Відео

I’m skeptical about lnvēsting. What's the best approach to get started? and how long do I wait before they can y!eld profits?

You are remarkably smart!!

a spectator of a texas rangers game died on July 8th 2011

While being a fan of Gödel, I found a way to make his proof fall apart. 1) Being a Sacrifice is Not a Positive thing; whereas NOT a Sacrifice is. 2) Christ has the God Property. 3) God Properties are Exclusively Positive Properties. 4) Christ is a Sacrifice. Therefore: 1) Christ has a Negative Property. 2) Ergo, 3) is False and 2) is False. . . . and the Proof unravels. Nevertheless, since God is the Most Self-Referential Thing in the Universe, these Contradictions are really Paradoxes. not Contradictions.

If "green ideas sleep furiously" is meaningless then why does "there are green ideas that sleep furiously" sound false and not just meaningless? Perhaps it is not about meaninglessness so much as it is about the sentence forcing you to make a presupposition that you know is false.

Da’at True 😂

Professor, thank you for this brief yet concise video regarding Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses. A query if I may. Am I justified in interpreting Irenaeus’ statement regarding Jesus “aged 50 years” as more of a cultural observation of his station rather than actual age? A master or teacher in that time would not be merely 30 years old as the Gnostics suggested (to fit 30 Aeons). Culturally 40 or 50 would be the expectation as in Pirkei Avot 5:21 (Judah Ben Tema). Irenaeus also seems to settle Jesus’ actual age (33) by reckoning the Passovers after his Baptism. This is right before the “50 year old” statement in Book II chapter 22. It seems to me all this simply goes to say Jesus was not merely 30. Not at all to claim he was actually 50. Your interpretation would be appreciated. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.

Una explicación muy clara. Saludos desde Perú.

Well said. It was Kant who won the argument of why "existence cannot be a predicate" for the reasons @cvdevol 2 yrs ago cited--but sometimes I wonder... "Existence and nonexistence cannot be properties of a thing, because a thing by definition exists and cannot not exist for it would not be a thing, indeed it would not BE." How persuasive is that, really? If Bernardo Kastrup is right in that experience is what truly is, said experience being qualia of mentation, such that measurable quanta of experience is also mentation, then it makes sense to think of that which is experienced to have the property of existence by virtue of being thought--since mentation is for us what it is. Kant's argument presupposes the veridical experience of 'matter' to be there as phenomena such that it is a mere tautology of sorts to say ofcan existing thing it exists: or not, since if it does not one could not predicate as property anything about it since it is not there. But how could one even do that WITHOUT first giving the thought of the inexistent thing the salient feature of nonexistence as an intrinsic property. Therefore if X exists it, X, must have the property of being actual, i.e., existing.

Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolute bullshit. Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2). By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign. At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side. But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. I call BS - a giant twittering machine built on nothing, see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org Remember, you read it here first... :)

At the end when he talks about the world mind, what author is he referring to? I can't quite catch it.

I'm sorry but we do draw inferences from single cases. When I was a young child I jabbed a knitting needle into a power outlet. Once was enough to teach me cause and effect.

Princess Elizabeth was not the first to raise the so called 'problem of interaction'. The problem was first raised by Gassendi in the first edition of the Meditations (1641). Elizabeth didn't start corresponding with Descartes until 1643. It is also unlilkely that she independently raised it, given she almost certainly would have read Gassendi's making it in the first edition (and it was published and addressed in subsequent editions too, even though Gassendi's original text was removed). So, Gassendi deserves the credit, not Elizabeth. Not that much credit is deserved, for the objection is a terrible one. But it's Gassendi's criticism. Descartes thought the objection was silly. He said so. Not to her. He liked her and he didn't think what he was saying to her would be published! But to Gassendi. Indeed, he thought it did not begin to raise a problem. Descartes' responses to Elizabeth were replies to a friend. They were private letters never intended to be published. We know what Descartes actually thought of the objection, for it was published at the time. This is what he said to Gassendi (quite rightly): "[The problem of interaction is] a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist because it· assumes something that is false and can’t in any way be defended, namely that two substances whose natures are different (like the soul and the body) can’t act on each other. ·To see how silly it is to assume this as something to be taken for granted, consider the fact those who admit the existence of real accidents such as ·individual instances of· heat, weight and so on have no doubt that these accidents can act on the body; yet there is much more of a difference between them and it, i.e. between accidents and a substance, than there is between two substances ·such as mind and body" Descartes thought it was a terrible objection. He was right. First, why on earth think that material objects can only causally interact with other material objects? That is pure dogma. It is not a self-evident truth of reason and it appears positively false. For by hypothesis, our minds appear to be immaterial objects and they appear as well to be causally interacting with material entities, namely our bodies. I will my arm to move and it moves. That's an apparent immaterial event causing a material one. So, the evidence is that immaterial objects can and do causally interact with material ones. Second, one does not have to explain how something might occur before one has good evidence that it is occurring. I don't know how this computer works. But I have good evidence it is working - it appears to be working. Descartes does not owe an explanation of 'how' our minds cause our bodies to do things. We have good evidence they do: they appear to. To think that if Descartes can't explain 'how' , then this undercuts the evidence 'that' it occurs is absurd. (Plus, exactly what is even wanted here? What can one ever say here apart from 'by doing so'? FOr that is all one can say about material-material causation too). Third (and note, the two points above are sufficient to demonstrate there to be no problem here at all), even if - even if - material and immaterial objects cannot interact, what this implies is not that the mind is material, but that the material is mental! For again, the whole point is that minds exist more certainly than any and all material objects. So if my mind - something that appears to be immaterial and to exist with the utmost certainty - appears to be interacting with a sensible body, and if it is impossible for immaterial entities to interact with anything material, then the conclusion is that my sensible body is not a material entity at all, but a mental one. That is, the implication of the problem of interaction - if problem it is (and it isn't) - is not materialist monism, but immaterialist monism. Idealism, not naturalism. So, the 'problem' of interaction is no problem at all and if it was it would imply immaterialism monism, not materialism monism. And Descartes was perfectly well aware of this at the time and pointed it out in no uncertain terms. And Elizabeth of Bohemia didn't raise it - at least not first, and not independently - Gassendi did (and we can safely assume that she read Gassendi doing so, as it was published in the first edition).

Thanks for lecturing so I don't have to.

Tertullian was NOT a Trinitarian.

You are either a Christian or not. Trinity is fundamental to our belief.. if you dont beliebe in trinity Then you are NOT a Christian Peroid END of story

there is no problem You are not a Christian, somwho are you to tell thek what to believe you are a deceiver 1. Matthew 3:16 “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him.” 2. Matthew 12:28 “But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” 3. Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .” 4. Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” 5. John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” 6. John 15:26 “When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .” 7. Acts 1:4 “Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me . . .” 8. Acts 2:33 “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.” 9. Acts 10:38 “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” 10. Romans 1:4 “Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .” 11. Romans 8:9 “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” 12. 1 Corinthians 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 13. 2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. 14. Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 15. Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 16. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 17. Ephesians 2:22 In whom [Jesus] you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. 18. Titus 3:6 Whom [the Holy Spirit] He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. 19. Hebrews 9:14 How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 20. 1 Peter 1:2 According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: may grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Of course metaphysical! Why reject. Religions are different, some true , others false

coming back here after listening through other stuff - thanks Professor Bonevac

Awesome!

And his prediction was right!

I agree with Marcion and disagree with you. The god of the Jews was an evil alien god often referred to by Jesus as Yahweh (Ildabaoth the Demiurge). The loving Heavenly Father Jesus came to teach the world about was NOT YAHWEH. He represents the OLD WINE while Jesus taught the "New Wine."

Isn’t this assuming that everyone in the community can afford the price? If you live in an area with high wealth inequality/fluctuation, what’s to stop you from only selling to the top percentage?

Thanks a lot for this great lecture. A question regarding the regress argument: theoretically, is ot possible to have "loops" in the chain? Such a case won't determine the existence of intrinsic/final goods, right?

Seems like he's only trying to prove an all great and all good God. I don't understand why that must be a premise. If the Greeks had anything to say, gods are clearly not all great and all good. I completely disagree these axioms are highly controversial to me.

I would seriously profit more from a critique of kant's philosophy than an outline, but this video has been profusely fruitful.

Did Godel make it clear that this argument was a silly toy of an argument not to be taken seriously? These axioms are ridiculous.

Great Vid Professor! Do you have any direct quotes from Plato in The Republic Regarding Education?

Dear Professor Bonevac, your lectures have been so helpful to me. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to put these lectures. Thank you!!!!

This argument is just convoluted word soup. Hilarious.

Great explaining.

The reason you’re having trouble explaining it because the Trinity doesn’t exist you’re a student of Plato! God is numerically one! Your hand is not your fingers !

ill use this to sleep

I'm getting the understanding of it now, you explaining really well, and thank you

Does anyone know where we can find the speaker’s “indented” version?

Really enjoyed this! Thank you 🙌🏼

Sounds like what they're doing to Donald Trump

I can live with that. But nothing, really, can be said about the nature of causation. It seems that the entire events in the whole universe are only events.

Very clarifying, thank you! Also I’d like to say your intonation and speech style leaves me imagining that Jeff Goldblum is explaining Kant 😂

" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."

MICHAYAH who is like Yehovah MICHAEL who is like God YEHOVAH WHO ALONE IS YEHOVAH WHO ALONE IS GOD, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, THE LIVING GOD, THE EVERLASTING GOD WHO HAS DECLARED THAT HE ALONE IS YEHOVAH HE ALONE IS GOD THERE IS NO OTHER HOD BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO GOD BEFORE HIM, WITH HIM OR AFTER HIM AND THERE IS NO GOD LIKE HIM, EQUAL TO HIM OR COMPARED TO HIM Any other form of Godship that this contradict that declared by the Almighty God Yehobah the most high is ungodly and idolatrous and forbidden by Lord God Yehovah for his holy sanctified godly People who as his sons are gods but not his kind of God who in their godships must acknowledge , fear, sacrifice to, worship and serve only him Yehovah as their God Deuteronomy 6:4 ASV Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: Isaiah 45:5-6,22-23 ASV I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; [6] that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. [22] Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. [23] By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Isaiah 43:10 ASV Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Deuteronomy 32:39-40 ASV See now that I, even I, am he, And there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; And there is none that can deliver out of my hand. [40] For I lift up my hand to heaven, And say, As I live for ever, Isaiah 40:8,10,18,25,28 ASV The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand forever. [10] Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. [18] To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? [25] To whom then will ye liken me, that I should be equal to him? saith the Holy One. [28] Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding. Isaiah 46:5,9-10 ASV To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? [9] Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; [10] declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; Isaiah 43:11 ASV I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. Isaiah 44:6 ASV Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. Isaiah 48:12,17-18 ASV Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called: I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. [17] Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am Jehovah thy God, who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. [18] Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea: 1 Samuel 2:2 ASV There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides thee, Neither is there any rock like our God.

MICHAYAH who is like Yehovah MICHAEL who is like God YEHOVAH WHO ALONE IS YEHOVAH WHO ALONE IS GOD, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, THE LIVING GOD, THE EVERLASTING GOD WHO HAS DECLARED THAT HE ALONE IS YEHOVAH HE ALONE IS GOD THERE IS NO OTHER HOD BESIDES HIM THERE IS NO GOD BEFORE HIM, WITH HIM OR AFTER HIM AND THERE IS NO GOD LIKE HIM, EQUAL TO HIM OR COMPARED TO HIM Any other form of Godship that this contradict that declared by the Almighty God Yehobah the most high is ungodly and idolatrous and forbidden by Lord God Yehovah for his holy sanctified godly People who as his sons are gods but not his kind of God who in their godships must acknowledge , fear, sacrifice to, worship and serve only him Yehovah as their God

WHEN YOU WANT TO PERCEIVE THE THE GODSHIP OF YEHOVAH THROUGH THE SETTINGS OF IDOLATROUS THEOLOGY, ERROR IS INEVITABLE. THE GODSHIP OF YEHOVAH IS A SOLE PERSON GODSHIP OF YEHOVAH NEVER IN ANY FORM OF UNION WITH ANY OTHER PERSON'S GODSHIP TO FORM A UNITED GODSHIP AS MISCONSTRUED CATASTROPHICALLY BY THE TRINITARIAN SUPPOSITIONISTS THAT FRAGRANTLY IGNORED THE PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF YEHOVAH THE MOST HIGH

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Not just politicizing or deconstructing everything, which I find unhelpful and would simply ruin the experience for me.

Does any pholosopher combine hermeneutics with the current understanding of the neurobiology of human behavior, such as Chomsky's understanding of language and "reptile brain/neurohormonal influences on behaviors and thought?

Good will in the US has been suspended by MAGA.

Axiom 1: But can't a property be situational? Is being truthful better than being a liar? Yet aren't there situations where lying is better then being truthful? The classic one being lying to the Gestapo about the Jew hiding in the attic. Axiom 2: So, if you need to be "ruthless" in order to be "successful" that makes being "ruthless" a positive property if we accept "successful" as a positive property? Axiom 3: Since a mortal can't possibly know what it's like to be "God-like" then how do we know that it's positive? Axiom 4: See question on Axiom 1. Axiom 5: Then why do so many people in intensive pain choose non-existence? Axiom 6: That's not at all intuitively obvious. It seems reasonable that a property can be positive in some worlds but not all worlds. Again, see Axiom 1.

Frustrated for lack of subtitle.

The Quus question is really stupid. Addition has other properties that must hold for all operation. It doesn't just depend on the results any particular operation. For example, for all X : X + 1 > X. This doesn't hold for Quus. So I've never been doing Quus when I meant addition. The same thing probably goes for Blue and Grue, but it's harder to demonstrate. 2:05

theory of recollection