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.