What do you think?
Rate this book
Exploring Metaphysics
Length: 11 hours and 24 minutes
What comes to mind when you hear the word “metaphysics”? Forget the ancient philosophers and ivory tower professors pontificating on irrelevant abstractions. The truth is, while metaphysics is among the oldest strands of philosophical thought—an inquiry into the very nature of
reality—metaphysics is also on the cutting edge of today’s scientific discoveries.
What comes to mind when you hear the word “metaphysics”? Forget the ancient philosophers and ivory tower professors pontificating on irrelevant abstractions. The truth is, while metaphysics is among the oldest strands of philosophical thought—an inquiry into the very nature of
reality—metaphysics is also on the cutting edge of today’s scientific discoveries.
12 pages, Audible Audio
First published May 2, 2014
28 people are currently reading
201 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
July 26, 2017
I enjoy the subject of metaphysics to a great degree, however, I was very disappointed with this lecturer. I think it should re-titled to more appropriately fit the actual subject, more on that later. You should know that I carry some biases concerning these subjects. (Unlike the lecturer, I believe in full-disclosure.) I've studied both sides, particularly regarding determinism vs indeterminism and theism vs atheism, and I think that both sides present very compelling arguments but that no side concludes to any irrefutable position. Therefore, it really comes down to a matter of preference or faith in one side or another. Yes, you heard me right, in order to be an atheist you must have faith in it or at least in the arguments for it, just like a theist. Now for my bias, which is that I'm am an agnostic who sympathies with the belief in God or Gods, morality, free will and indeterminism.
I am of the opinion that, as a teacher, one should try not to give way to any biases of opinion regarding matters of a nonempirical nature, such as philosophy and metaphysics. Also, as a teacher one should guide learning as opposed to directing it to any predetermined way as learning happens in the mind of the learner. Given the content of these lecture it is very apparent that Dr. David Johnson is of the atheist and determinist persuasion. Johnson poorly represent the opposing views and directs his listeners to the only conclusion of that of his own atheistic and deterministic conclusions.
Throughout his lecture, Johnson refers to the Branch of Philosophy known as Epistemology as the only way to refute his arguments for atheism and determinism. When he does so he is saying something akin to, "Epistemologist would argue, however, that we just cannot know because nothing is really knowable..." and it comes off as smug and snarky, at least to my interpretation and it is further reinforced as he follows up by saying "..but that's not very intellectually satisfying!".
First, this is a logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum or reduction to absurdity.
Second, this is an oversimplification of Epistemology as it deals with many more philosophical issues and questions.
Third, Johnson doesn't fully represent the opposing viewpoint and thereby leaves the only conclusion to the listener as his own as if it was a forgone conclusion by way of his logic. This is a repulsively gross oversight in philosophy which may be permitted only in rhetoric, but never in the teaching of philosophy or metaphysics.
See: List of Logical Fallacies
Given proper representation of both sides of the arguments of determinism and of religious belief, the only rational conclusion is that of agnosticism unless one possesses a bias toward one belief or another. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. Atheism, therefore, is entirely an unscientific position so Johnson drones on employing the use of Kettle Logic to defend his positions. He fails to realize that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Doing otherwise and claiming that you can empirically state on one side of the issue or the other means you fell victim to several logical fallacies such as, Conjunction fallacy, Existential fallacy, syllogistic fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and several more. The reason I am a skeptic of Atheism is that, one simply cannot conclude a priori the nonexistence of a God or Gods, further, Theism states that such a leap of faith or belief is permissible, on the other hand, Atheism says that faith is irrational as such Atheism self defeating from my perspective. My further skepticism is, admittedly, fueled by more hopeful and wishful thinking on the grounds to solve the problem of moral relativism, nihilism, and the purpose of life and existence to humanity in particular. Unlike Johnson, I happily admit to faith upon these grounds.
It does not follow that the lack of a God or Gods means there is determinism. In fact, some deterministic theories require a God. Addressing some views on determinism, predictability is an issue entirely separate from determinism, since we can have deterministic (chaotic) systems that are for all effective purposes unpredictable, and stochastic (quantum) systems that are nonetheless predictable to a very high degree of accuracy. In a paper by Carl Hoefer he cites a paper by Suppes which essentally concludes: “There are processes which can equally well be analyzed as deterministic systems of classical mechanics or as indeterministic semi-Markov processes, no matter how many observations are made ... Deterministic metaphysicians can comfortably hold to their view knowing they cannot be empirically refuted, but so can indeterministic ones as well.” Can you say a-g-n-o-s-t-i-c, Dr. Johnson?
I'd love to keep going but this distracting from the point of the review. I may be coming across as a bit harsh but from my perspective it is well deserving as Johnson has violated the cardinal rules of teaching philosophy. Unfortunately, as an agnostic in many things I often find myself always arguing the opposition or playing the devil's advocate whether or not I actually agree. It seems that I'm contrary just for contrary's sake but really many times its just because I can generally see both sides of the issue. While there is both a virtue and a vice in this behavior, I do actually have opinions but I try not to simply impose them on others, instead I like to make people think for themselves instead of searching for a social form of bias confirmation by me simply agreeing with them. I don't have many friends though and, no, I have no ambitions of being a teacher of philosophy. I'm still trying to sort it all out. Fortunately we have people like Dr. Johnson to properly instruct us on what we can just ignore and how we should think.
In short, David Kyle Johnson certainly does present a good argument for his beliefs, does a good job narrowing the discussion to his bias, and seems to just generally love to hear the sound of his own voice as he teaches his point of view as the only one available to rational thinkers. As he "teaches", it's apparent that Dr. Johnson evidently holds a high regard concerning himself, his own judgement and authority, and his viewpoints. One of the most aggravating aspects of his "teaching," to my comparatively lowly ignorant mind, is that he lends more credence to the idea of the universe being a computer simulation than he does to the idea of a God or Gods, evident in how he has little in the way of skeptical commentary to make on this theory as opposed to theism other than it's a 1/5 chance. No way that a deity could be even a 1/5 chance, right Mr. Johnson? Need I remark that Mr. Johnson is arrogant in his philosophical teaching and additionally seems to wish to indoctrinate his students in his superior way of thinking. We are all guilty of biases, Mr. Johnson, but as a so called teacher, yours should be the least apparent. Johnson likely opposes the indoctrination of religion and theism, however, the ends apparently justify the means as long as its atheism and determinism we're indoctrinating. I'm sure that if you are his student and you dare to contradict him, then you may see it reflected on your grade.
Now, all that stated, the lecture -while at least 1/2 to 1/3 biasly influenced- was not that bad if you can simply ignore the stench of arrogance. I can honestly say that the lecture was definitely intellectually stimulating. Maybe I'll bump it up a star just on those grounds.
On the title: If the title stated that it was about Mr. Johnson's personal biases in metaphysics, then what could one do but rate it 5 stars, after all that is exactly what was presented. But no, the title was "Exploring Metaphysics" which is far to vague regarding the actual content. The lecture should be perhaps re-titled, "Exploring Why David Kyle Johnson Believes in Particular Things on the Subject of Metaphysics". Hmm, too long let me try again. "My Beliefs in Metaphysics, and My Struggle to Have You Believe It" Still too long... How 'bout this, simply "My Struggle". There you go, short and to the point, err... just don't publish it in German, or it may become confused with something else.
Highly Recommended to:
Atheists seeking a good time with confirmation bias,
Theists desiring agitation,
Agnostics seeking disappointment,
Determinists in need of confirmation bias,
Indeterminists searching for a clumsy dance partner,
Teachers of Philosophy in need of a bad example,
Nihilists of whom need yet another reason to just end it all,
Lemmings of David Kyle Johnson,
Intelligent Beings of whom are in need instruction on how to think like Dr. Johnson,
Dr, Johnson's Clone,
Person's in need of examples of idiots in academia,
Atheist Members of the New Socialist World Order
I am of the opinion that, as a teacher, one should try not to give way to any biases of opinion regarding matters of a nonempirical nature, such as philosophy and metaphysics. Also, as a teacher one should guide learning as opposed to directing it to any predetermined way as learning happens in the mind of the learner. Given the content of these lecture it is very apparent that Dr. David Johnson is of the atheist and determinist persuasion. Johnson poorly represent the opposing views and directs his listeners to the only conclusion of that of his own atheistic and deterministic conclusions.
Throughout his lecture, Johnson refers to the Branch of Philosophy known as Epistemology as the only way to refute his arguments for atheism and determinism. When he does so he is saying something akin to, "Epistemologist would argue, however, that we just cannot know because nothing is really knowable..." and it comes off as smug and snarky, at least to my interpretation and it is further reinforced as he follows up by saying "..but that's not very intellectually satisfying!".
First, this is a logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum or reduction to absurdity.
Second, this is an oversimplification of Epistemology as it deals with many more philosophical issues and questions.
Third, Johnson doesn't fully represent the opposing viewpoint and thereby leaves the only conclusion to the listener as his own as if it was a forgone conclusion by way of his logic. This is a repulsively gross oversight in philosophy which may be permitted only in rhetoric, but never in the teaching of philosophy or metaphysics.
See: List of Logical Fallacies
Given proper representation of both sides of the arguments of determinism and of religious belief, the only rational conclusion is that of agnosticism unless one possesses a bias toward one belief or another. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. Atheism, therefore, is entirely an unscientific position so Johnson drones on employing the use of Kettle Logic to defend his positions. He fails to realize that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Doing otherwise and claiming that you can empirically state on one side of the issue or the other means you fell victim to several logical fallacies such as, Conjunction fallacy, Existential fallacy, syllogistic fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and several more. The reason I am a skeptic of Atheism is that, one simply cannot conclude a priori the nonexistence of a God or Gods, further, Theism states that such a leap of faith or belief is permissible, on the other hand, Atheism says that faith is irrational as such Atheism self defeating from my perspective. My further skepticism is, admittedly, fueled by more hopeful and wishful thinking on the grounds to solve the problem of moral relativism, nihilism, and the purpose of life and existence to humanity in particular. Unlike Johnson, I happily admit to faith upon these grounds.
It does not follow that the lack of a God or Gods means there is determinism. In fact, some deterministic theories require a God. Addressing some views on determinism, predictability is an issue entirely separate from determinism, since we can have deterministic (chaotic) systems that are for all effective purposes unpredictable, and stochastic (quantum) systems that are nonetheless predictable to a very high degree of accuracy. In a paper by Carl Hoefer he cites a paper by Suppes which essentally concludes: “There are processes which can equally well be analyzed as deterministic systems of classical mechanics or as indeterministic semi-Markov processes, no matter how many observations are made ... Deterministic metaphysicians can comfortably hold to their view knowing they cannot be empirically refuted, but so can indeterministic ones as well.” Can you say a-g-n-o-s-t-i-c, Dr. Johnson?
I'd love to keep going but this distracting from the point of the review. I may be coming across as a bit harsh but from my perspective it is well deserving as Johnson has violated the cardinal rules of teaching philosophy. Unfortunately, as an agnostic in many things I often find myself always arguing the opposition or playing the devil's advocate whether or not I actually agree. It seems that I'm contrary just for contrary's sake but really many times its just because I can generally see both sides of the issue. While there is both a virtue and a vice in this behavior, I do actually have opinions but I try not to simply impose them on others, instead I like to make people think for themselves instead of searching for a social form of bias confirmation by me simply agreeing with them. I don't have many friends though and, no, I have no ambitions of being a teacher of philosophy. I'm still trying to sort it all out. Fortunately we have people like Dr. Johnson to properly instruct us on what we can just ignore and how we should think.
In short, David Kyle Johnson certainly does present a good argument for his beliefs, does a good job narrowing the discussion to his bias, and seems to just generally love to hear the sound of his own voice as he teaches his point of view as the only one available to rational thinkers. As he "teaches", it's apparent that Dr. Johnson evidently holds a high regard concerning himself, his own judgement and authority, and his viewpoints. One of the most aggravating aspects of his "teaching," to my comparatively lowly ignorant mind, is that he lends more credence to the idea of the universe being a computer simulation than he does to the idea of a God or Gods, evident in how he has little in the way of skeptical commentary to make on this theory as opposed to theism other than it's a 1/5 chance. No way that a deity could be even a 1/5 chance, right Mr. Johnson? Need I remark that Mr. Johnson is arrogant in his philosophical teaching and additionally seems to wish to indoctrinate his students in his superior way of thinking. We are all guilty of biases, Mr. Johnson, but as a so called teacher, yours should be the least apparent. Johnson likely opposes the indoctrination of religion and theism, however, the ends apparently justify the means as long as its atheism and determinism we're indoctrinating. I'm sure that if you are his student and you dare to contradict him, then you may see it reflected on your grade.
Now, all that stated, the lecture -while at least 1/2 to 1/3 biasly influenced- was not that bad if you can simply ignore the stench of arrogance. I can honestly say that the lecture was definitely intellectually stimulating. Maybe I'll bump it up a star just on those grounds.
On the title: If the title stated that it was about Mr. Johnson's personal biases in metaphysics, then what could one do but rate it 5 stars, after all that is exactly what was presented. But no, the title was "Exploring Metaphysics" which is far to vague regarding the actual content. The lecture should be perhaps re-titled, "Exploring Why David Kyle Johnson Believes in Particular Things on the Subject of Metaphysics". Hmm, too long let me try again. "My Beliefs in Metaphysics, and My Struggle to Have You Believe It" Still too long... How 'bout this, simply "My Struggle". There you go, short and to the point, err... just don't publish it in German, or it may become confused with something else.
Highly Recommended to:
Atheists seeking a good time with confirmation bias,
Theists desiring agitation,
Agnostics seeking disappointment,
Determinists in need of confirmation bias,
Indeterminists searching for a clumsy dance partner,
Teachers of Philosophy in need of a bad example,
Nihilists of whom need yet another reason to just end it all,
Lemmings of David Kyle Johnson,
Intelligent Beings of whom are in need instruction on how to think like Dr. Johnson,
Dr, Johnson's Clone,
Person's in need of examples of idiots in academia,
Atheist Members of the New Socialist World Order
January 6, 2021
I like learning things that blow my mind. There are so many things about physics, quantum physics, theology, philosophy, etc, that fall under the heading of metaphysics that I think are unbelievably delightful. When I find myself understanding a well explained concept, I actually laugh with joy.
I laughed so much listening to this lecture series! Of course I didn't understand all of it, but most of it was presented in a way that I was able to grasp the basics, and to use my creativity and imagination to embrace the truly metaphysical.
I do have to admit I have the type of mind that tends this way. I am the daughter of a physicist, and we had many wonderful discussions when I was a girl.
I have gotten enough of the basics from this course to take it to the next level.
I laughed so much listening to this lecture series! Of course I didn't understand all of it, but most of it was presented in a way that I was able to grasp the basics, and to use my creativity and imagination to embrace the truly metaphysical.
I do have to admit I have the type of mind that tends this way. I am the daughter of a physicist, and we had many wonderful discussions when I was a girl.
I have gotten enough of the basics from this course to take it to the next level.
July 17, 2015
This was an extraordinarily good lecture series. The science that explains the best way of thinking about the problem was always at the center of the lecture. I had not realize that most of my readings about science and philosophy had met at the intersection of metaphysics so nicely until I listened to this series. I will end up getting a book on metaphysics because I can't find any more on this topic at audible. For me, I hate reading and it's a real compliment to this lecturer because I'm even willing to read a book on the topic because of this lecture. I wish the author had more lectures or even a book out there but I can't seem to find any at Amazon.
There wasn't a single topic that he talked about that I didn't find exciting. He starts off by talking about the mind body dichotomy and what this means for the soul. He doesn't mince words. The soul comes about mostly from just silly propositions (and is not fundamental to Christianity until after 300 A.D.), but he says repeatedly in the series just because it is a silly argument doesn't necessarily mean the proposition is faulty. He doesn't miss a single argument on what consciousness is and gives all reasonable hypotheses their due.
He looks at all the classic proofs for the existence of God (ontological, design, morality, first cause) and pretty much shows why they are silly. Now days, instead of 'by design', because Darwin has completely eviscerated those arguments, they talk about 'fine tuning' instead. The fine tuning arguments are the hardest to refute because they are the hardest to explain without understanding a bunch of physics. He does a fairly nice job.
After looking at the mind he delves into the nature of the physical reality. Why Einstein is so important for our understanding about space and time and what does free will really mean and is time fundamental or an emergent property? Einstein takes time out of the universe (with his block universe) and space has no substance (unlike Newton and his bucket of water) and all is relational.
The best way to look at this lecture series is not as a pointless set of discussions about esoteric matters on reality, but as a summary of the best thoughts on how multiple experts understand the world. He really got into quantum physics and discusses why it is so weird (measurement problem, entanglement, double split experiment, ...), and he gives the best summary on Bell's experiment I've heard and tells why there are no hidden variables explaining 'spooky action as a distance' and what entanglement is.
Make no mistake about it. There is some references to long ago dead philosopher's, but this lecture is at the cutting edge of science and it would be a rare listener who would not learn some science that they did not already know from this lecture.
There wasn't a single topic that he talked about that I didn't find exciting. He starts off by talking about the mind body dichotomy and what this means for the soul. He doesn't mince words. The soul comes about mostly from just silly propositions (and is not fundamental to Christianity until after 300 A.D.), but he says repeatedly in the series just because it is a silly argument doesn't necessarily mean the proposition is faulty. He doesn't miss a single argument on what consciousness is and gives all reasonable hypotheses their due.
He looks at all the classic proofs for the existence of God (ontological, design, morality, first cause) and pretty much shows why they are silly. Now days, instead of 'by design', because Darwin has completely eviscerated those arguments, they talk about 'fine tuning' instead. The fine tuning arguments are the hardest to refute because they are the hardest to explain without understanding a bunch of physics. He does a fairly nice job.
After looking at the mind he delves into the nature of the physical reality. Why Einstein is so important for our understanding about space and time and what does free will really mean and is time fundamental or an emergent property? Einstein takes time out of the universe (with his block universe) and space has no substance (unlike Newton and his bucket of water) and all is relational.
The best way to look at this lecture series is not as a pointless set of discussions about esoteric matters on reality, but as a summary of the best thoughts on how multiple experts understand the world. He really got into quantum physics and discusses why it is so weird (measurement problem, entanglement, double split experiment, ...), and he gives the best summary on Bell's experiment I've heard and tells why there are no hidden variables explaining 'spooky action as a distance' and what entanglement is.
Make no mistake about it. There is some references to long ago dead philosopher's, but this lecture is at the cutting edge of science and it would be a rare listener who would not learn some science that they did not already know from this lecture.
May 25, 2022
The lecture series takes the listener through a fascinating journey of the mind that covers a wide universe. From fundamental questions about reality, consciousness, the mind, the brain, and free will, it goes into relativity, quantum mechanics, and musings about the time travel, multiverse, and reality as a simulation. This exciting journey happens through a series of extremely well-articulated arguments. It has the clarity and elegance of mathematical proof. A trained philosopher may be less convinced about his chain of arguments, but that is inevitable when dealing with such fundamental ideas.
I would highly recommend this lecture series to anyone interested in these basic and essential questions.
I would highly recommend this lecture series to anyone interested in these basic and essential questions.
February 1, 2015
The Great Courses have lived up to the name on each of my previous selections, so perhaps I should chalk this up as an "it's not you, it's me" situation and move on. I am a nerdy kinda guy and very intrigued with physics, cosmology and some of the more esoteric questions about how life the universe and everything got started. Exploring Metaphysics should be a logical expansion of my interests. Questions about the nature of self, personhood, time, and reality are fantastic questions. I spend more time then I should admit debating and filling notebooks with my musings on these subjects, but apparently the actual discourse of metaphysics is indistinguishable from philosophy and utterly irks me. It is a dizzying knot of conjecture which in each case seems to present absurd dualities citing again and again, "if this is true, then the opposite must necessarily be false". This maxim and many like it create logical levers which pry at and build on each preceding supposition until we ramble into some "QED" which invariably is qualified as "still very much in debate"... no shit.
December 11, 2018
This is not well done at all...a total emphasis on science and little discussion of transcendent issues of theology. I would not recommend this series.
January 8, 2023
Content is fascinating, but the professor’s hype level is at like 150/100 for the entire duration. It got to feeling a little overwhelming for someone who is introverted (actually, he’s so hype that anyone might end up feeling overstimulated), but it did inspire me to learn more about the topic. Spoiler: there’s roughly a 20% chance that we’re living in a computer simulation right now. 🤣
February 23, 2021
Excellent instructor, great course... But then again this is one of my all-time favourite topics so I'm biased...
March 20, 2025
Loved every metaphysical “second” of it.
April 22, 2022
As a scholar, it's a travesty that someone so intellectually incompetent would be permitted to speak at the university level. Frankly, it's indicative of the problem with our whole academic system. I listened to the speaker mindlessly drone on for hours upon hours, contradicting himself in regards to moral responsibility and the justice system, amid other things. The only thing that he held firmly to is his undying affection for Johnny Rocket's Sweet Potato fries to the extent that it has made me want to try them for purely scientific reasons. This was another case of someone trying to talk on deep issues that pale in comparison to those who actually think deep thoughts. He's a confused man, who claims that he decidedly can't help it - even though he states he doesn't have the ability to decide. Basically, he can't see the woods for the trees. This is another sad moment for the American Educational System. Additionally, the very fact that the series was entitled "Great Courses" is misleading. ...With that said, it'd do no good to debate this man as he lacks the perspicacity to discern the simplest of things, and that which he does - he denies.
March 9, 2022
I really enjoy listening or reading about subjects that I have little to no previous experience with which is the reason why I picked up this book. I found the first half or so of this book interesting if confusing. The thought experiments, even though there really isn't a correct answer, were interesting and made me think about stuff I never have before.
The last portion, when it got into physics and quantum mechanics, left me way behind. Again still interesting but way over my head.
I wish I had a more intelligent review on this book but I think after learning that we have about a 20% chance that we are living in a matrix my mind was blown.
The last portion, when it got into physics and quantum mechanics, left me way behind. Again still interesting but way over my head.
I wish I had a more intelligent review on this book but I think after learning that we have about a 20% chance that we are living in a matrix my mind was blown.
May 28, 2014
Got a little heavy near the end, but all around engaging, entertaining, and most importantly, understandable.
May 26, 2016
3.5 stars. There were parts of this I really enjoyed. And then there were parts (specifically on quantum physics) that left me wishing I had been born with a bigger brain. My head hurts.
December 18, 2020
Amazing topic. 3/5 presentation. I gave it a 4/5 to counterbalance some of the ding dongs giving it a 1 for its perceived threat to their belief systems. It’s a good solid take on metaphysics.
January 28, 2020
Really a 2.5 I think, but I'll be generous and round up. I did enjoy a fair chunk of the series, but it got tiresome after a time. Many sections (especially in regards to questions of consciousness and personhood) focused heavily on thought experiments that I found obnoxious for two reasons: firstly, my intuitions about the thought experiments were often the opposite of those assumed by the lecturer, and therefore given only passing acknowledgement near the end of their respective sections; and secondly, I disagree with his assertion that the possibility or probability of a thought experiment doesn't matter, that it should only be a tool to uncover your intuitions; I think the possibility of something is very relevant to how it would impact our understanding of the world.
I also think he frames some of the arguments incorrectly. For example, when examining the idea of "truth" he makes an assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth and he uses this to argue that the past and future somehow exist at the same time as the present, since otherwise there couldn't be true statements about the past or future, but that argument is backwards. When we talk about truth, we are really talking about what we known and believe, and how certain we are of those beliefs; there may be some objective truth, but it is inaccessible and irrelevant to human endeavors. There is a similar problem in the contemplation of personhood; the lecturer confuses the idea of there being some objective definition of a person with the fact that a person is defined more nebulously in common usage. And I think some of the thought experiments here are especially problematic. In particular, there is the question of if a person who has lost their memory is still the same person they were before. But I think in real-world cases of dementia or similar diseases, the very thing that is hard for the afflicted's friends and family is how their loved one is both present in form and in some aspects of memory and personality, but is also not the same person in other ways. Constructing thought experiments around this to have some ivory-tower examination of the idea trivializes the issue and misses the point.
Also, I think he is flat out wrong in part of his exploration of quantum mechanics. In particular, he asserts that there in regards to a quantum phenomenon, there is a difference between merely making a measurement, and of actually observing the measurement with some form of consciousness, with only the case where an observation is made leading to wave function collapse. I'm not an expert on quantum mechanics, but that is not my understanding of how it works, and I've not been able to find support for his interpretation; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case, with "observation" being synonymous with taking a measurement and having a conscious mind seeing the measurement being completely irrelevant.
I could go on, reacting to issues with the arguments, but it doesn't seem worth it. I think I'll stick with the 3-star rating since it was an interesting exercise to contemplate these various ideas, even if I disagree with some of the approaches or conclusions.
I also think he frames some of the arguments incorrectly. For example, when examining the idea of "truth" he makes an assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth and he uses this to argue that the past and future somehow exist at the same time as the present, since otherwise there couldn't be true statements about the past or future, but that argument is backwards. When we talk about truth, we are really talking about what we known and believe, and how certain we are of those beliefs; there may be some objective truth, but it is inaccessible and irrelevant to human endeavors. There is a similar problem in the contemplation of personhood; the lecturer confuses the idea of there being some objective definition of a person with the fact that a person is defined more nebulously in common usage. And I think some of the thought experiments here are especially problematic. In particular, there is the question of if a person who has lost their memory is still the same person they were before. But I think in real-world cases of dementia or similar diseases, the very thing that is hard for the afflicted's friends and family is how their loved one is both present in form and in some aspects of memory and personality, but is also not the same person in other ways. Constructing thought experiments around this to have some ivory-tower examination of the idea trivializes the issue and misses the point.
Also, I think he is flat out wrong in part of his exploration of quantum mechanics. In particular, he asserts that there in regards to a quantum phenomenon, there is a difference between merely making a measurement, and of actually observing the measurement with some form of consciousness, with only the case where an observation is made leading to wave function collapse. I'm not an expert on quantum mechanics, but that is not my understanding of how it works, and I've not been able to find support for his interpretation; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case, with "observation" being synonymous with taking a measurement and having a conscious mind seeing the measurement being completely irrelevant.
I could go on, reacting to issues with the arguments, but it doesn't seem worth it. I think I'll stick with the 3-star rating since it was an interesting exercise to contemplate these various ideas, even if I disagree with some of the approaches or conclusions.
January 14, 2022
"It was okay." - 2 out of 5 star rating.
The reason why this hits so low is because pretty much all of the material is something I have already been exposed to. Someone who has never touched any of these topics are more than likely the folks dropping 5 stars for this, and I can't blame them. If this was my first, I would probably be all sorts of shocked and excited too, but I want to be true to myself and the review reflect accordingly.
Standard stuff you would expect from "After Physics" aka Metaphysics lectures:
- God/Gods/spirituality debate
- Brain vs Mind
- Artificial Intelligence discussion
- Aliens
- Souls
- Teleportation Dilemma
- Lots of Sci-fi references, loaded with tons of theory crafting to the right of them
I feel like the author isn't exactly a pillar of neutrality here. He expresses more of a Carl Sagan point of view, versus a believer/religious zealot perspective. Nothing wrong with that! It's his Great Course and I welcome his creative freedom, zero issues whatsoever from me on this. However, my wife is an example of a person who is really bothered by this. With that said, if you are a diehard believe of faith xyz, and the thought of someone having the audacity to think different than you, this will probably upset you.
It's a good course, just unfortunately nothing new and just refresher material for me.
The reason why this hits so low is because pretty much all of the material is something I have already been exposed to. Someone who has never touched any of these topics are more than likely the folks dropping 5 stars for this, and I can't blame them. If this was my first, I would probably be all sorts of shocked and excited too, but I want to be true to myself and the review reflect accordingly.
Standard stuff you would expect from "After Physics" aka Metaphysics lectures:
- God/Gods/spirituality debate
- Brain vs Mind
- Artificial Intelligence discussion
- Aliens
- Souls
- Teleportation Dilemma
- Lots of Sci-fi references, loaded with tons of theory crafting to the right of them
I feel like the author isn't exactly a pillar of neutrality here. He expresses more of a Carl Sagan point of view, versus a believer/religious zealot perspective. Nothing wrong with that! It's his Great Course and I welcome his creative freedom, zero issues whatsoever from me on this. However, my wife is an example of a person who is really bothered by this. With that said, if you are a diehard believe of faith xyz, and the thought of someone having the audacity to think different than you, this will probably upset you.
It's a good course, just unfortunately nothing new and just refresher material for me.
July 11, 2018
As far as Great Courses go, this one was... okay. The subject matter was fascinating - exploring various philosophical arguments for whether or not MINDS exist, whether or not PERSONS exist, the nature of causality and TIME, arguments for and against the existence of God in the traditional perspective, and a look at the nature of the universe itself based on philosophy and modern advancements in quantum physics and relativity.
While I definitely learned a decent amount, I struggled with the presentation. The lecturer's voice was a bit grating and his cheesy examples were painful, constantly looking for the most "spontaneous" example. For a supposedly unbiased set of lectures, it was painfully biased at times which made it hard to focus on the subject matter.
That said, as someone without a lot of exposure to Metaphysics, this was a great starting point and it's given me knowledge of where I'd like to focus my future investments in this field.
While I definitely learned a decent amount, I struggled with the presentation. The lecturer's voice was a bit grating and his cheesy examples were painful, constantly looking for the most "spontaneous" example. For a supposedly unbiased set of lectures, it was painfully biased at times which made it hard to focus on the subject matter.
That said, as someone without a lot of exposure to Metaphysics, this was a great starting point and it's given me knowledge of where I'd like to focus my future investments in this field.
August 22, 2023
Incredibly good,
Explains very complex topics in such a clear way that if you are a layman like me will understand with no major problems.
I absolutely recommend it, unless you are really sensitive to topics such as the existence of the self (the lessons with the ship of thesseus and the star trek paradox are amazing, though) and free will. This might give you an existential crisis-induced panic attack.
Still, the author is not biased toward any perspective, and will never say that one thing or the other is correct. I believe that if some statement or the other conflicts with your views, this should not stop you from enjoying the course - it helps one understand what others think about the world. Its fascinating, even if you are not willing to accept some things. I don´t see why not, though, as it should be clear after going through it, there is so much that we don´t understand.
Its great
Explains very complex topics in such a clear way that if you are a layman like me will understand with no major problems.
I absolutely recommend it, unless you are really sensitive to topics such as the existence of the self (the lessons with the ship of thesseus and the star trek paradox are amazing, though) and free will. This might give you an existential crisis-induced panic attack.
Still, the author is not biased toward any perspective, and will never say that one thing or the other is correct. I believe that if some statement or the other conflicts with your views, this should not stop you from enjoying the course - it helps one understand what others think about the world. Its fascinating, even if you are not willing to accept some things. I don´t see why not, though, as it should be clear after going through it, there is so much that we don´t understand.
Its great
February 19, 2019
I really really want to understand quantum physics... I was hoping this course would give me a solid foundation... in fact it’s mostly a metaphysical philosophy course which essentially leaves you questioning everything. It’s absolutely fascinating especially all of the fun thought experiments with in each of the lectures... it’s also really hard to get your head fully around...it’s like watching a French film without the subtitles... I know a little French and I can certainly figure out the story based on the images but I know I’m not really understanding everything that’s happening because brain is missing an important foundation in math...
March 29, 2019
My feelings thoughts on these lectures kept changing throughout the whole course, I found myself intrigued at times and opposed at times to some of the points being brought across, maybe that's the whole point of exploring metaphysics. I'd initially decided to review it as "Intellectually unsatisfying" but I think the last few chapters revived my intrigue hence the final mild enjoyment of 3 stars.
Finally, I think the topics are very interesting but presented by a somewhat bias lecturer who at times tries to force an opinion rather than have the listener ruminate on what they were listening to.
Would I recommend it to anyone? Maybe
Finally, I think the topics are very interesting but presented by a somewhat bias lecturer who at times tries to force an opinion rather than have the listener ruminate on what they were listening to.
Would I recommend it to anyone? Maybe
November 11, 2021
I'll be honest, I'm kind of an idiot. I didn't really know what metaphysics was before reading. I ashamedly admit I used "supernatural" and "metaphysical" as somewhat synonymous.
At any rate metaphysics as it relates to focusing on the "first principles" of everything with the mind being a key focus, it's right down my alley.
Excellent primer at least for the thick headed like me, maybe not so much for those who already know what metaphysics is?
At any rate metaphysics as it relates to focusing on the "first principles" of everything with the mind being a key focus, it's right down my alley.
Excellent primer at least for the thick headed like me, maybe not so much for those who already know what metaphysics is?
February 3, 2024
This is a very good mind bending educational course covering both metaphysics and popular science topics such as relativity and quantum mechanics. It delves deep into philosophy, which was my favorite part. At times some subject matter went above my head on the first run through. I definitely recommend this to anybody interested in metaphysics, philosophy, or an investigation into the big questions about our existence and the existence of the cosmos.
August 27, 2019
It will probably blow you mind, not brain or head, or it may not, you will never know until you listen to it, and even then you will not be sure.
It covers practicaly every aspect of the metaphysics in short, constructive and metaphoricaly rich discourse, that goes from a simple problems of the mind anf soul to the great infinity of the space and beyond.
It covers practicaly every aspect of the metaphysics in short, constructive and metaphoricaly rich discourse, that goes from a simple problems of the mind anf soul to the great infinity of the space and beyond.
May 7, 2022
A few of the lectures were a little head-scratching and made me feel dumb, but most of these were wonderful. Pondering on the soul, the existence of the person and the mind-bending nature of quantum mechanics was wonderful and I think this may have sparked a new interest of mine in metaphysics. The wave-particle connection to the idea we live in a computer simulation screwed me up.
October 4, 2017
Thorough, detailed and fast paced, more like a mental adventure than pure lecture. That said, sometimes it felt like conclusions came on too quickly and was highly opinionated. Thankfully for me, I was of a similar mind.
June 27, 2019
Power through the first 4 chapters and it really gets the juices flowing, but might be better as a written book. I audio booked this, and the fella has a very unfortunate voice that you have to stomach to enjoy the content.
July 28, 2019
He covered the breadth of topics really well, and had some novel ways of explaining certain concepts. However, he seemed to put religious, specifically christian metaphysics on an equal footing to other theories. I get you have to cater to a market, but it was a thorn in the series for me.
September 11, 2019
oh my god this is way too much fun. I love that Frank Tipler is mentions and the more far out stuff, multi-world multi-universe, and the face that light behaved differently when we observe it might be the cosmo computer's way to save on ram..
February 15, 2021
Thought provoking.
The author is a bit off-putting in his opinions, but usually makes logical conclusions... with which you may or may not agree. Topics such as self, mind, the 'soul' and consciousness are elusive and not easily defined, let alone explained.
Worthwhile and entertaining.
Recommended
The author is a bit off-putting in his opinions, but usually makes logical conclusions... with which you may or may not agree. Topics such as self, mind, the 'soul' and consciousness are elusive and not easily defined, let alone explained.
Worthwhile and entertaining.
Recommended
April 20, 2022
Well, the author does a good job describing some interesting issues, but enlightenment metaphysics are incredibly stupid and not particularly worthwhile. Best to take the enlightenment and flush it down the toilet - where it belongs.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews