Materialism video compilations | Wall-Street Videos

$SMOOTH E, \"Materialism\"$

SMOOTH E, "Materialism"
Posted by: simswebstudio

Video duration: 52 seconds
Global video hits: 47706

SMOOTH E, "Materialism", VideoDesc
Thailand, JEH United (Bangkok)

Related: materialism, e, smooth

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

shes beautiful
By: nekoraba. on 01 Dec 08, 02:31:27
shes beautiful

Its baby & not babi ...
By: emmelytje. on 08 Oct 08, 15:13:20
Its baby & not babi -.-' This isn't mean pig...

even the foam is in ...
By: SaoChampassak. on 26 Sep 08, 16:14:11
even the foam is in the shape of a purse. haha. the sad part is we can relate to her.

OMG, this is really ...
By: jeffryujep. on 17 Sep 08, 06:44:37
OMG, this is really funny

What the hell!?
By: pugnaciousboxer2. on 13 Sep 08, 03:57:21
What the hell!?

yeah sure lol, GO ...
By: syallow95. on 06 Sep 08, 01:51:05
yeah sure lol, GO PIG!!

this girl is so ...
By: roochiepoo. on 31 Aug 08, 06:53:21
this girl is so cute...

it means.. smooth ...
By: Qpeep. on 30 Aug 08, 13:19:38
it means.. smooth i'm pig face scrub, haha

smooth i babi face ...
By: syallow95. on 27 Aug 08, 11:47:51
smooth i babi face skrab (babi in indonesian mean PIG)

juicy couture bag~!
By: tastytassie. on 30 Jul 08, 06:39:10
juicy couture bag~!

Wow! philosophy!!
By: pem42391. on 02 Jul 08, 11:07:21
Wow! philosophy!!

The real genius is ...
By: lalitt. on 07 Jun 08, 20:38:56
The real genius is in the details, when the bubble makes her nose look super flared.

the girl was ...
By: racingonstreet12345. on 02 Jun 08, 08:59:22
the girl was freakin out

lol at that ...
By: yotsubakowai. on 18 May 08, 20:14:56
lol at that beautician and girl's face xD

lol that was so ...
By: QueenLaRevkah. on 07 May 08, 01:52:00
lol that was so funny

thais really do ...
By: xen0genesis. on 17 Apr 08, 10:28:07
thais really do have the potential in ideas and creativity. nice ad....love it

Rofl that girl face ...
By: kittypowerranger. on 15 Apr 08, 18:36:22
Rofl that girl face :L

hahahaha!again!damn ...
By: prawnaholic. on 28 Mar 08, 14:38:58
hahahaha!again!damn funny!!=D

smotha e beby fes ...
By: taidus124. on 19 Mar 08, 03:48:49
smotha e beby fes sikarub. sekarub beby fom hehe i like that part

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So ...
By: kensamor. on 17 Mar 08, 17:42:50
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So funny!

I really do admire ...
By: StruhDaehYm. on 26 Dec 07, 20:10:00
I really do admire her tits. What do you think about her tits?

that girl's cute
By: 21norki21. on 10 Dec 07, 04:40:23
that girl's cute

freakin hilarious ...
By: mdallasinto. on 24 Nov 07, 16:04:09
freakin hilarious love it!

nice
By: tranquilityaquarian. on 02 Nov 07, 11:11:42
nice

i think both girl ...
By: mjfans98. on 27 Oct 07, 07:21:51
i think both girl is the same person. btw, what's the "materialistic" girl's name? she look cute!! ^^

Cultural Theory: Historical Materialism
Posted by: rlstrick

Video duration: 532 seconds
Global video hits: 10726

College course lecture from Ron Strickland.

Related: culture, history, marxism, materialism, ron, strickland

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Fantastic, thanks.
By: masbbo. on 20 Nov 08, 21:32:57
Fantastic, thanks.

yeah there is no ...
By: plutoohno. on 12 Sep 08, 14:27:33
yeah there is no absolute truth marx was after, although what marx gave us was a method by which to reach an objective understanding of our historical moment.

I think that Marx ...
By: dbturner85. on 01 Sep 08, 09:18:14
I think that Marx was only trying to create an antithesis to Hegelian idealism (he turned it on its head), in order to reach a synthesis. I don't think he was trying to present an absolute truth. In other words, while men create material realities through ideals, ideals are constantly being informed by material realities. That's weird; that kind of looks like Tillich's method of correlation applied to Marx and Hegel. I'm sleepy... things mixed up in my head. goodnight.

The capitalists can ...
By: meilanfiona. on 29 Aug 08, 07:28:50
The capitalists can respond to the coming "dictatorship of the proletariat" NOW by union busting, squashing protests, promoting fear that drives the masses apart, etc. Everything that is being done right now. We, the working class, must respond just as fiercely. We must become dictators, but a dictatorship of the working majority against the wealthy, parasitic minority (the capitalists). No war but class war! Things can only get better, or worse. They won't stay the same.

We are actually ...
By: meilanfiona. on 29 Aug 08, 07:25:16
We are actually nearing the stage, in America, of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The more power the working class has, the closer we get to that. Example: since the industrial era, the unions have worked to almost make child labor in America extinct, have secured the 8 hour work day, have forced the employers to pay minimum wage (for the most part), etc. All against the will of the capitalists. This is what is meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" - rulership by the workers.

Communism, by the ...
By: meilanfiona. on 29 Aug 08, 07:20:50
Communism, by the way, is not a mathematical formula you lay over the economy of a society, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Communism without freedom is not communism, either. The people must become the state voluntarily in order for communism to really exist (Stalinism, for example, was not anything near communism). A confederation of workers' councils is, however.

UltraBeans: ...
By: meilanfiona. on 29 Aug 08, 07:20:14
UltraBeans: Capitalism can not work. Simply put, it depends on the theory of a working free-market economy. However, capitalists automatically work to erase the free-market through the elimination of competition, and through economic dominance (a.k.a. imperialism). Capitalism eats itself, and that is what Marx had always said.

Ron's on fire here. ...
By: rastabus. on 19 Aug 08, 03:03:03
Ron's on fire here. I think it's the best I've seen of this excellent series.

Anyone who ...
By: trisix99. on 14 Aug 08, 00:23:40
Anyone who understood anything about Marx would agree with you! It's too bad most people do not heheh.

excellent. could ...
By: trisix99. on 13 Aug 08, 23:58:18
excellent. could you do something on marx on the jewish question, and what he believed to be human emancipation, as opposed to political emancipation?

so the thing im ...
By: ellisaaron528. on 04 Aug 08, 05:44:57
so the thing im concerned about since so many colleges seem to bend there doctrine toward marxist, socialist, communist ideology, there never really has been a society thats used it like it was originally thought is this an idea or an ideology that far leftist see for future america

There will always ...
By: nmqtabtp. on 26 Jul 08, 19:19:12
There will always be classes within mankind. Think of putting rocks, gravels, sands, impurities, into a cylinder and shake it. Gradually these materials will find their own space. In communist country there are at least three classes: the communist party leader, the communist members, and the prisoner of the communist doctrine. Education to eliminate ego and ignorance, teaching morale conducts are the key to harmonious social orders.

Yep. Marx described ...
By: JonnyBrotherJr. on 12 Jul 08, 19:38:27
Yep. Marx described the stages after Capitalism as such: -Workers' state OR Proletariat Dictatorship/Democracy then -A classless, stateless society.

Marx didn't see his ...
By: dbturner85. on 09 Jul 08, 09:36:36
Marx didn't see his theories as some type of Pseudo-religion, like the so-called "Marxist-Leninist." He was only trying to understand the world around him. Do his theories concerning the nature of social relations pan out completely? We don't know yet. The point I'm trying to make is that the philosophy of Karl Marx is not the same thing as the repressive tacticts or governmental policies of the USSR. Leninist = marxist, but Marxist doesn't = Leninist.

At what Univerisity ...
By: KhanSlayer. on 26 Jun 08, 06:15:58
At what Univerisity or college is this course taught?

liek omg yeah! ...
By: UltraBeans. on 24 Jun 08, 19:44:01
liek omg yeah! mises was sooooooo liek stupid cuz he thought comunism was liek bad! omg! how politically incorrect of him! *swoons* Thanks for setting me straight on the matter, brainiac!

You are forgetting ...
By: 283679423. on 24 Jun 08, 18:13:05
You are forgetting that Von Mises is full of shit.

eh i guess there's ...
By: asiandude154. on 19 Jun 08, 04:53:37
eh i guess there's a reason it doesn't work and i'm glad it doesn't. but hey, all i know about communism is what i've learned from teachers and what my friends and i discuss in class. i'm in no way an expert in this

All opinion? You ...
By: UltraBeans. on 18 Jun 08, 09:45:18
All opinion? You clearly haven't taken the time to read up on the subject like I suggested you do. Go do yer homework, man. (And, as an aside, it should be painfully obvious that, due to the fact that it doesn't work in practice, communism in theory is in no way any good.)

eh i dunno. that's ...
By: asiandude154. on 18 Jun 08, 04:37:00
eh i dunno. that's just all opinion like my statement up there. i wouldn't like to live under a communist government but i'm just saying that in theory it's good but people are greedy and selfish.

Asiandude154 I ...
By: fallonkristakloc. on 01 Jun 08, 23:50:59
Asiandude154 I totally agree man....

Well, you're wrong. ...
By: UltraBeans. on 29 May 08, 16:06:21
Well, you're wrong. Communism doesn't work in theory either. Just go and read Ludwig von Mises on the subject of the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism and you will understand why. Happy learning!

Fair enough. In ...
By: eskdi1234. on 09 May 08, 16:26:29
Fair enough. In your view,why aren't US activists standing a credible left electoral alternative to Obama/Clinton? There's so many people in the States fed up with Bush and all he stands for,it would be about time! Admittedly,the left has had election setbacks here in Europe recently,but surely it's still worth fighting for?

some of my friends ...
By: asiandude154. on 08 May 08, 03:20:15
some of my friends and i concluded that communism is great in theory but when you put the human element in, it just all fucks up

No, for the present ...
By: rlstrick. on 07 May 08, 14:28:58
No, for the present, family responsibilities take up most of my spare time.

Eliminative Materialism
Posted by: 0ThouArtThat0

Video duration: 657 seconds
Global video hits: 660

One is one's brain, eh? Realizing that is like awakening to the representational character of your experience, to the fact that reality is the matrix.
Materialism brought to extremes becomes spiritual.

Related: churchland, cognitive, matrix, neurology, science

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

No, I'll admit I ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 02 Jun 08, 03:28:36
No, I'll admit I have no idea what the Churchlands mean when they say our experience of being conscious is an illusion resulting from our folk psychological way of speaking about ourselves. If you could explain to me what they are on about, I'd be grateful.

do you really want ...
By: wakeboardumb. on 02 Jun 08, 03:17:07
do you really want me to explain it formally, or are you being sarcastic?

what is it?
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 28 May 08, 04:37:18
what is it?

you don't know what ...
By: wakeboardumb. on 28 May 08, 04:34:25
you don't know what eliminative materialism is, congrats

Check out Jeff ...
By: nsl1646. on 20 Apr 08, 02:32:17
Check out Jeff Foster's "Life Without a Centre" and "Beyond Awakening". He talks about the spiritual and lifestyle implications of an eliminative materialistic perspective. Highly recommended.

Ah, nice one! I'll ...
By: museumoftechno. on 18 Jan 08, 12:01:15
Ah, nice one! I'll subscribe to you now so I get it when it comes up... I struggle with Tree of Knowledge still (just spent a week reading it) but they seem to enjoy moving around and through the barrier between what you see the brain doing when you look at it, and how you experience your brain's work from the inside. Good!

Yes! I most ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 17 Jan 08, 21:42:28
Yes! I most certainly have. I've also read 'The Embodied Mind' by Varela et. al. I'm just uploading a video about this right now, by chance.

Have you read any ...
By: museumoftechno. on 17 Jan 08, 21:02:10
Have you read any Maturana and Varela mate? Tree of Knowledge, that kind of thing? Sounds like you very well might have read some already but if not, I think you might like it: it's determinist but non-representational and I really enjoy it.

btw... watch?v=_m97 ...
By: jogayot. on 09 Jan 08, 15:35:14
btw... watch?v=_m97_kL4ox0 but it did not compile on my system right ;( you see, we still don't have a handle on syntactic brittleness of our programming, but these results look very interesting (you can also google "breve" system - continuation of work illustrated by the videos in that video) i would not be so doubtful as searle is that simple syntax of basic physicochemical interactions can not create semantics of our minds... anyway.

that consciousness, ...
By: jogayot. on 09 Jan 08, 15:34:33
that consciousness, and this throws us back to square one. meditation is an interesting tool, but it's far from surgical precision and mathematical rigour of description we need to de-re-construct conscious experience. of course we will not create it out of thin air but by looking how human consciousness operates, yet digital computers and bottom-to-top strategy (using evolutionary programming, exploiting mechanisms nature used) is our best and least distant in time bet of achieving that.

controlled ...
By: jogayot. on 09 Jan 08, 15:32:23
controlled simulation of the system we can achieve using computers. even with our current meager computational power we can create systems so complex that while knowing exactly how it happens we have trouble determining synthetic indicators of "forces" ordering chaos. as i said multiple times while talking with themodernmystic it is the problem that in order to understand consciousness and determine if what one creates to be conscious is conscious perceiver/examiner/experimentalist becomes

the level of ...
By: jogayot. on 09 Jan 08, 15:25:48
the level of complexity. our digital computers are now only on the level of single celled organisms so (as e.g. creationists) its easy to deny the possibility of consciousness arising out of system build of orders of magnitude more differentiated single cells working in concert. also, while recognizing strength of looking at the problem from three sides (behavioural, neurological and introspective) i think self-introspection (i.e. meditation) has too little of explanatory force compared to

well... physical ...
By: jogayot. on 09 Jan 08, 15:21:53
well... physical world is the being. i myself got over subjective/objective long time ago and use it only in the relative, which even in pre-einstein newtonian world view is obvious. i did not manage to view whole video you linked in contrawagner's searle series (cause of sleep ;), but searle is talking a lot of sense especially in the (i think it was) ontologically objective and epistemologically objective (or thereabout, you know what i mean). but i think he commits sin of not understanding

What happened to my ...
By: patternsinchaos. on 08 Jan 08, 23:31:13
What happened to my other comment?? Well here it is again: Brilliant analysis.

I agree with what ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 08 Jan 08, 21:53:04
I agree with what you've said here. That all sounds like the right direction to move in. I hope you post a video response!

anything's possible.
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 08 Jan 08, 21:51:18
anything's possible.

Ever considered med ...
By: patternsinchaos. on 08 Jan 08, 18:41:48
Ever considered med school? Maybe after Naropa? Neuro surgeon?

So to naturalize ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 08 Jan 08, 18:09:06
So to naturalize consciousness would be to turn it into an objective process, which I think it is impossible to do. When we begin to delve into 1st person experience (ingesting a psychedelic or being a trained meditator helps), what seems to become obvious is the groundlessness of reality, the lack of any solid foundations to support any objective perspective from which to view it.

I wrote some papers ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 08 Jan 08, 18:06:05
I wrote some papers in college about how I didn't think subjectivity could be naturalized, if by naturalize we mean explain in terms of some more fundamental underlying process. Calling it 'subjectivity' is a bit misleading, though, because it seems to oppose it to objectivity. So let's call it consciousness instead. Like Husserl, I see it as transcendental. In other words, it is only through our direct experience of being conscious that anything called 'objectivity' arises.

wow... and I once ...
By: Mariborchan. on 08 Jan 08, 13:49:40
wow... and I once thought you delved too deeply into mysticism (when I was watching videos on your old account). This was beautifully said and it amazes me, that I agree completely and came to the same conclusions throughout my life. Watts had great ideas, didn't he ;) Anyway, this is a great video and I'm really impressed how lucid and poetic your explanation was. Great job, keep making videos..

3- Thanks for 2 :52 ...
By: Ignare. on 08 Jan 08, 12:34:42
3- Thanks for 2 :52 to 2 :55 4- Even if I have poor english skills, i'm seriously considering bying a webcam to videotape my reply, since I feel that things are starting to catch my interest. 5-Funny but true, the letters/word that I had to type to prove I was not a spamming bot was : "natur"

Think about it, the ...
By: Ignare. on 08 Jan 08, 12:31:15
Think about it, the virtuous hermeneutical circle of a 1st person account of science and a 3rd person account of conscience only make sense on a framework of cultural evolution, at least on the basis of a progression of ideas/beliefs/knowledge. Councious experience = evolved cognition + learning mecanisms + culture ?

What it mean, for ...
By: Ignare. on 08 Jan 08, 12:29:04
What it mean, for me, is that the EGO, is the evolved nervous system, in interraction whit the environnement, but precisely, in interraction with our evolving culture. So we may have an account of an embodied/situated/extended/evolved cognition but we still do not have a precise account of an emb/sit/ex/ev cultural evolution. And that what I think we should head on.

2- I've been ...
By: Ignare. on 08 Jan 08, 12:28:35
2- I've been reading a late unfinish work by Ponty and in it he stress something you might like about the unifying substance of the EGO : I see is work as an attempt to unify the 3 levels of consciousness/language, I was talking about (science,creativity and phenomenology) in a framework of culture and the historic and dialectic evolution of this culture.

1-I've read good ...
By: Ignare. on 08 Jan 08, 12:23:49
1-I've read good things by Wilkes on the multiple use of folk psychology. He rightly debate the validity of the philosophical account of folk-psychology. Read Stephen Stich, Deconstructing the mind, for a post-elimininative account of cognition.

Materialism/Metaphysics
Posted by: 0ThouArtThat0

Video duration: 600 seconds
Global video hits: 937

http://www.philosoph yprofessor.com/philo sophies/aristotles-f our-causes.php

Related: experience, hume, kant, philosophy, whitehead

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

None, but I also ...
By: cruelfate45. on 30 Oct 08, 05:37:59
None, but I also haven't based my theory on unfounded assumptions within life.

yeah but how many ...
By: Puckle74. on 30 Oct 08, 03:22:50
yeah but how many times did you die to posit your own theory of life after death.

amazingly ...
By: PeaSoupYum. on 10 Oct 08, 01:49:00
amazingly prodigious output. i seem to have arrived after the tornado dissapated. excuse me.

i just heard the ...
By: LimpLoser. on 09 Oct 08, 16:54:44
i just heard the word? the word...............the word is good the word is g00000000000000000000d have u heard the word?

That is really ...
By: cruelfate45. on 09 Oct 08, 06:31:38
That is really amazing that you know this. How many times did you die before you were able to varify this theory?

When we die, our ...
By: tmmylopez. on 08 Oct 08, 01:34:18
When we die, our consciousness dies. Like the chicken u ate last night or the steak you ate yesterday. We are nothing more than another animal on the Earth, just a little smarter in some respects.

Hanna and Thompson ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 18:25:45
Hanna and Thompson should bear the same burden the monists bear on this issue. I think they should tell us why it is strictly the case that there are mental and physical genuinely different, not that physicalist explanation has explained this and that.

I don't think I am ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 18:20:37
I don't think I am qualified enough to make technical arguments against Hanna and Thompson, but here are some of my initial reactions on animalism. 1. I think animalism is a compounding of a problem. In the paper, they still haven't addressed how mental events can cause something physical. 2. Simply showing that supervenience of mental to physical is inadaquate is not for ontological dualism. In other words, something a negative of something does not constitute as an evidence for animalism.

"it is possible ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 18:10:34
"it is possible that neural correlates are not sufficient for consciousness, but that the body" I actually agree. Thompson and Noe are so similar to Searle on this matter. Searle for a long time has been a lone voice (now not as much) against computational theorists who argue that syntax is all that matters. On this matter I am in agreement with Thompson and Noe. What is "sensorimotor environment"?

I took some time to ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 18:05:20
I took some time to read The Mind-Body-Body Problem by Hanna and Thompson. I am going to assume that you take the same view they hold which is animalism. Setting aside your mystification, to my surprise, I really enjoyed their paper. And I also realized that they are very commited to empirical support from neuroscience. It was simply a matter of difference in world view that materialism takes and animalism takes.

...as our ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 06 Oct 08, 07:23:54
...as our background sense of "bodily selfhood." We might call it sentience. If we want to understand consciousness, we cannot attempt to isolate it from its bodily background of sentience. The "building block" model is just not a very accurate way of describing experience.

I suppose I don't ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 06 Oct 08, 07:19:51
I suppose I don't feel NCC needs to be disproved. It was never proved. Materialism is a metaphysics masquerading as an epistemology. Or rather, it is a metaphysics unconscious of itself and aware only of its abstractions about the world. It tries to reduce consciousness to brain states, but to do so first reduces conscious experience to qualia. Qualia are a poor description of consciousness, though. Our actual experience is not made of discrete sensa, but of a unified whole temporally extended..

Phenomenology sees ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 06 Oct 08, 07:07:01
Phenomenology sees our actual experience quite differently. There are no discrete sensory states absent bodily purposes and temporality; each of our experiences is always already part of an ongoing intentional action in the world, always already soaked in emotion and significance. The NCC reseachers who study the visual system in isolation from the rest of the body and the world are telling us more about the affect of their experiments on consciousness than about consciousness itself.

Thompson and Noe ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 06 Oct 08, 07:02:46
Thompson and Noe also point out that it is possible that neural correlates are not sufficient for consciousness, but that the body, as well as its sensorimotor environment, all play a role. NCC researchers also assume that conscious states can be isolated into discrete sensory abstractions, like vertical lines, colors, etc. Searle calls it the "building block" model of consciousness.

If NCC is the ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 06 Oct 08, 06:56:14
If NCC is the strongest foundation for materialism (which I never considered before, but I don't think I agree with), then I encourage you to read Thompson and Noe's (2004) critique of the approach. They point out, first, that identifying a neurophysiological state with experiential content is a category error. Thompson and Noe are coming out of the phenomenological tradition, and so of course they take experience seriously. Biologists (aside from a few, like Damasio,Varela) only see a machine.

If you would like ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 04:20:10
If you would like to disprove materialism, the quickiest way probably is to attack the strongest foundation for materialism. And I would identify this to be correlation between brain activity and our consciousness. If you can find some way to disprove entire history of neurobiology that works on the assumption that consciousness is what brain activity is, you can quite safely say that materialism is dead.

Hi, Matt. I think ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Oct 08, 04:14:26
Hi, Matt. I think you really have outdone yourself here. Over the time of rethinking, I came to my realization that methodological reductionism usually is inadaquate, and I think that your view was vindicated here. However, I would consider myself to be still a staunch materialist. I don't understand how you conclude that materialism is wrong from the Aristotealian concept of causes? Ability to recognize causes doesn't anyway destroy materialism.

...therefore the ...
By: paradirob. on 05 Oct 08, 21:17:01
...therefore the consciousness of the cause. But this positional consciousness of the cause is on principle a non-thetic consciousness of itself as a project toward an end. In this sense it is a motive; that is, it experiences itself non-thetically as a project, more or less keen, more or less passionate, toward an end at the very moment at which it is constituted as a revealing consciousness of the organization of the world into causes.'

A quote from ...
By: paradirob. on 05 Oct 08, 21:08:04
A quote from Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness,(New York:Philosophical Library, 1956), p. 449: 'We are dealing here with a particular case of being-in-the-world: just as it is the upsurge of the for-itself which causes there to be a world, so here it is the very being of the for-itself--insofar as this is a pure project toward an end--which causes there to be a certain objective structure of the world, one which deserves the name of cause in the light of this end. The for-itself is...

Okay, I'm watching ...
By: renshank. on 05 Oct 08, 03:07:01
Okay, I'm watching this and taking notes this time. Video response will be forthcoming, but I'll probably wait to post it for a while.

livescience has an ...
By: weyjoh. on 04 Oct 08, 17:32:45
livescience has an article on "bacteria think ahead"

I think ...
By: 0ThouArtThat0. on 04 Oct 08, 16:11:27
I think abstractions lead us astray far more often than concrete experience. The representationalist view is such an abstraction. If we did not have embodied experience, feelings, etc, then representationalism would work. But as it stands now, there is a gap between the form (symbol) and the content (meaning) of mental representations that no theorist I have seen has been able to jump. It is the mind/body dualism in more technical garb, popping up right at the core of representationalism.

How do you know it ...
By: Rybot9000. on 04 Oct 08, 01:13:25
How do you know it cannot be wrong then as well? Don't be fooled by the seeming concreteness of experience, it has led many astray in the past. If you read some of the literature in neuroscience, psychology and philosophy there are some good ideas of explaining things like intuition. Granted they will probably never explain "qualia" but for the same reasons, you probably never will either. The representationalist view at least explains it's function consistent with facts which none other does

I was refering to ...
By: Rybot9000. on 04 Oct 08, 01:11:12
I was refering to Matt's video, sorry

check out the ...
By: seigneurvoland666. on 03 Oct 08, 23:34:24
check out the phantom DNA experiment

The Diagonal Argument Against Reductive Materialism
Posted by: randyhelzerman

Video duration: 590 seconds
Global video hits: 2226

In which I deal the death-blow to all forms of reductive materialism for ever and ever, amen.
Check out EpistemicDuty's vid, which has a link to a very interesting discussion between Grim and Plantinga about the use of similer Cantorian diagonal arguments in theology and modal logic:
http://youtube.co m/watch?v=EHilabPBPH I

Related: block, circle, functionalism, helzerman, hilary, holism, jaegwon, kim, materialism, mind, multiple, ned, neuroscience, philosophy, physicalism, positivism, putnam, randy, realizability, reductionism, vienna

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Instead of talking ...
By: ContraWagner. on 12 Nov 08, 19:21:17
Instead of talking mental and physical, let us consider what we would indubitably consider to be a successful reduction in science. m() be an increasing H+ ions in acqueous solutions, and ?i be physical state of acid. And multiple realizability problem would be valid here as well. And it seems like there is no reduction in science at all..

Yes, I understand ...
By: ContraWagner. on 12 Nov 08, 19:02:48
Yes, I understand your point. Given that multiple realizability poses serious problem for reductive physicalism, there seems like no possible reduction is ever possible. And this position seems even more absurd that absurdities caused by multiple realizability.

(cont, to ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 06 Nov 08, 05:13:26
(cont, to ContraWagner) The absense of bridge laws means that from those ?i, we could not determine which regions of spacetime were in pain, or which were seeing red, or even which regions of spacetime were people or not. In order to do these things, we must also have descriptions of regions of spacetime couched in mental terms, in other words, mental vocabulary is non eliminatable. Make any sense?

(cont, to ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 06 Nov 08, 05:11:31
(cont, to ContraWagner) And I think that Kim, Block, and I all think that physical "stuff" is the only "stuff" there is, but I do believe that physical facts arn't the only facts there are, in the following sense: suppose we had a complete and exhaustive description of every physical fact ?1, ?2, . . . that is or was or ever will be true (cont)

where m() is a ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 06 Nov 08, 05:08:30
where m() is a mental predicate and ?i are physical predicates. I believe this video shows that it is impossible to create such a bridge law. And Yes, I do think that Block's point is very similar, but I don't think he has a PROOF that multiple realizability implies the impossibility of bridge laws; rather, he just points out that it raises some doubts about it. (cont)

Hi ContraWagner, ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 06 Nov 08, 05:05:17
Hi ContraWagner, the thing is that (if I understand him correctly) Kim seems to think that we could form a bridge law between the mental and the physical--a bridge law being a law of the form (?x)( m(x) ? ?1(x) ? ?1(x) ? ... ? ?(x) ). (cont)

I think your ...
By: ContraWagner. on 06 Nov 08, 04:29:27
I think your argument is very similar to Block's. Block simply uses consciousness/brain while you used boolean logic/physical objects. You said that since there are infinite number of instanciation of showing true or false. I am not sure why this would be an argument against Kim's notion of reduction. Don't you and Kim both believe that there really is only physical substance?

Was that at all ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 05 Nov 08, 22:37:02
Was that at all convincing, ivanisavich?

Hi spiritpunker, ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 05 Nov 08, 22:36:31
Hi spiritpunker, sure, the new bit is describable by using the descriptions of the two old bits (plus a description of how they are wired up). But that just proves that the new bit is, well, a new bit, distinct from the two old bits, right?

The analogy here ...
By: spiritpunker. on 05 Nov 08, 19:06:05
The analogy here seems not very convicing, the new metal switch indeed has a unique internal composition from the two old ones, however, the new redundant "bit" has an internal structure that is describable by using the two old "bit"s.

Think about it this ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 23 Oct 08, 14:38:40
Think about it this way: suppose I have two metal switches. Then I melt them down, and create one new, bigger switch from the atoms. The new switch would be a new bit, distinct from the original two switches, no? Same would hold if I created a redundant switch out of two switches.

To sum up what I ...
By: ivanisavich. on 20 Oct 08, 11:15:04
To sum up what I mean, a redundant set of identical bits could simply be considered a subset of the set of all bits. Even if you take all the bits in the set of all possible bits and make them redundant, as you did in your video, you don't have a unique set....you simply have a redundant set that's equal to the original set. [1,1,1,1] = [1,(1,1),1] .... [1, 1, 1, 1] = [(1,1,1,1)]...no?

Hm...maybe I'm ...
By: ivanisavich. on 20 Oct 08, 11:10:25
Hm...maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see your proposed rebuttal as being valid? Your rebuttal involved redundant bits which means they can be simply reduced to the individual bits they're composed of (which bring us back to the members of the original set of all possible material representations of bits). In other words, you haven't used a Cantor diagonal to construct a truly unique bit. Ie, Two redundant bits /= 1 unique bit.

This is similiar to ...
By: GodMechanism. on 29 Aug 08, 01:58:47
This is similiar to John Searle's Argument that 'Computation is observer Dependent, and thus cannot be reduced to physics, and that the mind cannot be reduced to computation, for computation is already an interpretation within the mind

Poor s.....
By: randyhelzerman. on 05 Aug 08, 15:31:46
Poor s.....

Why does this work, ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 05 Aug 08, 14:18:29
Why does this work, and not the comments I've typed out twice!!!!

I give up. I'll PM ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 05 Aug 08, 14:16:40
I give up. I'll PM you.

test: the ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 05 Aug 08, 14:06:54
test: the instaniation of real physical phenomena

I think that link ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 05 Aug 08, 13:55:21
I think that link died, so I'll post here instead. 1) In order to specify what is "yes - no", you need to give an account of what it takes to _come to_ represent something in attention. If you do not, and merely assume that one specifies x as an output of some function, then that is going to be problematic when it comes to the metaphysics i.e. ontological commitment. Why so? Well, if representating something in consciousness is not a function,then we're dealing here with

Okay, I'll try ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 05 Aug 08, 02:02:48
Okay, I'll try something else (bear with me, this is a bit long). 1) In order to specify what is "yes - no", you need to give an account of what it takes to _come to_ represent something in attention. If you do not, and merely assume that one specifies x as an output of some function, then that is going to be problematic when it comes to the metaphysics i.e. ontological commitment. Why so? Well, if representating something in consciousness is not a function,then we're dealing here with

Hi s....um.... I ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 04 Aug 08, 23:55:52
Hi s....um.... I don't understand why there's any particular problem here. What is so problematic about specifying what is "yes" and what is "no?" I mean, in the vid I give several very straightforward example--switch is on, that means "yes", switch is off that means "no"; or beercan rightside up means "yes" beercan upside down means "no". As for halucinations (perhaps used as a means of divination) recall, I'm not a dualist, so I would reguard them as physical states of the brain.

"this flame x is a ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 04 Aug 08, 23:30:24
"this flame x is a bit because x is a bit iff it is the answer to a yes/no question, which it is" then a bit cannot be a physical thing of neccesity merely in virue of your having quantified over it. So your constraint is "x is a bit iff x answers a yes/no question and x is a physical thing". Am I making any sense yet!?

For, on your ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 04 Aug 08, 23:27:37
For, on your picture, one need not search for particulars, and then subject them to the yes/no test - i.e one extracts information from what we are already commited to: particular). Any kind of phenomena whatever can be a bit, on your picture, if it meets the bit-criterion. Suppose, then, I take some LSD, and I se a flame under my chair, and I knew myself to be hallucinating, and I say, (cont.)

Okay, that's good. ...
By: sssswwwsssss. on 04 Aug 08, 23:25:20
Okay, that's good. And since you afford the same ontological commitment to each proposition there can be no difference between them. The difference would arise if I said x is a bit iff it is the answer to a yes/no question, and I put certain constraints on what x might be. One doesn't merely posit x, one has actively to construct a scenario whereby some representation in attention _becomes_ a bit. This is where either the quantification theory or your definition needs a revamp. (cont.)

If I quantify over ...
By: randyhelzerman. on 04 Aug 08, 22:44:23
If I quantify over it, then it is a material thing. For example: (forall x) x is iron iff it is a spatiotemporial region which contains only atoms with atomic number 26. Same for a bit. (forall x) x is a bit iff it is the answer to a yes/no question. I don't understand where there's a big difference between the two.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM
Posted by: pinokiofromtokio

Video duration: 407 seconds
Global video hits: 15708

First part of the Teaching.

Related: dharma, materialism, rinpoche, spirutual, trungpa

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

your beloved master ...
By: marblecake27. on 26 Nov 08, 04:33:16
your beloved master and saviour the lord jesus christ is said to have turned water into wine at a wedding and his girlfriend was a hooker named mary magdalene typical of someone who would rather pull dirt off of a wikipedia article to make a point rather than bother reading anything that trungpa actually wrote...you are the worst hypocrite. Go to hell.

Very interesting!
By: TheBrainchildGroup. on 25 Oct 08, 23:10:00
Very interesting!

watch zeitgeist and ...
By: justatipp. on 11 Oct 08, 04:11:36
watch zeitgeist and learn something!

Brilliant man
By: silversobe. on 06 Oct 08, 03:22:05
Brilliant man

sorry i meant to ...
By: marsinpisces. on 26 Sep 08, 15:56:14
sorry i meant to give thumbs up but gave thumbs down by mistake. anyway, love your comment

Judge not that ye ...
By: CLB300. on 18 Aug 08, 22:53:16
Judge not that ye be not judged. One cannot know what was really happening with this great vajra master. He could have been carrying the demons of alcholism so that many others would be free from that suffering. I'm told that he could be falling down drunk and yet snap to complete soberness when it was time to teach. How can one know the mind of such a great one?

the fastronauts ...
By: guyglowmore1. on 03 Aug 08, 17:41:11
the fastronauts multiply consuming everything imaginable. the quickening accellerates while we try to get " spiritual "

Discussing the ...
By: vajrayogi. on 18 Jul 08, 21:56:17
Discussing the outer manifestations of a vajra master's life is not appropriate for practitioners - even if we think we're "defending the honor and image of the teacher and the dharma". Let's instead direct those with questions to the essential heart of the teachings, and embody it, thus effortlessly liberating their doubt. Just one view ;).

Buddha gives us ...
By: jamespgilroy. on 18 Jul 08, 02:46:32
Buddha gives us great advice on being a greater Christian.

Beautiful, ...
By: tatismells. on 05 Jul 08, 14:26:48
Beautiful, inspiration

how do you know, ...
By: gururay. on 27 Jun 08, 16:48:06
how do you know,have you been to the well yourself. Do you speak from experience or from just what you've been told...

as a matter of fact ...
By: joseyannie. on 25 Jun 08, 05:09:23
as a matter of fact i do have compassion. I cast out demons, i heal people (a lot) with the power of my master and Lord Jesus Christ. I agree with you, those kind of addictions are demons.You don't have to wait for another life. You just need to know a real christian. I apologize that most christians don't know that. But many of us do it with no problem.

everyone creates ...
By: tlen0117. on 24 Jun 08, 23:33:44
everyone creates their own karma. and many peopele have demons that can't be overcome in their lifetime for whatever reason. his weakness doesn't negate the wisdom that Trungpa was able to relate DESPITE his addictions. 'real' spirituality is PERSONAL as well as powerful and can just as easily drive one insane as heal. thankfully Trungpa shared his 'crazy' wisdom the best he could. perhaps you could muster a bit of compassion for all us revelers in samsara.

"imperfections"!!! ...
By: joseyannie. on 24 Jun 08, 22:05:47
"imperfections"!!! that's real funny...the real spirituality is powerful against sicknesses and vices(alcohol,sexual lust, smoking, angriness, etc)

and even with ...
By: tlen0117. on 24 Jun 08, 20:54:38
and even with imperfections he remained fearless promoting the buddhadharma

MORE... -One of ...
By: joseyannie. on 21 Jun 08, 15:53:25
MORE... -One of his nursing attendants reports that in his last months, he suffered from incontinence, distended belly, discolored skin, hallucinations, varicose veins, gastritis, and esophageal varices -- classic symptoms of terminal alcoholism and cirrhosis -- and yet he was still drinking heavily.

did he have WISDOM? ...
By: joseyannie. on 21 Jun 08, 15:52:31
did he have WISDOM?.A SIMPLE SEARCH ON HIM -Physically weakened by years of heavy alcohol use, he died in terminal stages of heart failure at the age of 48. -He drank, smoked, slept with students, and often kept students waiting for hours before giving teachings -Students were often angered, unnerved and intimidated by him, but remained fiercely loyal, committed, and devoted....CONTINUE..

this guy brings ...
By: BankOFganja. on 11 Jun 08, 00:54:53
this guy brings tears to my eyes because this is what im talking about all the time and no one gets me and it makes me mad ... this guy has such powerful words it brings tears to my eyes uncontrollably..

Why is it that you ...
By: Amirmourad. on 01 Jun 08, 18:45:09
Why is it that you have assumed that you are in samsara ? Is it because you have heard such a story from elsewhere ? Or is it because you have had so called "past life experiences" ? Regarding "past life experiences", it is a very delicate phenomenon. You may regain certain memories, not necessarily because you have been that or done that before. You may be accessing an area of consciousness which is collective to the species. Why have you already assumed that you are not enlightened ?

Let me know if you ...
By: fsujag54. on 15 May 08, 20:11:28
Let me know if you find it. I got on here to find the same thing.

We have always been ...
By: attilaclark. on 19 Apr 08, 02:31:09
We have always been in samsara and never know nirvanic existence..Grasping for the next.. we have never been still. Try to get a child to sit still or try to meditate and see how hard it really is. New Buddhist really discover first in meditation how neurotic how we really are. It takes time and effort to win in this game. Attila

From the viewpoint ...
By: noi000. on 06 Apr 08, 18:29:27
From the viewpoint of samsara, the whole world except for man is still in the "garden of eden" but unconscious of it. The fall, I, ego, samsara is a necessary stage to "evolve" to the Buddha stage, back in the garden but conscious now. From the viewpoint of Buddha, you are already enlightened right now and there is no way you could ever lose it.

is there a video of ...
By: three3brooks. on 31 Mar 08, 21:54:49
is there a video of him doing that presentation in LA that is the intro of Zeitgeist?

Such great words
By: silversobe. on 29 Mar 08, 09:28:30
Such great words

you listen to Pema ...
By: hornybodhisattva. on 28 Mar 08, 07:59:07
you listen to Pema chodron?> she talks about this is not that enlightment can be owned we are already enlightened it is just that when that we FORGET THAT WE ARE when difficulty hits us.... so its something that we can never ever loose but rather something we forget when you are suffering!

Dayna Martin: Unschooling; Media & Materialism
Posted by: DaynaLeighMartin

Video duration: 421 seconds
Global video hits: 1559

Dayna explores commonly held fears surrounding Media and Toys in the naturally minded community.

Related: education, homeschooling, joy, media, school, toys, unschooling

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM 2
Posted by: pinokiofromtokio

Video duration: 354 seconds
Global video hits: 4343

Second part of the teaching.

Related: dharma, materialism, rinpoche, spirutual, trungpa

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Drugs Vs. Materialism
Posted by: Micfri

Video duration: 210 seconds
Global video hits: 894

http://www.micfri.co m/
This is a little late, I had some technical difficulties. I usualy upload my videos on Saturday night but I was unable to do that. With some extra work was able to work out the problem so now here it is. My video about drugs and meterialism. It's more about expierence and feeling than drugs but drugs is a catchy title so there you have it.

Related: alcohol, booze, concerts, consumerism, dope, drugs, expierence, feeling, high, materialism, music, ocho, shots, smoke, sub, tripping, tv

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

lol
By: Micfri. on 30 Nov 08, 03:13:31
lol

This is a video ...
By: nagygreg. on 29 Nov 08, 23:31:49
This is a video response to Peanut and Jeff Dunham # 1 ????????

What?
By: Micfri. on 29 Nov 08, 23:22:35
What?

What the fuck?
By: nagygreg. on 29 Nov 08, 23:12:29
What the fuck?

Drugs are ...
By: whoisbrianwilde. on 05 Oct 07, 09:06:06
Drugs are materialistic entities... how would the masses enjoy music if it wasn't for CDs, computers, etc..? The world needs materialism to thrive, but... some people become their materials and that's what ruins lives. Marijuana may not kill you from it's effects, but it can put you in bad situations which could ruin your life, there are many ways Marijuna can ruin your life. To condone drug use is ridiculous and if you can't see that it's because you're a user who is afraid of being caught.

and how has smoking ...
By: scgeant. on 16 Jul 07, 08:13:37
and how has smoking weed helped you make the world a better place?

I say legalize all ...
By: anthonyo99. on 20 Jun 07, 06:49:31
I say legalize all drugs, Population needs some thinning, all the stupid people will kill themselfs, and all the senible people will be left.

you know, sometimes ...
By: MarioMoreno. on 19 Jun 07, 00:56:54
you know, sometimes ambitions is what make people kill others and do all that wrong stuff...just chill...is not like you are gonna be all day in bed or something, and once i slept just before smokin, and in the morning i was very energetic, rest like never before perfect for work...

Marijuana is not a ...
By: MarioMoreno. on 19 Jun 07, 00:50:48
Marijuana is not a drug, its a herb, its ok that cocaine, heroin and all that shit was made ilegal, but marijuana is cool is alright, i dont see what is so wrong about smoking it, it may damage some brain cells, but its not a big deal, alcohol does the same thing...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: KevinKevin426. on 18 Jun 07, 18:58:03
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah but something ...
By: scgeant. on 18 Jun 07, 16:41:46
yeah but something dosent have to kill you to be dangerous

It's all about ...
By: Micfri. on 15 Jun 07, 00:17:36
It's all about quantity and quality and of course Marijuana is 100% safe. No one has ever died from using Marijuana in the history of the world. It take about 6 pounds to kill you and only if you can manage to smoke it all in less than 30 seconds, it's basically impossible. Could you imagine though...what a way to go...

drugs kill the mind ...
By: scgeant. on 14 Jun 07, 15:34:57
drugs kill the mind trust me I grew up in a drug dealing family and I saw the ugly side of it. you tell me how liberated a guy who cant remeber his own name is.

They allow the ...
By: sailaway786. on 10 Jun 07, 21:12:09
They allow the durgs in to pascify the mass of people. In the UK weed was degraded to lowest schedule, class C, to encourage people to use it yet it is still illegal and criminalised. They pascify and criminalise us through drugs. Drugs oppress the people every day man.

Sure you can be ...
By: Micfri. on 31 May 07, 01:34:31
Sure you can be smart with out drugs but you can't be a genius with out them. The expansion of your mind is neccasary to break the mental chains that have been immposed on us all. The ones telling us that nothing is possible and that we should just follow the status quo. See John Lennon for an example of what I'm talking about.

sure you hear ...
By: scgeant. on 30 May 07, 03:15:44
sure you hear stories of the smart pot head but honestly how many of them are out there. oh some may be able to spout off facts and sound smarter than thou but i know quite a few ppl who are 35 years old living at home claming drugs are great. drugs are illigal so they have a reason to keep the majority of the ppl in fear. I say get out of drugs and get out of materialism and drugs and live a life of making this world a better place.

drugs are ...
By: scgeant. on 30 May 07, 03:15:16
drugs are distributed to keep the population dull. weed= less ambitions meth= well we know what that does.

HAHA you have no ...
By: joelthebutcher. on 16 May 07, 02:59:31
HAHA you have no clue what you are talking about. The only reason you are even thinking like this is because you spend all of your money on drugs and can't afford anything nice.

You are a pussy ...
By: timg455. on 29 Apr 07, 04:49:18
You are a pussy just be a man and say you do drugs. It is not like the DEA is gonna read your post and come after you. Besides a username can not be directly tied to a person and used against them in court. How could they know you didn't have your password stolen and it was your friend posting? PUSSY!!!

I'm not saying that ...
By: zephyr387. on 23 Jan 07, 13:47:54
I'm not saying that I exclusively drink Bud i drink other beers as well.. I am not loaded with money so I don't have the luxury of drinking what I want all the time. I can guarantee you that I am nowhere near brainwashed as you claim, I love beer and to insult my taste is out of line on account that you don't know me. oh and by the way, sam adams -is- an excellent beer.

That's why the ...
By: Micfri. on 23 Jan 07, 04:56:37
That's why the chinese lost their war though cause they were all high on opium and the british destroyed them. So you might not want to fight in a war but that doesn't mean you won't be invaded.

Yes, that is what I ...
By: ad3543. on 23 Jan 07, 03:13:46
Yes, that is what I am saying. If you drink Budweiser you clearly have no taste, or have been brainwashed. They spend a half a penny on ingredients, use corn starch instead of malt, and it is full of additives that taste terrible. 99% of their expense is advertisement. Sam Adams was the first decent mass marketed American beer in 40 years. Nothing but hops, yeast, malt, and water. Very expensive to make, but world class. You don't need to make your own now. Plenty of good products out there.

And another point. ...
By: HBOMB99. on 23 Jan 07, 01:09:36
And another point. How many stoned people would start a war? How many stoners would fight in a war? None. That's how many. So I'm going to argue that the world would be a nicer place if people did toke up (no am not being sarcastic).

so you're saying ...
By: zephyr387. on 22 Jan 07, 17:33:26
so you're saying that I drink bud because it's mass marketed and i'm brain-washed to think that Bud is good and i should buy because others are doing the same? I drink various beers because i like them not because they are advertised, secondly like most people i think i don't have the time to brew some for myself, though i'd like to.

Beer is a similar ...
By: ad3543. on 20 Jan 07, 22:47:05
Beer is a similar case. Budweiser and the rest of the American mass marketed beers are a disgrace. You are free to buy crap. The only sold crap, though. That is all there was to buy. If you wanted good beer you had to make it yourself. Then came the microbrews and Sam Adams. Not impossible to that with music, but it is harder. The internet has the ability to change the music industry.

Ziaullah Khan - Money, Materialism, and the Muslim Mindset
Posted by: abdullahadam

Video duration: 2213 seconds
Global video hits: 3922

Ziaullah Khan - Money, Materialism, and the Muslim Mindset

Related: allah, christian, christianity, convert, islam, koran, quran, revert

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Wall-Street Videos

Watching: Materialism video compilations

Search

Wall-Street Sponsors

Trading