, man. Like I I absolutely agree with the idea that it would be [ __ ] awesome to never die.

[00:05:51]Well, it's not necessarily like I mean like you you just like letting go of like I guess your sort of identity in this sort of space your story, but like there is still like some sort of like deeper like part of your identity which is sort of like maybe this like I don't know if you're like the non-computable part like that like is like a an artifact of nature itself.

[00:06:14]>> I grant that we are part of the universe because energy can't be created. Matter is a product of energy and we are made up of those things.

[00:06:25]But the consciousness part is where we're we're not aligning because consciousness is only derived from my brain. My brain >> unless I take out my brain, all the nerves, everything 100% absolutely perfectly, which is impossible today, and put it in your body, that's the only way for my consciousness to live on in another body. And the brain literally goes throughout the entire [ __ ] body.

[00:06:49]that's never going to be possible at least in our lifetime.

[00:06:53]>> Okay. Um let's explore that. Do do you think that you have like some like microscopic amount of sort of like agency degrees of freedom in like say your thought or your awareness? I guess that's akin to free will but like on a much more >> that's a hard one. So what I do when when it comes to free will arguments, the way that I've read it best is it seems as though we have free choice, but in accordance with neuroscience, it doesn't seem to be the case. So in everyday life, it seemingly there is free choice, but I don't know.

[00:07:25]So I just take an agnostic stance on it.

[00:07:28]>> Okay. But like do could you grant that you feel like you Well, >> I I live life in accordance with the idea that I do have free will.

[00:07:35]>> Okay. Okay. But I guess could you observe that you have free will in the sense that like you have sort of control like a small a problem like your awareness.

[00:07:44]>> In neuroscience there's a study that showed that before we take an action the brain is already firing the receptors to take that action before we even think about it. So it seems in neurology that there is no such thing as free will only based on the fact that I cannot live life without the seeming of free will is the only reason I don't >> I guess I'm talking about pre-action like this sort of like even stepping farther back like I'm talking about like the idea of like understanding or awareness like >> if we go there then it's there's no such thing. Yeah. If we go there then in accordance with neurology there is none.

[00:08:24]>> There is no >> free will >> like degrees of freedom in your thought itself.

[00:08:30]>> That just like if I'm sticking strictly uh material neurology then no.

[00:08:37]>> So like there's um like like if you imagine like a white ball in your head and sort of just play around with it like >> I I can imagine that some people can't even do that. You know that, right?

[00:08:50]Uh I >> to be able to see clear pictures in your head is not a normal thing.

[00:08:55]>> Okay. I Yeah. No, I mean I You say you can do that though. I >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just statistically that's like not a normal thing. Majority of people can't actually see full pictures in their head. That's again going to like someone in uh my Tik Tok chat Naomi just said that they can't like the majority of human beings can't do that. Um, I can personally see full color everything, see movies and whatnot in my head. Again though, how do I know?

[00:09:22]Because there's a neurological study that all of your thoughts, the actions taken 7 seconds before you actually think about it. So that would entitle entail me to believe that there is no free will.

[00:09:33]>> I do live life in accordance that it seems to be that I have free will.

[00:09:37]>> I guess it's like it's it's almost like akin to being as true that we have at least agency in our awareness and thought. There's reasoning to grant it.

[00:09:46]>> Yeah.

[00:09:47]>> To a degree, >> right? No, no. I'm saying it's a microscopic amount.

[00:09:52]>> I I just I can't I got to stay agnostic on it, brother. The neurology doesn't agree with it. My subjective experience agrees with it.

[00:09:58]>> Does that make sense? The the objectivity is no. The subjectivity is yes. So that's cognitive dissonance. I have cognitive dissonance towards this argument. Well, as you say, there's still like kind of we can map our subjective experience to ontology to some degree, right? So like there is sort of like layer there is like fragments of uh objectivity within our subjectivity.

[00:10:20]>> Yeah. Yeah. Which is I mean that's the beauty of science is testing our subjectivity to the objective world.

[00:10:27]>> Yeah. So we have pre we have preview to this. So that's what I'm saying is like this idea like we have some degrees of agency and thought like is sort of akin to the idea of like is is about like as true as saying like to perceive as to be perceived right like you can't >> in psych again so it's like in psychology yes our perception is our reality but in object in objectivity no our thoughts do not warp reality >> do not warp reality >> so for instance if I sorry uh if if if If if when I was a Christian, okay, conservative Christian, everything that I read, everything I did, everything I said, everything I saw had a a confirmation towards my beliefs already there. If I prayed, my brain would make up biases and priming and placebo and noibo effects to where the justification of my beliefs were confirmed by my own brain. And then when you start to believe other things, the same thing happens in the opposite direction. So whatever you have a belief system towards is going to be manipulated by your own brain. So okay >> that that's the hardship like your life can perceive as what you believe to be objectively ontological but that doesn't dictate whether it actually does exist which is where we have to have epistemology which is why I don't grant the free will argument because epistemically there's no justification for it but seemingly phenomenologically I do have a justification for it.

[00:11:57]>> Okay is do you think um I think therefore I am is an objective statement. I [ __ ] hate Dart so much.

[00:12:05]So much. I Every argument I've read from him is the experience is valid. All of the experiences, the seemings of these characters and these objects, the experience, yes, I grant the experience, but objectivity, no.

[00:12:24]>> Subjectively, >> sorry. Just just just the fact that you can say like you can identify yourself.

[00:12:29]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. the experience behind that. Absolutely.

[00:12:35]>> God damn. I do like your mind, but also [ __ ] you. Um, >> okay.

[00:12:40]>> Uh, how do I respond to that?

[00:12:43]I think, therefore I am. The the indication of that though is leads down many paradoxes and impossibilities of I think unicorn, therefore unicorn. And that is just stupid.

[00:12:56]>> No. No. Because I mean that that that's I think therefor is the starting point to all I guess like >> I mean that helps with brain in the vat.

[00:13:03]So like I think and I can test my thoughts but it relies on the testing of the thoughts because just because I think doesn't mean that I actually am cuz I could think and be a brain in a vat. That's a possibility as well. So I don't grant the I think I therefore I am idea uh in its entirety uh in in when we're talking objectively. But when we are talking experience, I do grant that as a a grounding for staying sane.

[00:13:34]>> Okay. Do you sure do you think um I guess do you think our thoughts are about like is real as a physical object in >> No, not even close. I am not a dualist at all. Not even close.

[00:13:44]>> Is that okay? I'm so I'm just still like learning these terms. The idea that like these like a thought is a like an artifact of so >> like a physical phenomenon.

[00:13:52]>> It it it's a byproduct of the physical.

[00:13:55]So for instance, Harry Potter exists in the world through books, imagination, movies, etc. There are toys of Harry Potter. Um, but it came from the imagination. So Harry Potter exists in the idea that the books and stories of Harry Potter live on in stories, but Harry Potter and the wizarding world does not objectively have its own place.

[00:14:16]Does that make sense? So it's fiction versus reality.

[00:14:19]Like going back to the white ball example, when you like instantiate the white ball in your thought, is that not an artifact of a physical phenomena in the same way?

[00:14:27]>> It's a byproduct. Sure. So based on my material brain, I'm able to use my hippo campus and other areas of my brain that allow for imagination and perceived uh objects, right? And the information can pass through all its necessary processes to allow me to have the imaginative ball. And but that ball does not actually exist. It is 100% purely made up in a part of my brain. Subconscious takes up like 95% of our brain, my brother. Um so it's it's it's very we don't know everything about it. So I >> I'm kind of this in like a really small amount like must like a mustard seed, you know what I mean? That's what I'm trying to >> Is your framework kind of coming down to an idea of like if it ex it exists in some way like because I can grant that that it does somehow exist >> but it's not ontological.

[00:15:21]>> I would say that that that part that I'm trying to identify as like having degrees of freedom like that awareness that understanding is the result of a physical phenomena directly. I can grant that that I can grant because I I'm more or less a materialist um when it comes down to it. So like every thought, every action, every thing can be majority broken down to some sort of physical causal relation.

[00:15:52]>> Okay. So in a reductive sense is that the physical world?

[00:15:55]>> Yeah, reductive. Yeah, that would be Yeah.

[00:15:59]>> Okay. So I guess like as we sort of like are aware and move our awareness like if with these degrees of freedom that we're we can just say like if they they do exist then that is sort of basically like the physical world sort of exercising itself and ontology changing as it moves.

[00:16:18]>> Ontology not changing >> well I guess like >> because we're just observing the objective. I mean but it's like it's it's it's wave function collapse like it's actual like causality >> wave function is very misunderstood though that that's that's a big problem.

[00:16:33]like uh when it comes to the double slit and wave function it's not stating for instance that uh things are everywhere at the same time right so like what it's actually stating is like a probability causal relation it's not that >> I guess when I say collapse I'm saying like this is like that's causation like that is an actual event in >> the we we can cause effects yes the through the imagination sure but that doesn't mean that the imagination is ontological >> I mean it's a byproduct product of an onlogical event.

[00:17:04]>> Yeah, it's a byproduct. It's an it's an I mean consciousness is purely an imag emergent property of the brain. So yeah, >> I guess I'm saying that that awareness part is intrinsic to wave function collapse.

[00:17:20]>> This is more of like the objective um uh collapse theories.

[00:17:24]>> I actually don't know if that's true or not. Let me >> well so my claim of like the awareness is a direct like like that that's sort of my claim but like there is like there's a set of like objective reduction um theories that are sort of gaining popularity >> I'm the wave function is like the collapse is like a part of nature like that is an objective collapse outside of the mind >> and also >> again the wave function has to do with probability it's not about things.

[00:17:57]>> Sure. I mean like the way we model it like like like our >> model of it at the moment is probabilistic, right?

[00:18:03]>> Yeah.

[00:18:04]>> Requires like you know a a measurement, right?

[00:18:06]>> Because energy can't be created. So we're not literally creating things nor are we making uh we're not onlogically creating. Uh we're able to ontologically effect.

[00:18:17]>> Yeah.

[00:18:19]ontologically creating um >> like my thoughts I can't like the only way again that I can create Harry Potter is through a book it doesn't mean that Harry Potter ontologically exists without the imagination without a mind Harry Potter is not here with the mind we can let the story live on so it's 100% subjective absolutely everything about it is subjective there is absolutely zero objective ontology behind that >> I guess when I'm talking ontology. I'm talking about like um the form that it takes of the energy.

[00:18:56]>> Oh, brother. Wait. Okay. P elaborate on what you mean by that. Elaborate.

[00:19:01]>> I guess it's like the sort of like I don't know if you know like the John Bell like it's the beable like what what is like like so like like this cup in front of me is an ontological object like it's an actual like beable. It's like a >> a manifestation of the energy. So again, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I I grant that it's the you're very close. There's there's a uh a philosopher that talks about and it's Berkeley.

[00:19:29]>> Really hardcore. Is that who is that who you're reading right now?

[00:19:34]>> I don't have >> Okay. No, you're good.

[00:19:36]>> And everything. I don't read much. I just watch like YouTube here. There's a hardship in when you get so deep into philosophy um and when you're only studying metaphysical possibilities, you're only studying um ontology and you're only studying teiology, etc. When you're only studying the metaphysics and you leave out epistemic justifications for how we know what we know, you miss out on so much of what reality actually is because you fall into a rabbit hole of all things could be and all things also are not. It's it's it's a it's a very very dangerous way of thinking. So the cup does onlogically exist and it is made up of matter and matter is an emergent property from energy of which has always existed. First law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy exists therefore it always has existed. So there's no justification to believe that energy was ever created. Nor was matter created. It can't be created either. But it is an emergent property from these energy fields. Okay. So neither of those things are creations at all by any means.

[00:20:34]objective reality ontological facts of the universe as we see it. All of physics and the laws therein are our descriptions of the universe. It is not prescribing anything nor creating anything. We did not invent physics. We did not invent the laws. We are describing what the universe in and of itself is. And we're able to create the theories by testing that to understand why it works. So the cup actually exists. The Harry Potter book actually exists. the idea and uh imagination behind it doesn't actually exist except for subjectively in the your own imagination. So, it's not actually real.

[00:21:12]The idea exists, but not an actual reality. I I feel like we're we're we're at a weird crossroad right now, and I I don't know how to get past it.

[00:21:25]>> I mean, what is the what is the divergent point?

[00:21:29]I'm I'm still kind of curious about your point to be quite frank. I kind of feel like I'm giving you long- winded explanation. Okay. Okay. That makes sense. That makes sense. So you're we're walking through this. Okay. So >> yeah.

[00:21:41]>> Is your question really reminds me of Berkeley. So if I'm going to provide you an argument and see what your thought process behind it is.

[00:21:51]Okay. My mind exists.

[00:21:56]I only observe things through my mind.

[00:21:59]Therefore all things are mind dependent making all things subjective reality therefore the same. If I imagine Harry Potter that is still mind dependent there requires some extra mind some uh original mind for all things to always be being observed to be able to exist.

[00:22:22]If reality is an observation and subjective, then it there it requires an always having an observation that is an entailment or argument for a god character for the existence of all of reality based on that. If we accept that subjectivity is reality, then Harry Potter does exist in reality based on that. But the problem with that is it all mixes fiction versus reality.

[00:22:50]Is that where we're going?

[00:22:53]>> Uh, I wouldn't take either one. I'd probably go somewhere in the middle and take aspects of either one. Um, I think maybe that more like I don't know if you'll know like the Hegelian sort of view.

[00:23:03]>> I've not heard of that one.

[00:23:04]>> More aligned with that like with Hegel.

[00:23:06]I think it might be more about that where >> [ __ ] >> like we we have >> God damn it. Okay, I before you go [ __ ] Hegel. Uh, >> remember epistemic justification for all of these metaphysics. We can make up all of these frameworks. That's that's what metaphysics is. It's it's it's a concept and framework of thought. If in this world this was possible, would this also be possible? Sure. Yes. In that framework, sure. No. In that framework, the frameworks can then be tested against actual reality in objective science where we can empirically test, scrutinize, and repeat it to know if it actually is. And how do we know that it actually is? And how do we trust that what we know is actually what we know and etc., etc., etc. It goes super [ __ ] deep, right? We have to have epistemic justification for truth values.

[00:24:00]>> I agree. I agree. I'm just talking about extending our current sort of mental infrastructure of like our model.

[00:24:06]>> You would really like IIT. You would absolutely [ __ ] love IIT.

[00:24:11]>> What is IIT?

[00:24:12]>> Integrated information theory. You're very hardcore going down like a universal consciousness route.

[00:24:19]>> Yeah, it's it's I think just saying that though is is tough because that implies a lot of things that I can't >> It does. Very much so. Very much so.

[00:24:28]>> I'm just trying to like stress like and extend like what we consider science, what we consider real, and take it like whatever what is the next level. And I obviously if you're going to take something to the next level, it's going to come off like this metaphysical sort of angle.

[00:24:42]>> Yeah. No. Yeah. It comes out in theoretical. Yeah, 100%. Um, >> that's the thing like we have theoretical physics like for instance we have uh multiverse which is plausible.

[00:24:52]Why is it plausible not possible nor true? Because the plausibility is the mathematics and the physics align but there's no demonstration for its actual truth. You're when you're missing out that epistemic justification that's the problem. So we could believe in multiverse and it makes a lot of things make sense. It absolutely does make sense. It absolutely could work but there's no epistemic for it. Okay. So then would you would you call back to that like degrees of freedom in your awareness? Would you call that plausible?

[00:25:20]>> The ep the epistemology behind that is going to justify there is no free will.

[00:25:26]That's the problem with that >> epistemology. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh I think we're going >> which my epistemology for instance is natural empiricism. So I would love to have some other epistemology, but I don't have a I I have never seen an argument that is more rational and logical than empiricism.

[00:25:47]>> Okay. Um yeah, so like I said, I go to a Christian church, right? Like I grew up not like in any sort of religion.

[00:25:53]>> Panism is IIT Corbo. Sorry, I was responding to a comment.

[00:25:56]>> No, you're good. Um like kind of grew up with a more of like a blank canvas of what the world is, right? So, um, but I I go to a Christian church and obviously like I don't believe in the resurrection or anything, right? So, it's it's kind of it's interesting to like, you know, I go to like men's groups, men's studies and stuff, >> which are awesome. Absolutely.

[00:26:12]>> Yeah. Absolutely. I wish I wish more honest I wish more people I mean you can go like honestly they they welcome me.

[00:26:18]Like >> my brother and Odin, I am a practicing atheist witch.

[00:26:23]>> Yeah, I maybe they might be a little turned off.

[00:26:26]>> Oh, I scare the [ __ ] out of them.

[00:26:29]>> That's funny.

[00:26:31]Um, but no, no, they they definitely welcome me and I I guess I use Christ as like some sort of like what like a human shaped doorway to it, like a higher version of myself.

[00:26:41]>> It's it's good having um community. I I grant that and actually that's one of the reasons that I actually grant religion as semi-healthy is all societies with that are more religious than secular have more of a uh happiness value in society.

[00:26:58]>> Yeah. But that doesn't make them true, right?

[00:27:02]>> Yeah. No, there's defin obviously that is huge value, but I also think like it's helping me sort of meditate on like what I think is plausible that like actually leads to like some of the things that we're saying. Um there is an intentionality that bias probably and like we like that terror management thing. So I I do ackn >> and you're grounded. I I appreciate your mind a lot. You are making me think and I I absolutely love when we're able to have good conversations like this. like I we don't necessarily agree with each other, but we're able to throw the ideas out there, explain why or why not. And I I love that. That's the whole point of philosophy. I love that so much. You're you're highly intelligent and I appreciate you.

[00:27:38]>> Thanks, bro. I appreciate that. That means a lot. Um so like I I I like I had like a huge like existential >> crisis like five years ago and >> Sure.

[00:27:47]>> I feel a lot more grounded now having this sort of like model in some in a sense.

[00:27:52]>> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think you definitely need that uh societal construct. Um I I I'm kind of in the same boat, especially with my practices that people are absolutely terrified of.

[00:28:02]So it's very hard to like make friends in real life and whatnot.

[00:28:05]>> Okay.

[00:28:06]>> Well, um this is I have a lot to chew on and I'll come back maybe in a few.

[00:28:09]>> Yeah, brother. Go look. You might uh be very very very very very very and I cannot stress enough very goddamn [ __ ] skeptic, but look into pansychism and I >> Okay, thanks.

[00:28:23]>> It's I don't grant it at all, but you're along that route. So if you come back with some arguments for that, we could have an awesome discussion.

[00:28:30]>> Okay. And I'm not also a side note, I um I'm a software engineer and so I I built actually a tool for I'm not trying to just this whole play thing wasn't a plug, but I have a a platform for creators to monetize and like manage like reaction requests. So I think I don't know if you ever want to >> people like pay for you to react to videos. I think it would be >> um interesting.

[00:28:52]>> Very interesting. Um, yeah, shoot me uh on Instagram or uh find I have all my links of socials in the YouTube description. Go on ahead and shoot me a message.

[00:29:01]>> Cool. All right, man.

[00:29:02]>> Very intriguing. Yeah, you have yourself a good day, brother. I appreciate the hell out of you. Later.

[00:29:05]>> Yeah. textbook.