You don’t know Stefan Molyneux? Maybe that is a good thing 
He is the most popular philosopher on youtube. At least be aware of him en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
If you do watch his videos, check the date because he’s changed his mind on significant things over the years. I think he’s starting to move away from atheism.
I have a hard time distinguishing whether the people who put on these magic shows are insidious or merely stupid.
Mostly stupidity and cultish group think. But I’m sure some are insidious.
Makes me think of that idiot Neil Tyson, all he ever does is speak in mystifying and empty platitudes that refute themselves upon even cursory examination. “There is no ether, no universal medium”, …“photons travel along the dimension of warped space time, like a fabric that bends with gravity”… um, so the “fabric of spacetime” is somehow not an “ether” or “universal medium”? Ok then.
Physics abandoned reason and logic long ago.
That’s why quantum physicists confuse statistical probability (predicting future events) with ontology. “Oh no, reality itself is actually probabilistic!” Lol.
So how would you respond to him insofar as the above goes? What would you say?
Is Thomas Nagel still an idiot? 
I don’t like Nagel, because he seems to mostly say nothing but takes a long time saying it. I read one of his books, I wasn’t impressed.
Which of his books do you like, and which of his ideas you you think are good?
I don’t like Neil Tyson and others like him who are just performers pushing pop pseudo-science to make themselves more famous. It’s embarrassing.
What made you think I m interested in that sort of thing? Is it something you assume everyone wants to do?
The potential for our discussion went out the window when you used the modern comedic aloof stance to justify refusing to test the method of language (the logic) I handed you to resolve the OPs question.
Im only interested in doing philosophical work, not in comparing you tubers. Dude. Dudeman dude.
Duder.
Were my car.
Dude.
I mean if were gonna zone out lets just get there directly. Knawmean. Shits tight. Uh.
Just quote him in writing on what you think is relevant.
Not a damn thing. I just offered IN CASE you were. Looks like part of this evening’s exercise criteria includes jumping to conclusions.
No, I thought I was being nice by showing you a part of the world you may not have seen. Do you assume everyone who offers you information assumes you’re interested? Hey, here’s info! If you’re interested, have a look. If not, go pluck yourself. No skin off my nose, Mr. Uptight.
After that display, I’m grateful for the window and strong breeze that cleared the air.
Then get going with your bad self. Let’s see some philosophizing… as soon as you get off your soapbox, that is.
No clue what you’re smoking there.
You will have to explain that one.
Tyson is an entertainer. But let me get this straight… .you’re saying because Tyson is an idiot that all of physics has abandoned reason and logic? Oh the irony. Today must be fallacy friday.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you guys are claiming physics is bunk, starting coughing up something besides cocky conjecture.
thats all fine and humanly understandable. And predictable. Too many times someone intelligent who is capable of it still manages to become a bit giggly and indirect before the question of logic.
I just prefer to say things 3 or 4 times, not repeat them beyond that.
Ive explained to you the frontier in no sparse terms, you chose to disregard it. Im only interested in the frontier.
I was a bit rude. Its just to show you how I take your utterly nonsensical claim that you don’t understand what I mean with valuing. I know no one is as alien to this world as to not understand that price is a much more limited concept than value.
thats just really, really, silly.
And I take offence at someone pretending be that silly, when he is clearly in charge of a real mind.
For example, it would be amusing to see you try and make your way through a market.
Someone who knows about your conflating of price and value could just convince you that as he raises the price, the value of the object increases likewise.
Say you want to buy an apple which costs 25 cents. As you reach in your pocket, he says “The price just went up to 1 dollar”. As he sees you reaching for your wallet, he speaks again. “Now, the price is 1000$.” Automatically your mind adjusts the value of the apple, it is worth a thousand bucks, you must have it, and rush to the nearest ATM. He calls after you that the apple is now priced at a million dollars. The value is mind boggling. You reorient for a Walmart to buy an assault rifle to go and rob the bank.
Then with it in your hands you might realize that you can also rob the man on the market of his apple using that same rifle and with far less risk.
Something may be dawning on you about the difference between pricing and valuing.
Or not.
Umm… You said
So, not forgiven?
How does grim piety help?
You’re having too much fun there ^^^. No laughing allowed because this is serious business! 
You just want me to use your term instead of my term as if it mattered. Why is the label important? Do you have difficulty interpreting what I mean when I say “perception” that is greater than the difficulty I have in interpreting what you mean when you say “valuing”?
It’s hard enough plowing new paths through philosophical forests in my own language without taking on the added difficulty in doing so in your language. I offered the olive branch before in agreeing not to be nitpicky about what word you chose to use and I thought the sentiment would be reciprocated.
Mostly it’s closing the barn door after the horse left because, honestly, I thought the convo was over since we seemed to be in agreement and I had nothing else to say in reply to what you said… other than that about Stefan. It seems as if you’re having a bad day in general or something because I thought we were getting along fine previously.
Anyway, let’s just move forward. What is next to discuss? Oh yeah, physics is insidious. So what about it? Where is the substantiation for that claim? I’m new to this club and will have to be made aware of the particulars.
I’m not conflating price and value. I know the difference, but I associate value with cognition whereas I associate perception with mindlessness. It’s an artifact of my environment and not a logical inconsistency or deficiency in understanding.
Price is just what someone is asking for an item. Price is mindless, but value is what you think an item should be priced or what the item is worth. Value is also what the seller thinks the item should be priced. So, buyer and seller have a price in mind based on their subjective values of the item. It’s like the bid/ask spread in capital assets:
9.97
9.96
9.95
The bottom is the bid and the top is the ask and when they meet, then a sale is made. Either the seller has to lower his value or the bidder has to raise his. So, value implies complex thought and isn’t an attribute I could assign to atoms or flowers.
You are on the right track. But rather, price is the mental thing. The mind can be easily fooled - but you can’t fool a million minds as easily, they behave more in accordance with more structural laws. That is why prices in general do correlate with value, but individual people are still convinced all the time to make stupid investments. And thus why consumerism perpetuates the myth of the self-regulating individual.
An atom values without mind, thus exactly and instantly.
I don’t know how familiar you are scientifically, but in physics, electrons and protons are held to represent opposing electrical values.
The stock market is about the price of expectations, being addressed as the values.
The mortgage market crash was due to a mispricing of the future value of loans.
You can’t price separately of value without using signals to convey an incomplete picture of the thing that is being priced.
Wherever it is that price is a direct and fundamental representation of value, it means that the thing is being bought for that price; the the transaction produces that value in monetary form.
Sill, this only applies in that context and I that exact moment, to the minds of the people who make the transaction, not to the sold object.
the value of the sold object is indicated by price only in terms of large numbers of pricing in the same contexts. And the value will change according to conditions that may not be reflected in the price, at which point individuals may still be fooled into conflating the two due to loss aversion (bias) and not doing research into fundamentals (ignorance) but the whole of the market adjusts, and value-savvy people make profits causing losses for value-dummies, thereby correcting the price.
Things attract things, and when we analyze how and why, we see that one thing is a value required for the perpetuation of the others existence.
Some metametaphysics:
For a priest, conscious and mentally values are ecclesiastical, ritual, doctrinal and perhaps moral. His values represents priesthood, which is the sole attribute of this priest I speak of here - he is defined entirely in terms of his conscious values. And he is perfectly relatable to the world, where such beings live.
A fish will not understand a Christian priest who has the fish as a symbolic, mental value.
It wil however understand the existence of the fisherman. The man who has the fish as a literal value.
It will understand without thinking.
(the world is deep, deeper than the day had thought, etc-)
We can put this in very simple terms.
Do you value your life?
Is that a conscious or unconscious decision?
If the answer is yes, what is that value based on?
What price would you set on giving it away?
Is that a conscious or unconscious decision?
Quantitively, a life is valued by itself as either infinite (any price is insufficient to account for the loss of that life which is required to take the payment), or less than nothing (it wants to end itself). So in mathematical, conscious value systems, the value is always going to be irrational.
That is because it is the ground to all conscious values. Life is the ground to reason, and its values supersede rational reasons in urgency. Oxygen is a crucial value to the molecules that are our life, and so the chain runs through carbon and through the electrical and other less fathomable forces downward and upward into more delicate structures that involve a more volatile value system, a less stable form of time; cells. Still valuing, but not as fast in acquiring their necessities, values. This delay is “pain”, lack, suffering, and since it is structurally being released, anticipation, desire, hunger, craving and urging for adequate release, which is narcissistically known as the Self, the image that the force of life erodes into. All is operating under the same law of exchange, where it holds that spontaneous value exchange means value increase. And so existence is volatile (passion, fire, nuclear holocaust, stars, black holes, ripping force) and its structures always involve risk of breaking down to basic elements.
The game is the game. Its played over value. Technically, power, which is a valuing that unconsciously relates to itself as a value-standard and integrates existence as it encounters it, “overcomes it”, “loves it to death” or loves it to further being, if it is a mutually spontaneous exchange. This again is an unconscious matter, and in the conscious word, value savvy people can exploit value dummies, especially those that are tempted to put a price on their own value.
Why real artists work for free or for all you’ve got, your estate won’t cover the damages. Your religion is what he’ll take. The very values your ancestors ploughed for. He’ll shit on them and feed them to a whore and replace them with his signature. Values are relative to absolutes (beings), which is why they are volatile. But they aren’t arbitrary. They’re set by reckless men and women, yes, and obeyed to by fools, yes, but thats what life is. Reckless behaviour. (Ask Jesus, or better Moses. Walking into the sea… come on. Speaking of Jews, atomic valuing is quite a degree or two more relatively potent, as we know since 1945.)
The angle to all of this should be clear, that philosophy has become more involved since the past centuries and is returning to its ancient vigor - it again knows itself. The internet is enabling a new society, a new community of rational valuing out of a new vast barbarism of wild arbitrary pricing, great profits and far greater losses in unconscious values. In this century one knows not to be too proud to look at ones own limits for the important and serious answers our ancestors looked for - even for the questioning itself. And lo, these limits may dissolve, once addressed. All our limits are reflected directly in our values. Breathe in, breathe out. Let go of every doubt. The universe is seething, one needs to breathe deeply to keep up. Shallow life is slavish life.
This is all ethics prescribing logic in a new way, pointing out errors, inconsistencies, coming again from below like magma to reshape the volcano beyond which there is consciousness, sky, reflection of light into a pleasant aura ordinary beings can dwell under and take it for granted. This is the new age, the ge of processors and the crypto market, the growth of the presence of the primordial, deathly force, the electrical value. Eventually we may have atomic processors, where not electrical but internal strongforces are used to supersede light speed in value transactions with quarkbanking. Switzerland will be the first to bank in reverse time.
Yeah, incipit comedia.
Nihilism is the mistake of thinking that the fact that all can be reduced to nothing means that it is nothing - or that it is certain that what matters does indeed get reduced.
Why is it there in the first place?
And if that is not enough, what gives us the balls to pass judgment on it? Its an amazing boldness that surely is based on some unconscious worth.
Isnt that judgment the very thing we are judging?
Why to some “Love is the law, love under will.”
Will is too wild to be law. It makes sure that whatever is law is very much willed. It ensures the value of the law.
Love is the measure of that value. Not romantic love - that rather usurps the law - but ancestral, biological love, loyalty.
Worth I just what is the case.
If I could have told Wittgenstein that.