if you could get everyone on the planet to do one thing what would it be and she said stay exactly where you are and figure out 00:33:30 what it is that you can do in your local

As ajournalist, historian, novelist, and autobiographer, Adams was con-stantly focused on the American experiment, testing a statementoffered by another figure in Democracy: ‘You Americans believe your-selves to be excepted from the operation of general laws. You care notfor experience’ (LA 37–8).

Zerzan, though, goes further; looking at how it was the abstract, intellectual basis of modernity – the human duality of body and mind – which was, and continues to be the basis for our severance from the natural world.

Massive, unfulfilling consumption, within the dictates of production and social control, reigns as the chief everyday consolation for this absence of meaning

it really all does 00:06:53 trace back to the start of our what we call civilization our civilization meaning Agriculture and then settlements and cities so prior to that we lived in approximate equilibrium with ecosystems

there 00:03:24 is something really special about going off into the natural world it is especially by oneself i think that it it can enable us to kind of open up and sort of let go of our usual utilitarian 00:03:38 way of relating to everything and and and sort of be able to learn what the trees you know what what the meadows what what the river has to offer uh and i think that's that's really 00:03:52 important

The issue of human dominance is not simply climate change (as bad as that is), it is the whole capitalist development paradigm that is at the dark heart of maldevelopment—that which undermines and destroys the very foundations of all life on earth.

jay has also done a lot of work in many other areas of philosophy including the foundations of cognitive science and philosophy of mind ethics 00:04:05 epistemology and the philosophy of logic and he's also done work in the methodology of cross-cultural interpretation

At the time he was selling, Jay-Z was also coming up with rhymes. He normally wrote down his material in a green notebook he carried around with him — but he never took the notebook with him on the streets, he says. "I would run into the corner store, the bodega, and just grab a paper bag or buy juice — anything just to get a paper bag," he says. "And I'd write the words on the paper bag and stuff these ideas in my pocket until I got back. Then I would transfer them into the notebook. As I got further and further away from home and my notebook, I had to memorize these rhymes — longer and longer and longer. ... By the time I got to record my first album, I was 26, I didn't need pen or paper — my memory had been trained just to listen to a song, think of the words, and lay them to tape." Since his first album, he says, he's never written down any of his lyrics. "I've lost plenty of material," he says. "It's not the best way. I wouldn't advise it to anyone. I've lost a couple albums' worth of great material. ... Think about when you can't remember a word and it drives you crazy. So imagine forgetting an entire rhyme. 'What's that? I said I was the greatest something?' "

16:15 - Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations

cognitive illusion and immediate experience perspectives 00:01:44 from buddhist philosophy

some people will 01:52:34 read nagarjuna as allowing for the existence of true contradictions that something can be both true and false at the same time and uh graham priest is a philosopher who has a 01:52:46 uh reading of nagarjuna as under his uh dialethis logic which allows for certain uh contradictions to be true um [Music] i don't think that actually works in the 01:52:58 case of i think nagarjuna seems to presume the principle of non-principle of non-contradiction in order to run these kinds of reduction reductio absurdum type arguments um by drawing contradictions and incoherencies within 01:53:11 a given concept under analysis and then showing how it leads to contradiction so we should reject that concept um uh yeah do you have any thoughts about uh about 01:53:23 you know quantum physics is is sort of notorious for seeming to violate basic laws of of logic like say the law of non-contradiction or law of excluded middle or uh and so on and 01:53:35 so do you think that um our conventional logic you know it's like say classical logic is uh in if if there is no ultimate reality for madhyamako or for your your 01:53:48 understanding of uh quantum physics slash medium um then should the tools of classical logic what are the tools within conventional discourse broadly speaking as well for um 01:54:01 capturing um what madhyamaka is saying or what quantum physics as you understand it are saying so yeah let me answer specifically um uh 01:54:13 nagarjuna uh main negotiations from one perspective can be viewed as a logician right i mean it's a it's it's a his way of presenting things 01:54:25 uh uh it's it's a characteristic of somebody who's uh who's a legitimation you use logic uh but from from where's the perspective the first first of impact it sounds strange because uh his main tool is the 01:54:38 tetra of course which um somehow uh presents uh the impossibility of four alternative one being a something i don't know time exist uh one being non-a say time does not 01:54:57 exist and the third being um neither a nor not a and the fourth is uh both a and known a so it seems that wait a moment uh we we 01:55:09 we we are talked in logic 101 um that uh uh either a or not a and there is um beginning of logic so it seemed to be a clash here uh my 01:55:23 impression that there's no clash is that the known of non-a is not the same known as uh um as they restotelien known and we can uh we can think of innumerable uh everyday experience in which this whole 01:55:36 possibility it's exactly what we would uh we would consider so the exhaustive thing is the four there's four possibilities i don't want to go technically specifically but so it's not a an alternative logic here it's just a 01:55:48 different way of using known um so i don't see any clash between what we call logic uh in in in it's an interesting articulation but not 01:56:00 any any club it's not a mag logic um the same is true with quantum mechanics uh people been arguing that we can understand quantum mechanics by changing the logic i find it yeah but i find it 01:56:13 it's not really particularly clarifying um it's true i mean the particle doesn't go here normal goes there so if we think of these are two alternative quantum mechanics can be thought of can be 01:56:25 phrased if an alternative logic but all the alternative logic that i found they can be rephrased in terms of logic with different definitions so i don't i don't i don't think that this is the point um that's this is this is the 01:56:38 answer to your your question about logic you know the uh mutha madhyamakar karika his main treatise which we're talking about nagarjuna's text um 01:56:50 it's very short as you mentioned carlos and some of the things that are not there that are not written that are implied and also make it such a difficult text to understand is that he's refuting many different schools 01:57:05 of understanding an essence in reality and so when he does the tetralemma one of the usages is to be complete in terms of all the different you know 01:57:17 traditions or schools that are claiming some essence in reality to refute them and some do say that there's nothing you know not neither alternative and some say things 01:57:29 do exist and do not exist the both so i think he's using that more pedagogically if you will to um to refute all possible understandings 01:57:40 of an intrinsic existence and that's some of the beauty of his work and it's some of the difficulty in understanding it because you know unless you're really well read and really 01:57:53 understand fully all the different positions uh you it's hard to really know what he's doing at any one time um i could comment on this because it could be interesting um 01:58:08 so there is this uh sense in which barry explained that uh somehow answering 12 possible counter arguments at the same time and there's also a very simple way that you can see that this is not really 01:58:20 about a different logic so take the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics what's the point there that you try to explain a certain set of experimental data 01:58:32 by saying where does the particle go does it go through slit a does it go through slit beam let's go through both does it not go to neither and none of these four possibilities explains what you're seeing on the 01:58:45 screen so what do you do there it's not that you've reached the conclusion that everything is wrong is that you uh throw away the presupposition what was the presupposition that the particle 01:58:56 is somewhere so this straightforward use of logic it seems to me that i don't see any [Music] weird logic going on there yeah 01:59:08 you also throw away the the notion of a particle then if particles are that which have to be somewhere no you throw away the doctor there is an intrinsic reality that's what nagarjuna does if you continue doing that then you throw away 01:59:22 everything i i don't agree with uh personally if you ask me i agree that there is no interesting reality um [Music] in the sense that whenever you assume 01:59:37 such a thing you're going to fall into contradictions

for example i'm talking so my primary mind now is going 01:14:37 to be an auditory mind okay and then there's going to be a whole constellation of next secondary ones which are basically positive and negative or harmful uh positive non-harmful and harmful uh 01:14:51 qualities or attributes or emotions or thoughts or attitudes and then the next moment i'm looking at my screen so i have a visual mind and the constellation will change you know some of those 01:15:04 positive and negative qualities like i'm feeling a little sleepy or i'm very alert or i'm feeling jealous or i'm feeling very happy and connected you know with this 01:15:16 conversation those would be part of the secondary minds and then you know you have this infinite continuum everyone every living being every as you rightfully said sentient beings a living 01:15:26 being with a mind carlo um has um its own mental continuum um so it involves it's a big picture of mind it involves you know our 01:15:40 our thinking it involves our intellect it involves our heart feelings emotions uh and it involves those deeper levels in that sixth primary mind mental consciousness such as intuition and 01:15:53 deeper minds

Stephen Jay Gould maintained that connecting the seemingly unconnected is the secret of genius;

So whenever you hear of someone “training” a neural network, it just means finding the weights we use to calculate the prediction.

In the language of Interpretable Machine Learning (IML) literature like Molnar et al.[20], input saliency is a method that explains individual predictions.

To comedians, “material”—their jokes and stories—has always been precious, worthy of protecting and preserving.

The Kay-Gees

Magic is about working hard to discover a secret and making something out of it. You start with some small principle and you build a theatrical presentation out of it. You do something that’s technically artistic that creates a small drama.

Magic is about working hard to discover a secret and making something out of it. You start with some small principle and you build a theatrical presentation out of it. You do something that’s technically artistic that creates a small drama.

“My mother says I’m great And it always makes me sad”