Favourite Youtube Tv

More interesting map-related speculation from Map Men (Men). This considers continental drift, informatively and amusingly.

 

Don't remember seeing this on here before. NSFW etc.

 

Out****ingstanding.

 

I don’t know about the Watford thing as he is very West Midlands, but maybe.

In this latest one he and his brother try some survivalism and are terrible at it.

 

My son introduced me to this guy's channel, Simon Wilson does these travel videos. In this series here, he does 7 wonders of the world in 7 days.



The "wonders" are the Pyramids and the 7 modern ones voted for internationally in 2007. He did cheat a little because he omitted Machu Picchu.

Having been to Machu Picchu myself, I can confirm that it's a ******* to get to.

 

When we went some years ago we went by train from Cusco to Aguas Calientes, then bus up to the top. We were also very lucky to get a cancellation for the hotel by the ruins to stay overnight. This meant we could walk round almost on our own the next morning before the bulk of tourists arrived.

 

I was staying in Cusco when I went. The train to Aguas Calientes from Cusco was about 4 hours, I think I remember it departed at around 6am.

 

I've been through quite a few of them, over the weekend I watched his videos from his trip to North Korea.

 

Straight line mission is back! This time across Scotland.

 

Classic.

 

A funny guy and a crazy project.

 

Lex Fridman for interviews with various philosophers and scientists on the nature of consciousness.

He also does a lot of AI which Im kinda interested in.

 

What a lovely video, I used to be able to play that piece when I was a kid.

Elephants are beautiful. They have shown many signs of mourning their dead, the only species apart from humans to do so, and one of the behavioural displays that indicate higher consciousness.

Dr Jim Al Kahili does a really good video on Quantum Biology if you like that sort of stuff.

I read the Anil Seth book, pretty good but there are a few things I disagree with or at least not entirely convinced by.

 

Nice! I've enjoyed many videos by Jim Al-Khalili he is a very good science educator. Also recommend David Eagleman on neuroscience and the science of consciousness. Think he has some YT videos.

Anil Seth IMO is excellent, he is following the evidence and I genuinely think that consciousness will be an emergent property of the many functions and neural pathways/connections of the brain. Descartes has a lot to answer for.

 

I’m not so sure about the Sethian viewpoint.

They have been talking about emergence for decades and yet they are no closer to explain how and why consciousness switches when a certain level of complexity arises . You might as well say it happens magically , it’s no different .

I’m more open to the Roger Penrose idea that consciousness is non computational and perhaps is a quantum phenomenon happening on a cellular level or even the view point thta conscooisness is fundamental , the base layer of reality that everything is built on top of . That way you don’t need to explain how why and when consciousness magical switches on because it underpins everything .

 

It's an interesting topic but I don't buy it. There's too little scientific research and it breaks basic laws of quantum mechanics. Sadly, I think Penrose has lost the plot a bit, he perhaps should stick with physics and mathematics and leave the study of consciousness to neuroscience.

 

Or perhaps the study of consciousness is beyond the realms of science, which may explain why they have come no nearer to explaining it now than they were 40 years ago when they claimed they would explain it with the new invention of MRIs .

The only thing we can say with complete truth is that it is a mystery that still evades modern science . Science may end up explaining it which will be an incredible day for humanity, but we must also acknowledge that it may exist beyond the realms of a deterministic world.
The problem with science is it is just another world view paradigm that fails to recognise other methods of examination of reality like meditation for instance .

In short the best viewpoint is to be open to all possible outcomes until proven otherwise which is indeed a fundamental tenet of the scientific method .

 

I have had many debates with people much like yourself on this topic and I make no bones of the fact I'm an atheist and humanist but also plant my flag in reductionism.

It wrankles a bit when people condemn science because it hasn't found the answer yet (I am sure it will find the answer to consciousness much like modern physics, space-time, entropy, evolution etc.)

It is very much like the God of the gaps argument so because there's a gap in knowledge (the scientific method is based on evidence and can be testable) then we can fill it with all sorts of ideas or philosophy that is completely not testable. Just opens the door to charlatanry.

Science can explain how meditation impacts on the brain through neuroplasticity, there are plenty of articles and books on the subject. Also chemicals play a large part in how you feel, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins etc.

 

I’m not condemning science in any way whatsoever . It is an incredibly powerful mechanism for understanding the universe . We may indeed find out that every aspect of the universe is deterministic and therefore science would be right in thinking it can answer everything .

However there is so much that science can’t currently explain and may never will . Many less dogmatic scientists will happily entertain this idea and indeed very many of the greatest scientists of history especially the early twentieth century quantum mechanics were openly expressive that the universe is not entirely deterministic.

As for your point about meditation , you have explained the effect meditation may have in the brain but it does not explain how mediation increases one’s awareness of qualia. Science cannot explain qualia ( consciousness) despite saying it would achieve this with MRIs for decades and is no nearer to that goals than it was in the 1980s.

I think the problem that many people have with western science is not it’s vast contributions to humanity but it’s inherent arrogance that it is the only valid way of observing the universe , which basically reeks of the same arrogant and dogmatic thinking of the religions it replaced in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

 

Drop an asprin into a shallow glass of water and observe closely. That right there is the big bang.

Anyway, this little beauty dropped into my feed over the weekend. Worth watching just for the 2 copper coated bullets to collide:

 

I find philosophy to be far more dogmatic. It's the only field that seems to find itself the arbiter for solving consciosness. That in itself is arrogance especially considering it is not based on empirical evidence whatsoever.

A tree still makes a noise when it falls even if no-one is there to hear it. The moon is still there even if you can't see it.

Cognitive science leads the field in terms of defining subjective experiences such as seeing colour (wavelengths of light) or how brain functions determine religious or spiritual thoughts through agent detection.

Scientists on the whole are extremely humble, this misconception of arrogance comes from religious viewpoints who interpret science as a threat.

 

That last paragraph sounds quite arrogant to me .

Also why do you keep going on about religion . I’m not religious, but just wanted to state that science is a long way from providing any answers on many metaphysical questions .

Also your statement about cognitive science leading the way in defining subjective experience is just plain wrong .
Science deals with the objective , it has no toolset to explain the subjective experience . That is the whole point of the ‘hard problem’ debate of consciousness.
You will not find a single scientist who says he or she can explain the subjective experience, because they can’t . No one can , that is why it’s probably the most intriguing question of our time .

 

I think you are proving my point, especially when quoting the hard problem which in itself has been disputed by many philosophers and neuroscientists. This comes back to my original point, consciousness is not causal, it is a byproduct (or emergent). If like Anil Seth mentions, humanity solves the 'easy problems' then the nature of consciousness is also solved.

Also, I didn't say you were religious. Being previously religious myself, I have witnessed the 'putting down' of science first-hand. I do include new age beliefs within 'religion' or faith.

 

Can you two open a thread of your own and stop wrecking this one?

 

Sorry Diamond! Point taken.

 

I think you should experience the pain of these endless 'discussions' as it's a reminder for me that no. 2 child is returning from their 2nd year of reading philosophy and law (an astonishing achievement as the university in question does not have, and has never had, a law school/faculty)...

 

Sorry guys for spamming up the thread.

Back on topic, I like watching Benjamin Bloom for Championship. Well researched and insightful , so much more enjoyable than most if not all of the so called professional pundits.

Also there are two Sheffield United guys who do good Championship reviews but we won't be seeing them again till the start of 24/25 season.