1
00:00:03,510 --> 00:00:07,600
Well, you are a synthetic hospital.

2
00:00:10,610 --> 00:00:17,320
And they prove dominant concepts that pure mathematics, and especially including in the geometry,

3
00:00:18,710 --> 00:00:26,210
can have objective reality only on the condition that they refer to objects of sense.

4
00:00:28,580 --> 00:00:43,670
So what's particularly important in that passage is the problem, again, as he does, refers to the objectivity of mathematical scientific propositions.

5
00:00:44,270 --> 00:00:52,640
This is all working against claims that current claims and previous ones that Kahn's metaphysics collapses into subject to this.

6
00:00:53,060 --> 00:00:57,080
If it does, it does. So comes objections.

7
00:00:59,620 --> 00:01:07,240
But in the same passage, he declares that the propositions of geometry are both necessarily valid.

8
00:01:08,140 --> 00:01:15,190
Why? Because space itself is nothing other than the form of all external appearances.

9
00:01:15,550 --> 00:01:21,340
So every time he just about every time he asserts the objectivity of the program,

10
00:01:22,090 --> 00:01:27,280
he inserts something that does look like it's a road to subjectivity.

11
00:01:28,540 --> 00:01:37,750
And so the task is to determine just how he can get objective knowledge of the external world by means of a framework that we impose,

12
00:01:38,020 --> 00:01:46,960
the external world for which in the form of the question, how are synthetic propositions known to be true a priori?

13
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:52,360
Well, here's an answer to the question. We might say Hume's asked the question.

14
00:01:53,170 --> 00:01:57,010
They can't allow it to be the other story.

15
00:01:57,550 --> 00:02:02,320
In fact, most empiricist will argue that it is simply out of the question.

16
00:02:02,770 --> 00:02:12,759
But the truth of the synthetic proposition we establish, we are, you know, back in the 1930, seeing raw reflected.

17
00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:16,540
Of course, this is before private company.

18
00:02:17,020 --> 00:02:25,030
And he said that he said those who insist on the impossibility of our being able to know

19
00:02:25,030 --> 00:02:31,780
the truth of synthetic propositions of art are surely advancing a synthetic proposition.

20
00:02:32,320 --> 00:02:35,770
And it seems to be one that they seem to be self-evidently true.

21
00:02:36,100 --> 00:02:39,790
So then there is this problem that we want to declare once and for all.

22
00:02:40,150 --> 00:02:43,600
But on the side of the question, there can be synthetic propositions,

23
00:02:44,020 --> 00:02:51,490
the truth of which can be established a priori that are you denying it as its own esoteric proposition?

24
00:02:52,530 --> 00:02:56,520
How do you take that synthetic proposition to be so evidently true?

25
00:02:56,530 --> 00:03:02,379
At least in the preface to the second edition of Carnal Traces,

26
00:03:02,380 --> 00:03:10,690
the development of systematic knowledge from Aristotle's logic to the mathematics and science of his own day,

27
00:03:11,620 --> 00:03:17,740
with a lengthy pause over the achievements of a new preceding century.

28
00:03:19,750 --> 00:03:27,280
Aristotelian logic, he says, no surprise here, constitutes the formal loss of all,

29
00:03:28,420 --> 00:03:33,490
but it serves formal a logic, Aristotle's logic, he says, pictorially.

30
00:03:33,820 --> 00:03:41,139
It serves as both the vestibule of the sciences and why it is necessary to enable

31
00:03:41,140 --> 00:03:45,730
us to form a correct judgement with regard to the various branches of knowledge.

32
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:53,260
Still, the acquisition of real substantive knowledge is to be sought only in the sciences, properly.

33
00:03:53,260 --> 00:03:58,420
So all that is. And here's the claim again, the objective sciences.

34
00:03:58,810 --> 00:04:03,490
So you cannot use Aristotelian logic as a mode of discovery.

35
00:04:04,170 --> 00:04:07,450
You can use it as a truth preserving device.

36
00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:11,530
But basically, when you get to the absurdity of pure reason,

37
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:22,690
you'll see what happens when you attempt to use logical forms, not merely as a method, but as a mode of discovery.

38
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:28,540
And of course, you'll end up discovering all sorts of things, all all illusions.

39
00:04:30,370 --> 00:04:33,690
So it is the objective sciences that are against the model.

40
00:04:34,510 --> 00:04:43,270
So why should anyone assume that the objective sciences undersells able to capture the order of

41
00:04:43,270 --> 00:04:51,420
nature of this nature count begins with the assumption that nature is an orderly enterprise,

42
00:04:51,430 --> 00:04:57,020
that it is law of government which illustrates this.

43
00:04:57,490 --> 00:05:03,610
What does he say that? Well, on the strength of Newtonian science, the laws have.

44
00:05:07,270 --> 00:05:14,920
Well from the fact that nature is awful and from the fact that we have uncovered all this nature,

45
00:05:15,340 --> 00:05:23,200
we must have some means by which to overcome subjectivity and reach an objective knowledge of the way things are.

46
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:37,209
So, so much for scepticism about our capacity for unearthing the objective facts like no economist not taking a lead here believe is ancient,

47
00:05:37,210 --> 00:05:42,610
Aristotle says and the physics. It's the art of ship building or in the world.

48
00:05:42,610 --> 00:05:49,690
We would have ships by nature. So it's for the first time that there are design features to the natural world.

49
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:53,200
If I were to say intelligent design features.

50
00:05:54,120 --> 00:06:04,140
Natural world doesn't talk and listen well, but it's the opposite of what you'd be able to read trickle down.

51
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:13,240
And if you led a long time ago, I had a lot of cows die and you would perhaps stand in for the time.

52
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:19,740
You'll be able to fashion leather sales and something like a tri ring with three rows.

53
00:06:19,750 --> 00:06:25,880
Four horsemen. And you might even be able to wage a legal battle with each.

54
00:06:27,950 --> 00:06:40,319
I knew this would take a great deal of time. The very laws of the objective science show that the science is to have a rational

55
00:06:40,320 --> 00:06:48,180
character so that lawfulness is not given in the appearance of the stimulus,

56
00:06:48,510 --> 00:06:55,770
but arrives at the audience of sex, does not carry any information regarding all this with it.

57
00:06:56,280 --> 00:07:00,450
If it's visual, it's just photons. And it's monitoring.

58
00:07:00,600 --> 00:07:09,780
It's just air vibrations. So the awfulness must be coming from some place other than the arriving wave of stimulation,

59
00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:22,080
our scientific understandings in which all this is the defining feature to find us relating to the objects of understanding in one of two ways,

60
00:07:23,940 --> 00:07:29,490
even by way of rational, rational cognition that determines the concept of the object.

61
00:07:30,510 --> 00:07:40,640
This is common in his most lumbering prose, and it's not easy to ensure a device illustrated by giving the challenge of most.

62
00:07:44,580 --> 00:07:50,670
I should tell you about an incident involving one of the finest philosophers here.

63
00:07:51,150 --> 00:07:54,150
Over here. No more this kind of approach.

64
00:07:54,990 --> 00:08:00,430
He gave a keynote address at the international philosophy meetings in Moscow some years ago.

65
00:08:00,450 --> 00:08:05,490
This is where when you sit down, you kind of just the digest, whatever language you speak.

66
00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:16,280
And 2 minutes into his address, people were fiddling with their dials, trying to find a language that would render all this intelligent, I must say.

67
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:19,680
The same might be said of a similar sentence like this.

68
00:08:20,220 --> 00:08:25,560
But our scientific understanding in which watchfulness is the defining feature

69
00:08:26,790 --> 00:08:31,619
finds us relating to the objects of this understanding in one of two ways.

70
00:08:31,620 --> 00:08:41,420
We relate to it in one of two ways, either by way of rational cognition that determines the concept well of the Siberian.

71
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:46,410
And this is a mode of cognition given the mode of cognition.

72
00:08:46,590 --> 00:08:54,240
We determine the concept of a right and we'll. It's not backwards from looking for these things.

73
00:08:55,020 --> 00:09:08,610
It's these things were constructed by factors or by way of rational subjects that establish the very reality that Saturn has rules.

74
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:16,600
So these are the two ways that we can relate our cognition to an objective reality.

75
00:09:16,620 --> 00:09:25,190
Either the cognition actually determines the concept itself self characteristic of mathematics, or in the natural sciences.

76
00:09:25,200 --> 00:09:33,040
It's in some branches of the natural sciences. Cognitively, we actually can discover things that heretofore had enough.

77
00:09:33,810 --> 00:09:40,220
No. The first form of the relationship between cognition and this object is what counts,

78
00:09:40,230 --> 00:09:48,660
as is the grounding of all the theoretical sciences of which mathematics and physics are the two that are most developed.

79
00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:53,400
But they differ in this respect in mathematics.

80
00:09:53,700 --> 00:09:58,070
All of the concepts are really. In physics.

81
00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:03,260
Some of the concepts arise from other sources, such as direct observation.

82
00:10:03,670 --> 00:10:08,149
What does he mean when he says that all the concepts in mathematics are about away?

83
00:10:08,150 --> 00:10:13,010
And I think it's fair to say contemporary mathematicians probably would not accept that.

84
00:10:14,150 --> 00:10:18,030
But actually the pure intuitions of time and space, not one star.

85
00:10:18,180 --> 00:10:30,460
You could have neither arithmetic nor geometry, because all arithmetic operations are sequential, and sequential presupposes time and time.

86
00:10:30,540 --> 00:10:33,980
That's a pure intuition. That's not something given in the stimulus.

87
00:10:34,790 --> 00:10:46,310
So were it not for our spatial temporal mode apprehension, we would be in a position for neither arithmetic operations nor geometrical operations.

88
00:10:46,730 --> 00:10:57,470
Geometry presupposes just that spatial context that is provided by a pure intuition of space as arithmetic provided as as the pure notion of time,

89
00:10:57,710 --> 00:11:02,540
provides the means by which charismatic sequential operations become possible.

90
00:11:02,930 --> 00:11:14,180
I'm not defending this, I'm sure. So arithmetic requires the pure intuition of time, because it depends on succession and geometry.

91
00:11:14,780 --> 00:11:24,240
It depends on space. Now in this cult pays homage to Sally Steve which that one of the places they

92
00:11:24,260 --> 00:11:30,030
look world or whoever did this he thinks that it was in the ancient Greek world.

93
00:11:30,690 --> 00:11:41,790
But someone perhaps claims he never said it's because he's fixated on sales of the isosceles trial actually came to the recognition.

94
00:11:43,130 --> 00:11:54,830
But it was he, they alleged, who was constructing out of his own conceptual resources that which then could be objectively applied to the world.

95
00:11:55,310 --> 00:12:02,450
But in fact, it was an abstract representation of something that is objectively real and that it

96
00:12:02,450 --> 00:12:07,550
is that of the cognitive resource mathematician that this matching becomes possible.

97
00:12:09,730 --> 00:12:13,120
In demonstrating the properties of the isosceles triangle,

98
00:12:13,390 --> 00:12:20,710
families found it was not sufficient answers to meditate on the figure and thus lay before his eyes,

99
00:12:22,420 --> 00:12:26,170
or that the conception of it merely existed in his mind.

100
00:12:28,360 --> 00:12:32,320
Rather, says Court. This is a process of hope.

101
00:12:32,830 --> 00:12:38,860
It was necessary to produce these properties by a positive offering or a construction,

102
00:12:39,700 --> 00:12:43,990
and that in order to arrive with certainty and offering the right combination,

103
00:12:44,650 --> 00:12:50,290
he must not attribute to the object any other properties than those which necessarily follow

104
00:12:50,590 --> 00:12:57,370
from that which he himself had in accordance with his own concept placed in the object.

105
00:12:59,820 --> 00:13:04,440
Now physics says, Can't you walk? But it developed all the lines.

106
00:13:04,500 --> 00:13:12,960
What Newton and Galileo realised is that reason only perceives light, which it produces after its own design.

107
00:13:13,280 --> 00:13:20,280
You see, you'd have no way of launching the object of physics on entirely a posteriori approach.

108
00:13:20,310 --> 00:13:33,450
You already have a conceptual framework of lawfulness, orderliness, causality, etc. to put the ball in play as counts as accidental observations.

109
00:13:33,450 --> 00:13:41,550
Accidental observations made according to no preconceived plan could not be invited under a necessary law.

110
00:13:42,240 --> 00:13:45,720
But it is this reason six for and requires.

111
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:51,040
This is one reason this working for one reason takes such an important.

112
00:13:52,640 --> 00:14:00,560
He goes on to say, it is only the principle of reason which can give to concordant phenomena the validity of laws.

113
00:14:00,710 --> 00:14:07,760
And it is only an experiment directed by these rational principles, but gives us any real utility.

114
00:14:09,290 --> 00:14:13,880
And so the question is whether metaphysics can be developed on the same lines.

115
00:14:13,910 --> 00:14:16,460
This gets back to price competition.

116
00:14:17,060 --> 00:14:29,360
Must metaphysics be confined to those on top of crawling around in the dark or cannot proceed along the lines of a systematic science?

117
00:14:32,920 --> 00:14:40,540
Well, this leads to what is often referred to in the psychiatric literature as Copernican Revolution.

118
00:14:41,340 --> 00:14:49,990
Trump's famous Lucian. The problem with that rhetoric is the current use of the term of the president.

119
00:14:51,310 --> 00:14:57,760
And in fact, he only mentions Copernicus in the second edition of the work and they are only in the preface.

120
00:14:58,600 --> 00:15:08,760
And what he refers to there is then asked and again the Donald Tusk of course Copernicus first of.

121
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:15,570
He's not treating it as a crime. Should we start treating what he's doing for the revolution?

122
00:15:16,020 --> 00:15:22,350
Rather, he's very interested in how the trying to address a problem of some ways.

123
00:15:24,620 --> 00:15:29,420
Copernicus was contacted by Pope Leo the 10th.

124
00:15:31,530 --> 00:15:34,710
Why was that? I mean one.

125
00:15:36,650 --> 00:15:40,740
What was troubling His Holiness. May I say this over?

126
00:15:42,210 --> 00:15:46,350
What was troubling His Holiness was this holy war.

127
00:15:46,350 --> 00:15:53,670
The church has been using this calendar, Julius Caesar's time that contrived a calendar.

128
00:15:54,690 --> 00:15:58,140
Well, it wasn't a bad calendar. Oh, you're off by a little bit.

129
00:15:59,760 --> 00:16:06,930
But of course, by the 14th and 15th centuries, you're off by so much.

130
00:16:07,230 --> 00:16:14,520
But the variation around Easter Sunday is weighing in 2 to 3 weeks, sometimes longer.

131
00:16:16,010 --> 00:16:26,450
So the post office. I wonder if you might give us a hand with this witness, Mr. Sullivan, part of this fight against us.

132
00:16:27,080 --> 00:16:32,330
I, too, have been very helpful. Mathematicians do not agree on the length of the year.

133
00:16:34,890 --> 00:16:43,980
And so then Copernicus tries to experiment just how those things work in a case of I'm standing on the side.

134
00:16:46,050 --> 00:16:51,650
Well, things look quite different. And in fact, the length of the year gets smaller quarterly.

135
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:59,520
If you assume that the size of the earth is and the important point is that what you're trying to guess

136
00:16:59,520 --> 00:17:07,830
establishes is that the observer is not a passive recipient of things that just come in from the solar system.

137
00:17:08,130 --> 00:17:18,650
He is an active participant in his own observations and his position that his philosophy determines the model of reality, that the obstruct.

138
00:17:19,290 --> 00:17:23,670
That's the main thing that conflicts in Copernicus.

139
00:17:25,770 --> 00:17:30,000
The answer to the question of what this task according to the resolution is.

140
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:36,050
I have no idea what you're talking. So.

141
00:17:40,820 --> 00:17:45,049
So in my own, what I want is important in what comes out.

142
00:17:45,050 --> 00:17:49,310
And a lot of analysis that was adopted by private companies,

143
00:17:49,310 --> 00:17:57,560
not only fully first the sides very strongly to which we have made significant contributions in the present years.

144
00:17:59,030 --> 00:18:02,780
But there's no doubt that his approach to this first quarter conservatism was

145
00:18:02,780 --> 00:18:08,750
based on something deeper than an insight into Copernicus cognitive processes.

146
00:18:10,910 --> 00:18:17,540
What the critics understood is that reality has no reflects the modes of receptivity by which

147
00:18:17,550 --> 00:18:24,740
events in the external world become translated to experience a contradiction of further.

148
00:18:25,220 --> 00:18:30,500
But it was only by testing various conjectures against the date of the experience.

149
00:18:30,830 --> 00:18:40,760
But a mere Pashtu about might give way to systematic knowledge that will be valid beyond the narrow world of the individual observer.

150
00:18:43,100 --> 00:18:52,430
So again, I suppose this the attempt to reduce this to some sort of subjectivity because of all Copernicus was saying,

151
00:18:52,580 --> 00:19:02,719
is that the model of the solar system you develop just happens to depend on where you are and how you think you might end up with one of these.

152
00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:11,660
Protagoras is the measure of all things. What Copernicus makes clear is that once you've adopted this different perspective,

153
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:16,340
the result is going to be universally distributed across all recipients.

154
00:19:16,580 --> 00:19:18,490
It's not about that.

155
00:19:18,530 --> 00:19:29,209
But if Jack and Jill both go to the sun and observe events from the sun's point of view, Jack and Jill will be in a state of subjectivity.

156
00:19:29,210 --> 00:19:32,210
And there's no reason to believe that they will agree with each other. No.

157
00:19:33,750 --> 00:19:39,840
What is observed. What is observed is is a reality that is conditional.

158
00:19:39,990 --> 00:19:46,380
That is the representation of that reality is conditional on the place occupied by the observer.

159
00:19:47,550 --> 00:19:51,390
How do we know? This does not subjectively. We know it doesn't.

160
00:19:51,390 --> 00:19:55,050
Because astronomy has developed as a science on the way.

161
00:19:55,060 --> 00:19:58,950
We know that this works. I shall show once more.

162
00:19:59,010 --> 00:20:05,880
This is the last time I did this, which I should use an audio visual aid.

163
00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:10,320
This is the final time. This to you when you.

164
00:20:13,350 --> 00:20:16,410
I look up to be right. This is important.

165
00:20:20,430 --> 00:20:25,040
Now there's an answer to the question of. What that took place.

166
00:20:25,970 --> 00:20:33,080
On the edge of the question is that all parties attract each other with a force that's directly proportional

167
00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:40,280
to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between.

168
00:20:42,670 --> 00:20:55,720
But Newt Gingrich and the summer of 2013 together devised a calculus of functions that appreciate the relationship between the Earth,

169
00:20:55,920 --> 00:21:06,749
the moon, and the other ethical lines. When I read that, I reflected on what I had been doing in the summer with my 23 year old.

170
00:21:06,750 --> 00:21:16,620
Shannon was like, Well, well, naturally this happens.

171
00:21:17,700 --> 00:21:26,750
It's not over and against the fact that where we happen to be positioned as service might have some effect on measures.

172
00:21:28,510 --> 00:21:36,280
Potentially, for example, if we start going very, very rapidly, if we go really, very, very rapidly,

173
00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:45,040
then the assumption of mass as unchanging has to surrender to the fact that mass is going to be affected by velocity.

174
00:21:46,670 --> 00:21:52,520
And that as we approach the speed of life, the mass is going to approach an infinite amount.

175
00:21:55,500 --> 00:21:58,079
Show us that it's not subject to it. No, no.

176
00:21:58,080 --> 00:22:08,910
That's drawn from the natural world from the same perspective, the same project, the same developed science that gave you this in the first instance.

177
00:22:09,240 --> 00:22:15,000
So again and again, how small is the achievement of physics?

178
00:22:15,720 --> 00:22:24,140
The achievement of physics is sufficient to satisfy it that our cognitive resources are capable of other things.

179
00:22:24,150 --> 00:22:29,910
Most of us, in reality, the objective events of the external world.

180
00:22:30,540 --> 00:22:35,190
And the question then is again and again, sorry to be so repetition is how are we doing this?

181
00:22:35,550 --> 00:22:41,190
Given that the resources we bring to bear on the task are perceptual and cognitive?

182
00:22:45,430 --> 00:22:54,630
So to ask how the solar system appears to run standing on the sun compared with what is seen by the standing on the earth,

183
00:22:55,270 --> 00:23:01,540
is to acknowledge that the appearance itself must be grounded in non empirical factors.

184
00:23:03,840 --> 00:23:10,050
Cognition doesn't lead them to scepticism regarding the reality of the sun, the moon, the planets,

185
00:23:10,380 --> 00:23:17,760
rather than the shroud, which is how that very reality will be colonised by the situation observer.

186
00:23:18,540 --> 00:23:27,590
The position of the observer now simply becomes another element in the account and another subject to the knowledge.

187
00:23:31,050 --> 00:23:42,090
Card statement about his own attempt to rescue metaphysics from the incessant groping that a physicians suggests parallels copernicus's efforts.

188
00:23:42,870 --> 00:23:49,499
As with Copernicus, counsel, he says, make another trial of Andy revising.

189
00:23:49,500 --> 00:23:59,730
And sure, he's going to perform a Copernicus like experiment, another trial trial of the same sort that Copernicus has tried.

190
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:12,520
How is he going to do this? He's going to suppose that's that which by way of the pure categories that we

191
00:24:12,520 --> 00:24:18,770
understand constitute the means by which we impose a structure that fulfils

192
00:24:19,720 --> 00:24:26,110
some of what we're going to find in our systematic observation of reality are

193
00:24:26,110 --> 00:24:31,780
ingredients that we have put in there in just the sense that Copernicus's,

194
00:24:31,780 --> 00:24:43,450
observing the sun, is now an observer that Copernicus has put some place other than we once found it so consciously.

195
00:24:43,450 --> 00:24:47,080
Is the project as as a kind of experiment?

196
00:24:50,340 --> 00:24:59,400
He says the understanding has rules, which I must presuppose as being in me prior to object, being given to me,

197
00:24:59,730 --> 00:25:07,750
and in this case, recurring both to the transcendental aesthetic and injury doctrine of the commonest elements.

198
00:25:07,770 --> 00:25:11,640
That is to say that you have to stay with this.

199
00:25:12,810 --> 00:25:15,810
Keep in mind what empiricism is claiming.

200
00:25:15,810 --> 00:25:19,860
Empiricism is claiming that our ideas are fashioned of experience,

201
00:25:20,250 --> 00:25:28,110
that our experiences are perceptual transactions between an observer and the external world, and that the ideas thus formed,

202
00:25:28,110 --> 00:25:30,840
if they have any bearing on external reality,

203
00:25:31,530 --> 00:25:40,740
simply are the result of elementary sensations being parlayed into something rather more complex and held together by some principle of association.

204
00:25:42,000 --> 00:25:47,790
Conte wants to make clear that in that region you could not have a developed science.

205
00:25:48,210 --> 00:25:55,350
You couldn't even hold together the concept of causality, let alone show that operates in the realm of physical reality.

206
00:25:56,690 --> 00:26:01,670
So nothing in the stimulus will support a project of science.

207
00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:06,370
And yet the project of science is successful so far.

208
00:26:06,880 --> 00:26:10,430
So the necessary ingredients must be supplied.

209
00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:18,360
US nothing in our priority knowledge can be ascribed to objects.

210
00:26:18,660 --> 00:26:22,920
Say what the thinking subject derives from itself.

211
00:26:25,180 --> 00:26:33,820
So in this confidence tracking and I shouldn't say tracking because it suggests a dependency that will remain to be established.

212
00:26:34,270 --> 00:26:42,430
You might include in your readings some work by Manfred Kane on the influence of the Scottish environment on German philosophy.

213
00:26:43,240 --> 00:26:53,950
King does make a case for count, having had access to translations, reductions and translations of region oriented.

214
00:26:53,950 --> 00:27:05,589
The human mind of Karl Emmerich's distinguished scholar has recently argued that they are definitely reading resonances,

215
00:27:05,590 --> 00:27:10,980
reading elements in much of events, at least in some of the first be.

216
00:27:11,110 --> 00:27:17,670
And in several places he has made the same case that there are aspects of grief

217
00:27:17,720 --> 00:27:22,600
that match up so well with cancer argument that it's not a question of dependency.

218
00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:25,750
But here's how it applies to double standards.

219
00:27:28,650 --> 00:27:39,330
Reid and Carter are both troubled most by shield, thus to undertake a criticism of him as what is taken to be the weakest points.

220
00:27:40,810 --> 00:27:46,360
Should result in no surprise to critics and those coming up with very similar ideas.

221
00:27:46,620 --> 00:27:52,500
What? Well, what you're getting is something rather simultaneously and causal.

222
00:27:55,020 --> 00:28:07,980
Now Read takes up the question of causality on which country spends so much pain, particularly in the second analysis when read Texaco.

223
00:28:08,460 --> 00:28:15,510
He asserts that principles of association simply are inoperable here,

224
00:28:15,510 --> 00:28:20,760
but that no concept of association is even if the empiricists make clear what they

225
00:28:20,760 --> 00:28:27,870
mean by no merely associative concept carries with it the idea of causation.

226
00:28:29,730 --> 00:28:31,410
The constant conjunction of.

227
00:28:32,340 --> 00:28:42,390
Would never be a nice read, says Connecticut Bush, to the notion of causality except in a creature possessed of actual power.

228
00:28:43,410 --> 00:28:50,970
I want to flesh this out for you. Imagine yourself to be totally devoid of will.

229
00:28:52,020 --> 00:28:58,230
But you do have intelligence. Which is to say there isn't anything you can resolve to do.

230
00:28:58,590 --> 00:29:05,670
You don't even know the meaning of the term. So you have no agent in power.

231
00:29:07,380 --> 00:29:11,280
There's nothing you can do, identically or pathologically.

232
00:29:12,510 --> 00:29:17,370
Reid's argument is that such a creature, frankly, but it's an intelligent creature.

233
00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:24,150
Never on the basis of experience could rise to the concept of causality.

234
00:29:25,520 --> 00:29:34,760
The concept of the call, says Read, is our externalisation of what we recognise in ourselves to be an act of power.

235
00:29:35,630 --> 00:29:39,020
As I can act and forbear from that,

236
00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:49,610
I understand immediately and intuitively I understand to allow reflects my soul to be the source of events that I bring about.

237
00:29:50,810 --> 00:29:57,170
It's on the strength of that that I am prepared to make an inference when I see events taking

238
00:29:57,170 --> 00:30:02,720
place in a pattern way in the external world that something must have brought them about.

239
00:30:03,890 --> 00:30:14,090
So the concept, of course, Reed says, is parasitic on the intuition of acting to find a creature lacking active power.

240
00:30:14,210 --> 00:30:24,040
It could not have the concept of causation. Now, that's one way of showing how resources within the organism,

241
00:30:24,080 --> 00:30:36,200
resources within the human being are projected onto the external world to create a representation of events not given by the events themselves.

242
00:30:37,220 --> 00:30:41,450
HUME is right in so far as he argues, there's nothing empirical.

243
00:30:41,750 --> 00:30:45,080
That's when those billiard balls collide and one moves to the other.

244
00:30:45,320 --> 00:30:51,680
And he says, I must go. I do not see. So the third term of the twitch them quite so.

245
00:30:51,920 --> 00:30:57,350
There is no empirical source of causal dependency.

246
00:30:57,980 --> 00:31:03,890
So he was right again when he says that that if you are looking for the locus of causality.

247
00:31:04,430 --> 00:31:10,940
Well, let me just say somewhere between our ears or whatever, which we do these things.

248
00:31:13,890 --> 00:31:17,190
But how do we do these things even between our peers?

249
00:31:17,640 --> 00:31:25,890
How would it be possible nearly on the basis of constant conjunction ever, at the notion of causal dependence?

250
00:31:26,820 --> 00:31:36,990
Reid says it's not much, but the notion of causal dependency is parasitic on the intuitive recognition of oneself as an agent.

251
00:31:40,460 --> 00:31:52,670
So I ask the Scottish Common Sense version of the cognitive and volitional resources of the observer now constituted

252
00:31:52,670 --> 00:32:02,080
the grounds for causal attributions and context in which the external world could provide no way to avoid.

253
00:32:03,310 --> 00:32:07,080
Recall Reid's comment about. No.

254
00:32:07,080 --> 00:32:15,600
Two events as constantly conjoined in human experience as day and night.

255
00:32:16,940 --> 00:32:19,820
On that note that in coming years, as ever,

256
00:32:19,970 --> 00:32:27,590
government takes the course of the night or night of the course of the day and you hear resonances of this,

257
00:32:27,770 --> 00:32:30,560
one can't take up the question of cytogenetics.

258
00:32:31,670 --> 00:32:40,850
So again, it's back into the observer, back into the cosmos that we must go to find the sources of these representations,

259
00:32:41,060 --> 00:32:45,140
these representations of objective, objective reality.

260
00:32:49,710 --> 00:32:58,670
So a surgeon here would confess that nothing in the Montreal knowledge can be ascribed to objects shared,

261
00:32:58,680 --> 00:33:02,130
but the thinking subject derives from itself.

262
00:33:03,090 --> 00:33:11,220
If you want to translate that into the reading critique of humans notion of causality, you would say that.

263
00:33:13,990 --> 00:33:24,580
But nothing in the external event carries with it the concept, the notion, even the grounding of causality, except in the short form,

264
00:33:24,580 --> 00:33:34,240
as there is a precipitate first up whose resources are such that our overall approach is able to represent,

265
00:33:34,690 --> 00:33:43,990
able to compromise lawful dependencies, causal dependencies, and distinguish them from merely constant conjunctions.

266
00:33:49,700 --> 00:33:59,600
Again, understanding human understanding has rules which I must presuppose has been in me prior to objects being given to me.

267
00:33:59,970 --> 00:34:04,980
Well, here again. Concepts that we understand.

268
00:34:05,190 --> 00:34:11,820
Were they not in place for you, simply the creature that that a radical empiricism would have.

269
00:34:13,340 --> 00:34:19,900
What's the basis upon which? You'd even connect something like this.

270
00:34:21,640 --> 00:34:25,420
Fuzzy white and blue tablecloths tend to be a century.

271
00:34:27,260 --> 00:34:36,739
How are these connections led to all the empiricist account of associations, the associations with form?

272
00:34:36,740 --> 00:34:39,920
I'm not really aware of that.

273
00:34:40,910 --> 00:34:48,350
Do you understand that? Well, no, I can't get enough use all of that.

274
00:34:48,620 --> 00:34:53,210
But you're you're looking at this, which is selective.

275
00:34:54,500 --> 00:35:00,409
There's a tremendous amount going on that's going on. Why don't you go to which one of which?

276
00:35:00,410 --> 00:35:04,490
Why not my speculation. Why not just try to track your time?

277
00:35:06,740 --> 00:35:17,010
So you are already tuned. Selectively to bring to bear a certain order on the external world such that some

278
00:35:17,010 --> 00:35:23,040
things will be associated and others will be relegated to background considerations.

279
00:35:26,520 --> 00:35:34,940
Shall I bring this to life for you? The neonatal rhesus monkey at 3 hours.

280
00:35:36,110 --> 00:35:45,710
It's shown to have cells in the auditory cortex that respond selectively to the distress cries of that species.

281
00:35:47,990 --> 00:35:58,970
That's what I mean by a rating selectivity of perception, as people would argue, were we not thus constituted.

282
00:35:59,870 --> 00:36:09,210
You couldn't get across the street for the sake. The trouble with radical empiricism is that you can't get across the street.

283
00:36:10,230 --> 00:36:16,190
You can't even get a street. Surely she was.

284
00:36:16,200 --> 00:36:20,120
Wasn't for double duty. Look, you don't have to be. Let's.

285
00:36:20,580 --> 00:36:32,830
Here's a way to be foolish while being extremely intelligent, have a theory, and then defend it against all odds.

286
00:36:33,750 --> 00:36:45,420
John Stuart Mill was doing great at age and so much a series of positive integers was in fact an empirical achievement.

287
00:36:47,190 --> 00:36:56,040
This is a serious person. Thinks about my country or something like that is a serious person.

288
00:36:56,720 --> 00:37:05,250
He actually rose for one term. It's an imperfect world, but that never got elected at all, which is a beautiful thing.

289
00:37:05,400 --> 00:37:12,530
A linguist in one term said so.

290
00:37:12,810 --> 00:37:16,290
So I'm reading an account closely.

291
00:37:17,370 --> 00:37:22,690
Even the lowly caterpillar will crawl across a thousand leaves until it finds the one.

292
00:37:22,740 --> 00:37:27,240
That's the. The words. Is just a matter of the tree.

293
00:37:27,240 --> 00:37:33,510
Illustrates the principle of common sense. Read as a sort of free Darwinian.

294
00:37:34,080 --> 00:37:40,770
A providential creator who has studied creatures out to be able to negotiate the requirements of life on Earth.

295
00:37:41,250 --> 00:37:45,780
And most philosophers set out to explain how somehow that's all impossible.

296
00:37:46,860 --> 00:37:50,250
That system was reduced to the source of laughter.

297
00:37:50,610 --> 00:37:58,139
Can't get much more tenuous. Metaphysically, which way wants to make the same kind of argument that finally broke?

298
00:37:58,140 --> 00:38:07,170
The structure of science is at once created by the cognitive resources of intelligent beings,

299
00:38:08,460 --> 00:38:14,250
offering only resources that must be in place for order itself to be colonised.

300
00:38:14,820 --> 00:38:29,170
And at the same time. That apparatus generates representations of external reality in a manner that is objective, and a model is a model of science.

301
00:38:31,290 --> 00:38:37,650
Well, this permits me a very brief canonical summary of the very difficult position to come,

302
00:38:39,330 --> 00:38:45,780
and that has to do with how we're going to ask the question how some propositions can be known to be true.

303
00:38:46,500 --> 00:38:51,360
You are. The answer is how could they not?

304
00:38:59,150 --> 00:39:04,070
You see if we put their. How could it be otherwise?

305
00:39:04,760 --> 00:39:08,850
How could it be? Do you start?

306
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:16,510
The answer to the question how can we know the truth about synthetic opioid propositions?

307
00:39:18,550 --> 00:39:20,770
Is that in fact, the propositions,

308
00:39:20,770 --> 00:39:31,360
to the extent that they constitute a reality that we have friend that has been structured by the pure concepts of the understanding will have reason

309
00:39:31,810 --> 00:39:44,350
finding its own grounding in the very phenomena that it's setting out to to explain it is on the basis of the authority resources of the company.

310
00:39:46,530 --> 00:39:51,030
But also reality is made possible in the first instance.

311
00:39:51,480 --> 00:39:58,500
So the trick there is not to establish how a priori synthetic propositions can be known to be the case.

312
00:39:59,310 --> 00:40:06,210
The trick is how they have been known to be the case by way of resources that are not conducive to subjectivity.

313
00:40:07,580 --> 00:40:12,380
And it's all massive budget cuts, production cuts, supports continue to pass.

314
00:40:12,950 --> 00:40:14,090
So that's all.