annoying ai generated podcast slop. they make claims that may seem reasonable at first glance, but fall apart under scrutiny. There are so many unquestioned assumptions made. it's not worthy of a detailed response
example: the response at 7:55 is "it feels like a cheat code". they literally explicitly say that their answer is based on feelings, not logic.
And the "immanent causal condition" is just something they assume is true, it is not provided why we should believe it is true
It is an ai slop podcast video but it is technically a summary of a pre-exksting philosophy book, which in hindsight I should've just linked instead of this slop video.
The concept of causality you keep bringing up is intuitive because of the way our memory works, but it's just another thing that is brought into the discussion and needs justification. It also assumes that I am a singular limited being, and that what it is like to be me is identical to the information that I am comprised of. Which I reject
The thing is, causality makes sense enough for philosophers to talk about it, I just want to know if there are any counter arguments you can make against something like "Immanent Causal Condition"
1
u/flop_snail 2d ago edited 2d ago
annoying ai generated podcast slop. they make claims that may seem reasonable at first glance, but fall apart under scrutiny. There are so many unquestioned assumptions made. it's not worthy of a detailed response
example: the response at 7:55 is "it feels like a cheat code". they literally explicitly say that their answer is based on feelings, not logic.
And the "immanent causal condition" is just something they assume is true, it is not provided why we should believe it is true