Great talk but we have more than merely five senses, the way we were mistakenly taught as youngsters.

1) sight
2) hearing
3) smell
4) taste
5) touch
6) balance/acceleration
7) temperature
8 ) proprioception (related to touch, provides the brain with the relative positions of parts of the body. this is how you can touch your nose with your eyes closed)
9) pain
10) other internal senses (gag reflex, urinary bladder 'fullness', sensations felt when swallowing, etc)

What is this part of? Does he have a series of talks online? I really like this guy.

>> ^shuac:

Great talk but we have more than merely five senses, the way we were mistakenly taught as youngsters.
1) sight
2) hearing
3) smell
4) taste
5) touch
6) balance/acceleration
7) temperature
8 ) proprioception (related to touch, provides the brain with the relative positions of parts of the body. this is how you can touch your nose with your eyes closed)
9) pain
10) other internal senses (gag reflex, urinary bladder 'fullness', sensations felt when swallowing, etc)


I saw a Qi episode where they said we have about 21 or 22. Crazy huh...they didn't list them all though so I have no idea.

I'm so glad people like him exist, to be able to teach so much in 30 minutes is a real gift.

Common sense is not on your list.

Nor should it be.

>> ^shuac:

Great talk but we have more than merely five senses, the way we were mistakenly taught as youngsters.
1) sight
2) hearing
3) smell
4) taste
5) touch
6) balance/acceleration
7) temperature
8 ) proprioception (related to touch, provides the brain with the relative positions of parts of the body. this is how you can touch your nose with your eyes closed)
9) pain
10) other internal senses (gag reflex, urinary bladder 'fullness', sensations felt when swallowing, etc)

This is a great lecture, I really don’t like the set it is distracting and just plain ugly. Guess this is 20 years old?

**TAN AND TURQUOISE OVERLOAD!!**

He knows the difference between farther and further.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Common sense is not on your list.
Nor should it be.
>> ^shuac:
Great talk but we have more than merely five senses, the way we were mistakenly taught as youngsters.
1) sight
2) hearing
3) smell
4) taste
5) touch
6) balance/acceleration
7) temperature
8 ) proprioception (related to touch, provides the brain with the relative positions of parts of the body. this is how you can touch your nose with your eyes closed)
9) pain
10) other internal senses (gag reflex, urinary bladder 'fullness', sensations felt when swallowing, etc)



No comment on the paperprompter?

It's from a company called The Teaching Company.
This might be the course.
His profile.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
What is this part of? Does he have a series of talks online? I really like this guy.

Hmm, links didn't come through:
.
.

Nice to see a long video made it onto the top 15. Should happen more often!

Heheheheh the last quote talks about how science is less about winning people over with facts and new generations accepting what they heard first instead of being convenced purely by fact. In other words, it is akin to what Quine talked about; that science, at heart, isn't as much about the empirical method, but who was your teacher. Hilary Putnam has a great talk here about science lacking a true method anymore. I'm am not an anti-science person, I'm one of those starving philosopher kind of people, if you can't say something with 100% certainty, then you don't get to call it a law or truth

I love deGrasse, though, he charges people up to use their minds, and for that, I will always commend him as the greatest teacher I have ever see. If all academics had his zeal, our education system would be unrivaled.

It's nice to see a well reasoned defense that the Universe had a beginning. The thought of science before that was that the Universe was infinite and had no beginning or end. This is something Einstein believed as well. It used to be one of the tools of the skeptic to say that creation couldn't be true. But, we now know the truth, that the Universe was created by something else. One of the discoverers of the cosmic background microwave radiation said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"

Even men of science understood the definitive connection between God and the origin of the Universe. Materialists though like to posit that there are infinite Universes and dimensions, anything they can do to muddy the conclusion that there was a single source. They want an infinite stack of turtles because they don't ever want to see what is at the bottom of the pile.

It's clear the ultimate cause of all things is eternal, just by simple logic. Something doesn't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there would never be anything. So, therefore something always has existed, which means it is eternal. The Universe has an eternal first cause which is transcendent, immaterial and timeless. Anyone with even the thinnest shred of reason can tell what that means, but reason doesn't often enter into the argument.

@shinyblurry

Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).

The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.

In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>

I kept wanting them to turn the camera around on a crowd of 2nd graders with one eye extremely wide open and slobber in the corner of their mouth.

@GeeSussFreeK

Time is interesting, truly one of humanities and other animals, greatest sensory abilities via memory. In fact how our memory is stored depending on what type of creature you are can give you a wide difference in abilities. Like a fly out maneuvering your swat attempts. Truly time seems not to exist at all if there is no memory. You can also tell that our perception of time was never meant to work with time dilation; this showing that time is extremely relative even just by biological standards.

But, you must remember that if we all died tomorrow and on some distant planet a new species started to learn as we have. They will still have access to the greatest library ever known: The Universe. Does that make time exist? Is it merely just an artifact? Time seems to have an "artificial" standing, as this new species will not see it at "one second" nor will they perceive "one second" the same as us. Time exists, but what is your duration, one tic = the time it takes for the Universe to go from 3k Kelvin to 0 Kelvin, or a few seconds = as we see it?

Much like temperature and other sensory based interpretations of reality. I think it does exist outside our perception, but it could be better stated than is. Perhaps using discreet energy packets in relation to the speed of light interpreted by general relativity for the system, etc... (a much more precise definition of time is using the mechanical nature of particle physics and sharing it with another system, much like nuclear clocks).

@shinyblurry

You missed the part were he talked about the quantum foam, etc... The Universe had a beginning the same way your life did. There was a lot that happened before most likely and we may never know what it was (as the quantum foam breaks things down to, literally, chances/glimpses and "something from nothing"; as long as the dime lands head up in your favor in one instance in some far off day; even if your chances are one in 1 x 10^464th power--it just needs one instance in an endless amount of time too happen).

I am assuming that time is somewhat meaningless, actually. I assume that time had a beginning when the Universe was created and will have an end when the Universe is destroyed, and after that existence will be eternal. I think a Creator is far more plausible than an arbitrary process that mimics one. For one, there is no impetus for anything to happen in eternity. It wasn't caused so there is no inertia for anything to happen; it is infinitely stable. Why should a well ordered temporal Universe that creates beings that ask these questions spontaneously arise from an eternal continuim?

Our dating methods are far from infallable. Scientists have dated rocks they knew the age of (within decades) and yielded ages of millions and billions of years. Archaelogists have found human fossils and tools in rocks that were supposedely hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils don't have date tags on them, and there is this circular logic of using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks. I could give you hundreds of examples of flaws with dating methodology. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting a young earth and a young Universe.

I think you're assuming that the truth cannot be known, or if it could, it isn't accessible. In my experience, it can be known, and absolutely at that. Empirical proof for a spiritual creation does not or could not technically exist. God can never be empirically proven because He is a Spirit, and more than that, exists outside of space and time. That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means that you can't put God in a testtube and derive a result.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).
The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.
In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>

Well, I am talking about supernatural causes. I think there is plenty of evidence the Universe was designed, for instance the 20 or so values which life is completely dependent on and the fact that if any of them were altered in the most infintesimal way, life wouldn't exist and in most cases, the Universe wouldn't either. Even Dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared designed. But then he goes on to posit multiple Universes and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Instead of investigating the obvious conclusion that if the Universe appears designed, then maybe it is, he comes up with a morass of complexity and speculation which doesn't reduce the need for an ultimate cause in the first place. I think peoples predisposition against a created Universe is predicated more on their bias against a Creator than logic and reason, because I really don't see how it is at all unreasonable or illogical to believe it could have been.

btw, why downvote my comment and then engage in discussion?

>> ^kceaton1:
@shinyblurry
You missed the part were he talked about the quantum foam, etc... The Universe had a beginning the same way your life did. There was a lot that happened before most likely and we may never know what it was (as the quantum foam breaks things down to, literally, chances/glimpses and "something from nothing"; as long as the dime lands head up in your favor in one instance in some far off day; even if your chances are one in 1 x 10^464th power--it just needs one instance in an endless amount of time too happen).

@shinyblurry

There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.

I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.

And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.

I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.

I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

I think the difference is that I doubt both the secular and the religious narratives. Though, one leaves room for doubt and change, the other is static.

I doubt both in completely different ways. I doubt the science, because doubt is part of science. You must be willing to change your view whenever new evidence provides a better narrative than what you had. If dating methods are inaccurate, that isn't proof or even evidence that any god exists. It's circumstantial information that follows your narrative. Like Neil said in the video...you don't throw out good ideas just because the measurement was somewhat off. If you don't have a better explanation, you keep trying to get better measurements for the explanation you have.

The problem with religious narratives is that they do not change, they only seek to disprove and explain away that which goes against the narrative. Science is the opposite. It's a narrative that constantly builds and adds on new ideas based on new observations and experiences. Science is a way of looking at the world which can exist on any world anywhere in the universe. Any species could come up with the scientific method without any outside influence or assistance from any sort of creator.

I can easily imagine a "god" of some sort which exists outside of the laws of our universe, entropy, time, etc. creating the universe and sparking the Big Bang with unimaginable powers. I can also imagine that this imaginary being is an infinite amount of possibilities other than the Christian God or the god of any other earthly religion.

I can also easily imagine there being a lot of other non-religious explanations for the creation of the universe. I doubt all of these explanations, but some are more likely than others, in my opinion, and none of the scientific ones demand I live my life based on one specific book and the story contained within. Science is limitless...religion lives only with limits.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I am talking about supernatural causes. I think there is plenty of evidence the Universe was designed, for instance the 20 or so values which life is completely dependent on and the fact that if any of them were altered in the most infintesimal way, life wouldn't exist and in most cases, the Universe wouldn't either. Even Dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared designed. But then he goes on to posit multiple Universes and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Instead of investigating the obvious conclusion that if the Universe appears designed, then maybe it is, he comes up with a morass of complexity and speculation which doesn't reduce the need for an ultimate cause in the first place. I think peoples predisposition against a created Universe is predicated more on their bias against a Creator than logic and reason, because I really don't see how it is at all unreasonable or illogical to believe it could have been.
btw, why downvote my comment and then engage in discussion?
>> ^kceaton1:
@shinyblurry

You missed the part were he talked about the quantum foam, etc... The Universe had a beginning the same way your life did. There was a lot that happened before most likely and we may never know what it was (as the quantum foam breaks things down to, literally, chances/glimpses and "something from nothing"; as long as the dime lands head up in your favor in one instance in some far off day; even if your chances are one in 1 x 10^464th power--it just needs one instance in an endless amount of time too happen).



The downvote was for fanning religious vs. science potentials, I saw it as a troll to some degree.

For the rest. Science is a poor man's science, especially nowadays when you use twenty-twenty hindsight. The reason I say this is that you use "the chance for "x" factor ending up in some various fashion by chance" and explain that it is ludicrous for that to be true. The point scientists make is that you don't need chance at all to get there, or if you did it doesn't matter, because that is were the dice landed. Complaining that the dice are improbable, you should also notice besides those 20 reasons you could just as easily make it into a scenario of 500 clauses.

Like not having a super massive black hole near us, or an old dying star near us ready to go up, a large gas planet near us that could play amok with our magnetic field and send loads of radiation at us, etc...

It's much easier to approach it as the dice dropped where they may and that designed our perceived reality.


Last part concerning time. Time if perceived by a slow to register memory system will appear to be going slow, if at the speed of light it would essentially stop. The point I was making is that the Universe has it's own built in clock via thermodynamics and the theory of general relativity. If time TRULY doesn't exist then neither can heat, if heat doesn't exist, neither can electrons, if electrons don't exist then neither do atoms, etc... Time is a fundamentally linked "existence" merely due to the other forces at play that need it to work at all, including the supreme particle/wave, the photon. How can it be a wave without some time variable. What causes time and what it is exactly is still best answered by Einstein and his theory of General Relativity.

woooops wrong thread

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by radx.

Awarding critical_d with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.