OK, I want to start with some stuff we were discussing last time and some student questions. So first of all, somebody asked the question when we were talking about causality, and Hobbs claimed that we have experience that one thing causes another, for example, fire and heating or ice and cooling. And that experience is our only basis for that. And so when we claim that fire causes warming, we're relating that back to an experience we had and something that actually occurred in sense, not just the fire or the warmth but seeing them conjoined. And then he further said that this isn't just a matter of the meaning of the word fire or the meaning of the word hot or the meaning of the word ice or the meaning of the word cold as in claims about a triangle being a three-sided figure or something. That is a matter of what those names are. And possibly a claim like that the interior angles of the triangle added to the sum of two right angles is something that we can unpack from the meaning of those terms. But we can't unpack causality, necessarily, from the meaning of terms whose truth we have to relate back to sensation. And in those cases, we depend on probabilities. So we say it's very probably true that fire is going to warm that thing as opposed to cooling it or that ice is going to cool it instead of warming it. But we can't say that with certainty like we can say that the interior angles of the triangle add up to the sum of two right angles. There is no question, both in the past, in the future and in the present, that that statement is true because that is merely to unpack the meanings of those words, whereas that will never be the case with the causal claim. Now, as the examples show, we can be pretty sure. And if anybody wants to place a million to one bet that the next time you try the experiment of holding a lighter under your hand or putting ice in your hand, that it's going to be warm or cold, I'll take that bet. But the point is that we cannot say that with certainty because the next time we do it, something else could happen or even the opposite could happen. All we have to go on is sensation. Now, we're going to revisit that issue because Hume takes that to be a crucial point about causality and reaches a lot of skeptical conclusions on its basis. But some students said, well, what about laws of nature? Isn't it a law of nature that fire warms instead of cools or that ice cools instead of warms? And how does that come into Hobbes' thesis? Is the person who asked that question willing to identify themselves? Because I think it was a good question. Yes, OK. Thank you. What's your name? Yuval. Yuval. OK. The fact of the matter is that Hobbes does have an idea of laws of nature and natural laws. But they only come in when we start talking about civil, civic philosophy, civil philosophy, political philosophy. Because laws are things created by humans and imposed on other humans. So the term natural law or law of nature is actually really confusing because it's as if some human-imposed institution could affect or govern physical entities that don't have minds and don't have any. So it's not the case that fire, when it warms things up, is obeying some law that some humans that I require fire to heat things up instead of cool it. And it better watch out because I'll punish this piece of fire if it doesn't do that. That would be a law. So in that sense of laws of nature, there is no such thing. It's a metaphorical way of talking. It actually relates to an idea that God created all of this stuff and then God imposed laws on all of those things.  Now, whatever merits there are of that position, Hobbes rejects it totally. God didn't create everything. And God didn't give laws to inanimate objects. And inanimate objects don't cause the things they do because they're following laws. And so this is actually a really, really important point in Hobbes is that he, unlike a lot of his predecessors, does not use the terms laws of nature or natural law in that metaphorical and confusing way. He uses it for laws that people impose on others on the basis of human nature. So the law that says that you must obey an authority figure like the sovereign of the state or something has to do with his theory about human nature. And humans can, of course, design laws. And humans can break laws, whereas inanimate objects can't break laws. Gravity, we say gravity. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.  And similarly, there's no way for it to actually obey anything. So this is a big difference with Hobbes is that this confusing metaphorical talk of laws of nature as if inanimate objects could obey human-like laws, he rejects completely. So he's going to have to come up with another theory of what science is and what science does. So first, on background of what knowledge and science are here used simultaneously. See, there's this corrupt thing that people no longer use Greek. But the Greek term here is epistemi. That can be translated knowledge or science. And so Hobbes uses both of them. Epistemi is where we get the term epistemology. And that's what we're dealing with here, the theory of what knowledge or what science is. Now, he says there's two conditions for knowledge. So when we think we have knowledge, we think we have access to two things. One, truth, and two, evidence. And this is basically still the concept of knowledge that we operate with.  And it's a very problematic and in fact unsatisfactory one. But it's the best one we have going. So in Plato's dialogue Theatetus, he showed that knowledge is not just truth because you can know something is true without, you can accept that something is true without knowing that it's true. Okay, and it's not just truth plus some account because people can give an account of anything. And even if something that's true and it still wouldn't constitute knowledge. And so he said, well, maybe it's some kind of justified true account, justified true belief. Okay, and we still essentially work with that definition of knowledge, that knowledge is justified true belief. So that's what we say. That's what we tell undergraduate students to reassure them that we actually have a theory of knowledge. But there are counter examples and problems with every aspect of that definition. So I could give you examples of justified true belief that does not in fact constitute knowledge. But Hobbes gives us a variant of that. Truth means true belief and evidence is the justification or the reasoned account that we can give. Now he defined truth in the previous chapter as the comprehension of the subject by the predicate. So for example, the claim that a human is an animal is true because the term animal encompasses human. It also encompasses fish and bird, but it does encompass human. How do I know that? Because a human is defined as a rational animal. And there's other ways I can know that because it exhibits certain powers that are animal powers and that sort of thing. Compare that with the claim an animal is a human. That's false because the predicate doesn't comprehend the subject. There was lots of animals that aren't human, birds and fishes. So if I had a bird in mind and I said, that must be a human because an animal is a human, the principle that I'm operating on there is false simply because the predicate does not comprehend the subject. So all I need for truth is comprehension of the predicate by the subject. And this is most obvious in the case of definitions. So you take something like a bachelor. What's a bachelor? A bachelor is an unmarried male. Every unmarried male is a bachelor and every bachelor is an unmarried male and there is a perfect comprehension of the subject by the predicate there. There's no remainder as there is in this other example I gave of the term animal comprehending the term human. Okay, and again notice that this truth about bachelors or unmarried male, this isn't a deep empirical truth that we go out and we look at various bachelors and we say, is he married or not? This just has to do with the comprehension of terms. That's what the term indicates. So once we've got a truth that we have a candidate for something that we can actually know, okay? But we need to add evidence. Now what is evidence? He says evidence is the, and this is a mouthful, the concomitance of a man's conception, man meaning human, a person's conception, with the words that signify such conception in the act of reasoning. And so here he ties evidence to the conception and the conception we have already seen is tied to sensation. And so it ultimately has to be grounded in some kind of sensation. So I've got to be able to dissolve the elements of these true propositions that I'm giving into things that actually relate to conceptions and conceptions that relate to sensations. And as I said last time, because we can, because the conceptions we form don't perfectly capture the things and sometimes they capture more than what we're trying to include in the object. We get this problem of equivocation and ambiguity entering into language. And Paul says that the elimination of that ambiguity is what gives us understanding another intellectual virtue. Is that a question? Yeah. Is truth important to the definition of knowledge? You can't have, like they're not the definition like to the essence of it. No, no, to the definition. Yes, and essence just means definition. All right, so it can't, you can't have knowledge that is like false knowledge. Right, there's no such thing as false knowledge. That's right. I mean that, in fact, that's the big difference between knowledge and other things is that knowledge can't be false. Opinions can be good or bad, okay, and they can be true or false, okay, but knowledge can't be true or false. Knowledge has to be true. Okay, if we say we know something, like we know that the interior angles of the triangle add up to the sum of two right angles, okay, that can't possibly ever be false. What if I said like I know today is Tuesday, but I mean I would be wrong, but what if I, like internally that would be wrong? Yes, and why would you be wrong? You'd be wrong on, I mean the most immediate way to say that you're wrong is that it's not true that it's Tuesday. It actually is Monday, right? And I was like walking around and I was like, today's Tuesday, and I was like, what was in my, if someone was like, do you know what day it is? I feel like I do. And they would just walk away, we wouldn't even say what day it is, but in my head, my answer would be Tuesday evening. So there's no problem with people thinking that they have knowledge. In fact, this is the big problem is that everybody thinks they have knowledge about all kinds of stuff, including stuff that's false and including stuff that they don't have evidence for, but they think they know it, they think they know God exists, they think they know there's an external world, they think they, and so on. But, and unfortunately holding false beliefs doesn't hurt and cause you pain or doesn't set off some alarm system in your mind that shows you that it's false. So we have to, it's actually difficult in a lot of cases to show that things are false. Now, in this case, we break down the conceptions you have, okay? Make sure that we mean the same thing by today. By today you're not talking about tomorrow, right? And then we relate what today and tomorrow are back to sensations we have. And then we make sure that we mean the same thing by Monday because you might be confused or you might come from a place where Monday is called Tuesday and Tuesday is called Monday or something. That's all eliminating ambiguity. So that's getting understanding about what you're really saying. Now, if you persist in this, no, I mean the same, we mean the same thing by it. Okay, then we're gonna come down to a contention. I say that today is Monday, you say that today is Tuesday and we have to analyze it down to the sensations of what those things actually mean. And then since they contradict, only one of them can be true. They can't both be true at the same time. They can't be both Monday and Tuesday. Okay, so don't confuse knowledge with a subjective state of certainty or belief. That's very important. And the conditions under which doubt is justified. Some beliefs are basically what we get by on. And it's not clear that we actually have knowledge of anything. Even my geometric examples might be problematic. Belief is what we get by on. And the real question is, when is it legitimate to doubt somebody's belief? But in the case where I think A and you think not A is a case where we must have doubt. And the only way to resolve it is to figure out what we mean by these terms. How these terms relate to actual concepts. How those concepts relate to actual sensation. And then hopefully we can arrive at agreement on it. Now, so that maybe that brings me to the two different definitions that we get. In human nature here, knowledge is defined as evidence of truth from some beginning or principle of sense. That's also basically looks like a principle of empiricism. Knowledge depends on a beginning or a starting point in sensation. Or he says a knowledge of consequences of names appertaining to the subject at hand. So I've given some examples of that. Both of them will count as knowledge. So bachelor is an unmarried male. I know that, okay? But also if, but when I claim that fire is hot seems like something that I can get evident. It seems like a true claim and something that I can relate to some beginning of sense tracing it back to some experience that I've had with it. Now, as for this idea of consequences of names pertaining to the subject at hand in the Leviathan, Hobbes gives a chart of all of the sciences. I know this is too small to read but you can download the slides. And he, this is a synopsis of all kinds of science and all of them are defined in terms of consequences. Science in general. That is knowledge of consequences which is called philosophy. And then that divides into consequences from accidents of bodies that are natural and consequences from accidents of bodies which are political. And so there's the two major kinds of science that he has. And then we divide those further and further. And after these divisions we get to sciences like geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, et cetera. And those are understood to be consequences from quantities, consequences from qualities, et cetera. Here it is all in one diagram but that one's even harder to read. But the point of this is that he eventually takes this idea of being consequences and chains of consequence to be crucial to what the sciences are. Not this very attenuated definition simply evidence of truth that originates from senses. Okay, so there's, go ahead. Do we have knowledge of colors since they're not in the object themselves? Well, being in the object themselves is not relevant to any kind of knowledge, okay? So, and what is relevant is having an origin or a principle in sense. So senses in the subject or the sentient or the recipient, not in the object. So no, sciences about these things in our head. Now they ultimately relate to objects that are outside of us because they're caused by those objects. And we continue to talk about them as if we're talking about external objects. But insofar as we're talking about consequences of qualities of bodies, we're talking about internal things, internal entities. Yeah. So how's applied knowledge as being universal? Because I know in the past he said that nothing is universal and that things don't exist because we exist to receive it. Yes, this is the doctrine I've called nominalism that only individual or particular things exist. And he does hold that, but we can use general terms to describe those particular objects when they have certain commonalities. Okay, so only individual humans exist. Let me reassure you all, you all exist as individuals. And I'm calling you all humans, but there's not some other platonic form or some kind of other entity that's called human being besides all these individual humans. So when I say human, I'm just referring to some commonality of all of those objects. For example, their bipedalism or their rationality, okay? And so, but because the term human can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, that's how we get this ambiguity creeps in and we can start getting equivocation and we can start failing to understand what we're talking about. So I need to make it clear that I'm talking about a two-footed land animal and that's what I mean by human or am I talking about a rational animal because different consequences will follow from those different definitions. Okay, but these universals just, they don't exist as entities, they are merely words that we attach to those objects to describe their similarities. Okay, so these passages, if you read through them quickly, look very different, radically different on first reading, okay? And that's what I thought, I thought this is crazy, he's just totally reconceived of what science is. So then I started playing around with the two passages and I found they're actually a lot more similar than they seem. The one in human nature starts out with this definition, starts with a definition and it gives a definition that seems different than the one that we get in Leviathan and the equivalent passage in Leviathan ends with the definition and those two definitions appear at first glance to be different. But in human nature he says that knowledge which we call science, I define to be evidence of truth from some beginning or principle of sense for the truth of a proposition is never evident until we conceive the meaning of the words or terms where it consists, which are always conceptions in the mind nor can we remember those conceptions without the thing that produced the same by our senses. And then he gives four principles. The first principle of knowledge therefore is that we have such and such conceptions. The second that we have thus and thus named the things of which these are conceptions. The third that we have joined those names in such manner is to make true propositions. The fourth and the last is that we've joined those propositions in such a manner that they be concluding. And by these four steps, the conclusion is known and evident and the truth of the conclusion is said to be known. So that should be scientific knowledge, just a four step process, right? Well, I don't wanna make it seem too easy because I don't actually have any idea what he's talking about here, right? I mean, what does this actually, what does this four stage process mean? But I do find when I analyze this passage in Leviathan, there's also a four stage structure. So there he says, by this it appears that reason is not as sense and memory born with us nor gotten by experience only as prudences, but it's attained by industry. Meaning we have to actively do something to get science. It doesn't just happen to us like sensation of red or sounds do. What do we have to do? We have to first impose names, okay? We have to secondly get a good and orderly method in proceeding from elements which are names. We have to get two assertions which are made in connection of one of them to another and so to syllogisms which are the connections of one assertion to another tell we come to a knowledge of all the consequences of names appertaining to the subject at hand. That is what people call science. Okay, so in order to understand what these four stages are and whether they really are parallel between these two texts I started thinking, okay, I need to apply an example. I need to come up with an example. So here's an extension of that passage from on human nature and I supplied it with an example of what I think he's talking about. So the first principle is that we have such and such conceptions. So just take a mass of conceptions. Humans, rational, animal, sentient, living, death, mortal, immortal, Monday, Tuesday, yesterday, today. Those are all conceptions. We have such and such conceptions. We agree that we have these conceptions. The second that we've thus and thus named the things where of they are conceptions so the conception of human relates to rational animals or terrestrial bipeds or whatever. Animals relate to sentient living things. Mortal means the things living but will eventually die. Okay, so I take this to be either decomposing these concepts into their definitions or tracing them back to their origins in sense. Then the third stage, we join these names together in such a manner as to make true propositions. So I can say mortal applies to all humans.  Hate to break it to you, but that's a true proposition.  Mortal applies to all animals, okay? So I start, I come up with some true propositions. Then once I've got, so notice that these true propositions are just unities of concepts, concepts that ultimately have a principle or an origin and a starting point in sense. But once I've got these true propositions then I can join propositions together in a way to see their consequences. So for example, I can join the propositions mortal of all animals, animal of all humans, and then conclude the consequence, therefore mortal of all humans or all humans will die. And then I can be said to have scientific knowledge. Okay, so here's the traditional way to diagram that syllogism, a syllogism is this kind of structure where we unify propositions in an orderly way. Mortal applies to every animal, animal to every human, therefore mortal applies to every human. So if those propositions are true and if the terms in those propositions can actually be traced back to something in sense then this constitutes scientific knowledge. I can actually have a scientific knowledge that all humans are mortal. Yeah. I wonder for like in the last slide, I mean the first stages are persuasive to me but I wonder like for the, because like all of the connection are built like based on the pre-existing conceptions or so-called pre-existing knowledge. But I wonder like where does the assertion of truth come from? Because it sounds like if we do not have some pre-existing conception taught by others. Yes, so in order to answer that we have to go back to our concept of truth, okay? And truth is defined in human nature 511 as the comprehension of the subject by the predicate, okay? So animal of every human. And in sense I go around and I find that everything called human, everything that anyone calls human is actually an animal. That traces back to something that I actually experienced. And if people are calling other things human that aren't animals, then we don't have understanding of what we're talking about and we need to actually go through and make sure to, okay, what is the sensation you're tying to that notion and try to eliminate that ambiguity? Experience itself is false to some extent. I mean, someone might tell me the full thing. Yes, and that can easily happen because of this problem of ambiguity, equivocation, and so forth where the names don't attach to the actual sensations or they are meant to describe something else. Okay, so that's always a possibility. In fact, Hobbes thinks that's mostly what's going on. Most of the things we think or science isn't that we think we know are actually confusions that we don't really have understanding of what we're talking about. Okay, so, but it all has to be grounded in sense. So either I have to have a conception that every animal dies and that has to be apparent in sense or I get it from somebody like a biologist who I trust and that biologist has the sensation of all those things that animal is applied to every human. If there are humans out there that aren't animals, they're angels or something like that, then there would be a problem. But again, that would probably be just a confusion of terminology. Then those two propositions can be united to generate this consequence and when I have generated that consequence, then we say I have scientific knowledge. So this appears to be something that we have scientific knowledge about. It is a scientific, we know that all humans die. Okay, and we know that because fundamentally because of things that we've sensed but also because we've related those to conceptions, we've clarified and we understand those conceptions, we've arranged those conceptions into true propositions and we've arranged those propositions into a valid form of argument. Yeah? Are we in fact coming to the conclusion that in reality both the Thomas Hobbes' definitions of knowledge are in fact kind of like the same thing because the first definition relates to how all knowledge comes from science all the second you build on the definition of the science is the consequence of the conceptions that we give. So is the purpose of having shown us this comparison to show everything? Yeah, okay, so it's a good question and so you'll be very disappointed by my answer which is I'm not gonna tell you because there is actually a dispute in the scholarly literature. So there are scholars, in fact there's a Stanford encyclopedia article I came across yesterday called Hobbes' Philosophy of Science. If you read that article and I'll post it to Canvas, it says scholars are divided. Some think that he has two totally different concepts of science and that they aren't consistent and others think that they are actually equivalent to each other. So there's a dispute, so we need more research. The problem hasn't been resolved. So that's the kind of thing that somebody could write. A research paper is seeing whether these notions are similar or not. Now the argument I just gave shows a way to think of them as being essentially similar. So even though he doesn't mention consequences in the earlier one, he does mention syllogisms which are inferences and use consequences. And even though he doesn't mention sense in the later one, we know that what he's talking about consequences of are consequences of propositions and we know that propositions consists of copulations or unities of concepts and we know that concepts can only originate in sense so it must connect to sense. So there's a kind of thesis that one could argue that these though he uses different terminology it's ultimately consistent. That's a nice charitable reading of it. Now there's a further bit of the definition that comes after the part that I've compared so I didn't compare in this one the part that comes down here in this passage and that's a part where he talks about it's not just consequences but it's seeing on how I can produce something, how I can produce like effects. And this truly does not seem to correlate to anything in human nature. And in fact seems to make all science for Hobbes into practical or productive science. It's not science unless I can produce something with it. Now geometry can still fit into that because you could conceive geometry as being the ability to produce proofs or produce figures of a certain kind given certain definitions or something like that. But I think that so far I have shown that we can bring these concepts very close together but I haven't given any way to account for this idea that we have to be able to make or produce something on the basis of this knowledge and that doesn't seem to correspond to something in human nature. Whether it's consistent and coherent with what he says in human nature is another question but I leave that as a question for further research. Okay and I won't, because I want to get on to this exciting stuff about pleasure and pain and passions and so forth but what he then, belief is basically defined as when we don't have science. So when we have arguments and propositions and conceptions that we take without there being evident we can't ourselves trace them back to sensations that we've had but we take them on trust from someone else, maybe we take them from a biologist but of course the biologist could be wrong and so doubt creeps in if I can't confirm that in my own mind with my own kind of sensation. The extent to which doubt is justified is an open issue. When is doubt admissible and when is it not? We'll return to that issue in due course. Okay now I want to talk about chapters seven to nine on passions, pleasure and pain and good and evil and I'm going to just outline his basic arguments and there's a lot of controversial stuff so it'll seem like I'm just asserting a bunch of ridiculous claims but hopefully get around to defending them. So first of all recall that conceptions and apparitions are nothing but some motion in the internal substance of the head. Okay that's what he says in that famous chapter two eight and he here references himself back to that passage. Now he adds that these motions don't stop in the head but they actually proceed to the heart where they either help or hinder vital motion. Vital motion is, so there's two kinds of motion. If you remember the original diagram I had of human nature and we have passions and we have reason and we have body and we have mind and the body has all of these vital capabilities that Hobbes hasn't said much about like ability to use nutrition, ability to reproduce, ability to move yourself around in space and animals have all of those. Those are what he means by vital as opposed to cognitive or mental powers. So when, and those vital things are, we don't have voluntary control over them. They start when we're born or rather when we're conceived and they persist without our doing anything about them. So the theory here is that sensations cause concepts, that's happening in the head but then this physical process because it is a physical, there is a physical account of this proceeds to the heart where it always either helps or hinders these vital activities. In the case where it helps the vital activities we call it pleasure or delight or contentment and we say that we love those objects and in the cases where it weakens or hinders the vital motion it's called pain and we say that we hate the things. So pleasures and pains are nothing more than motions in the region of the heart. By the way, the fact that it's supposed to be in the heart is not essential to the theory if you think that pain and pleasure actually are states of the brain nothing significant seems to change for the theory. But pleasures and pains just are those motions happening within us that either help or hurt vital motions. Okay, and so they are completely internal. We think of objects as being painful or pleasant but that's just something occurring within us like all conceptions. Now, when we feel pleasure or pain he says that's either a solicitation or a provocation to approach or retreat from the object that caused it and this causes pursuit and avoidance. And the solicitation is said to be the endeavor or internal beginning of animal motion. So this is why animals move. Animals move because they experience pleasure from certain objects. For example, they see food in the environment that food forms some kind of conception or image which then when it locates in the heart leads to pleasure because it seems to enhance the vital powers and so the animal moves towards it pursues that thing in order to consume it or it perceives it as inhibiting its vital activities and so it avoids the thing. And basically all animal behavior can be explained as these pursuits or avoidances based on these internal conceptions of pleasure and pain. Yeah. Is movement necessary for this? Yes, in this account it is. How do you explain things like sleep? Well, it's because he actually has an account of sleep that it's still a kind of motion. So we don't actually stop moving in sleep. There's lots of stuff going on in sleep. All kinds of vital activities and so. Is it like motion, like motion in the heart rate? Oh yeah, and all other vital functions, right? Breathing, et cetera. So there's, but I mean that would be a kind of paradox is what about pleasures of rest or not acting or not thinking, right? Like the Buddhists who can, at least for a few minutes, find a way to stop this incessant succession of conceptions that Hobbes thinks were constantly happening. What about that? Is that a pleasant state? It couldn't be on Hobbes theory. He doesn't have a way to account for that. And it's not clear that Buddhists think that that is a pleasant state either.  Pleasure and pain are movements and must be understood as movements. Okay. But I like the question. So we define appetites and desires or aversions of fears relative to these pleasures and pains which are tied to these conceptions which have their origin and sense. And then here's a pretty radical idea. Good and evil are just the terms that we attach to pleasure and pain. They don't have any other reality than that. Things that please us, we say are good. Things that cause us pain, we say are bad, period. No such thing as good in general or absolute good. All of the stuff that Plato talks about is nonsense. It all has to do with pleasure or pain. So this is the basis of his heathenism, his theory that the purpose of life, the end of life is pleasure. He does differentiate between goods of the body and goods of the mind, but these are goods in the same sense. They're just kinds of pleasure that we experience. And he does say that different people experience, and this is of course true, different things as being pleasant or painful. So some people like chocolate ice cream, the correct people in my view, and others like vanilla ice cream. And that has to do with variations in our constitution, so how those things appear to us to affect our vital motion or not. I think chocolate is absolutely vital to all of my powers. And so to that extent, we can say he has a relativistic view of good and bad. So for me, I don't like vanilla, so for me vanilla is bad and chocolate's good, but you might dislike chocolate and prefer vanilla, and that would indicate there's some sense, there's no difference in the objects. We could have two pints of those different kinds of ice cream here, same object, and we have different reactions to them. It must mean that there's something different in our constitutions, but that doesn't mean that anything goes, that good and evil are just up for grabs and whatever anyone says it is, because it's still the case that the pleasant is what's good and the painful is what's bad. It's just that different objects cause the pleasure in pain. It's still as objectively true as ever that what causes pleasure is good and what causes pain is bad. It's just that what causes those things differ. Another example, using a mental pain, grief is very painful. Now different things cause grief for different people. I was in grief when my father died, my sister, not so much, but that doesn't mean that grief isn't a bad thing. Grief is a painful thing. It's just that because we have different internal constitutions, those sensations affected us differently. Now just a couple more things to add. Again, appetite is the beginning of all animal motion and attainment of the object of our desire, chocolate cake or whatever it is, is what we call the end and the good and the end are the same. So attaining that object of pleasure is actually what the good is. Now some ends are farther away, like earning a degree and some are closer to hand, like having lunch and some of these might be instrumentally valuable for others like you need lunch or you need dinner in order to survive to the point of having classes so that you can earn a degree and so we have what we call proximate versus more distant or even final ends, but there is no in Hobbes view ultimate final end, like Aristotle claims there is, that happiness is the ultimate final end of anything. He says that happiness is a concept like utopia. It doesn't really exist because while we're alive, we necessarily have desires, while we have desires we have unfulfilled ends and so the only thing that happiness could mean is continual prosperity in achieving my ends and so having a constant succession of pleasures, having less pain.


Hi everyone, Sean with jazby's casebreaks.com here doing 2021 Bowman chrome baseball hobby 12 box casebreak picker team number three We're all card ship here on release day Here is our list of customers from Derek Gordon and the Diamondbacks down to Sean Maddock and the Nationals If you see any teams or names like Sean there and Derek up on top of little rooftop next to him That just means they won those teams in a team random filler But here is that list in person as well. Good luck to everybody. Thanks for getting in and Here is our fresh case. What's up Oliver? first about 17 18 17 minutes of this is probably just gonna be me Pack stacking so you can kind of fast-forward through the beginning of this video to that point And then from there, you'll see all the goodness coming out of the case Hi Oliver Hope you had a great day Oliver So this is pick your team three pick your team four coming up right after this as well, and then we have more hobby and HTA breaks in the store guys So plenty more to do tonight So Oliver wins the next time you and Chris are gonna come tailgate with me again. Is that gone? Nice home run Right into the trees. I'm assuming maybe you'll probably go to the Steelers game, right? Well, you'll try to go there when that game I'd offer you to go with me But my brother and his lady are definitely using those tickets Sam Hilliard. Anybody know what the magic number is for the Giants for the division in the NL West? How many games the Dodgers are back on that? Only a half game behind the Giants Okay, I was gonna say Lost it's only it's only a seven can't give up on your team yet There you go, you know, it's funny I just watched a major league the other night Such a great movie Oh really That's pretty cool I heard you you caught for scags that's pretty cool You're going to the angels game on Saturday who we have this weekend Oliver. I know Chad's coming down To see the Mariners I think But is it is that this weekend? No John's coming down 27th. That's next week. I don't know who we have this weekend. It is the Mariners. Oh So Chad's coming here on Monday, but he's coming down this weekend. Okay, so that makes sense See, I think he's coming down this weekend and he's gonna come visit the shop on Monday If I remember correctly Because he was asking he was in the chat asking me about like going to not very far and we're not scary farm and stuff like that nice Very nice Saturday game. I got a double check. I feel like I have tickets for this weekend For either Friday or Saturday. I usually schedule like a home stand Towards the end of the season hoping that we'll be in contention and it'll matter, but It doesn't ever anymore Oh Tani's pitching Saturday, right Oliver It is fan appreciation night, too Just a heads up. Oh, it's gonna be a relic. I was like, why does it feel like that carbs? I think oh Tani's pitching Saturday Oliver I'm almost positive they announced it We can look it up after this or you can look at them now, but I think they announced the Tani's pitching Saturday I think that's his next scheduled start. It was either Saturday or Sunday. I just saw it I wouldn't be surprised actually if it's Sunday. He he loves pitching the daytime here in Anaheim He does really well too in the daytime here in Anaheim Got our tickets to the game Saturday. See Oliver Chad's gonna be there Saturday, too Chad Oliver is going to the game Saturday. We were just discussing I'm they just announced Otani's next start and I want to say it was potentially Saturday Chad It was either Saturday or Sunday But they announced his next start. I know it was against the Mariners so I'm not sure exactly which day it is But Oliver I think was gonna look and see Yeah, Oliver Oliver will be there too Chad He said it's fan appreciation day for the for the angels See guy with the Darren Oliver Angels Jersey You will legitimately be the only person there with a Darren Oliver Jersey. I can I appreciate that though It is Sunday Joe saying okay, never mind So apparently he's pitching Sunday Joe looked it up. I knew they had just announced it today I was reading on the the angels reddit It was a day that started with an S and ended with the letters D. A. Y That's all I remembered I was hoping it was Saturday for you guys Maybe he'll just be able to hit a home run or two in front of you guys to make it happy Chad you'll be you'll be one of many Mariners fans there Should be beautiful weather. I was hanging around the house yesterday all of a sudden I was like what a Jean Segura Jersey ex-angel Jean Segura Chad who went to the Went to the Royals in the trade for our half-year rental of What's his name picture hates publicity I can't think of the name who yeah, is that cranky I Love Jean Segura Yeah, he was part of that trade for for Frankie our half-year rental of Frankie Nope, especially because we didn't resign him Anderson Simmons was damn good. What are you talking about? Simmons up until this year Traded to Phillies, but number two was my b-ball number Sean Figgins is the coolest. I've still I'm still on the lookout for a Gary D. Sarcina jersey Don't know why but I love Gary D. Sarcina Unfortunately, I don't think I'll ever find one I'm honestly I've contemplated writing his family and him to see if they have like a an extra one that they'd be willing to get rid of I Know I could Joe, but like I also want like a period jersey for him You know like one that's like appropriate to the eight that time Like one of the one of the vest ones, maybe Those were the cool. I like those ones Yeah, Jimmy. Don't don't take yourself a bigger hole. Okay, so that's eight boxes I mean, there's something to that too Jimmy was it you or Danny that was that was in that empty basketball break that was contemplating trading the heat for for I forget who it was With like forget who else was in the chat and you were like I'm aiming for I want this guy, but at the same point like And we hit that really nice Tyler hero. I think like RPA I Remember you guys for just whoever it was. It's like I'm really glad that I did not make that trade I was like, yeah, I know you would have been real pissed definitely Danny.  I mean Your chances at this player instead of chances for this player And we ended up hitting it.  Card B then other than autos That is true no longer a blue J What up Rex? He didn't have any in Bowman either Matt. So that's really weird Maybe they'll have a bowman first base of his in next year in Bowman draft But they usually don't do that. They usually split it up between the same year's product. So it has the same year design interesting Museum Joe Adele Silverado the 299 to sell you Okay Rex Matt in the chat. He's my financial advisor He makes all all my moves My brother tells me to diversify Matt just tells me to put it back in a cardboard That's why I've masked my my financial advisor That's really weird Matt so he'll only have autos as a bowman first Hmm that'll make make very interesting for his prices long-term I should make his autographs actually more expensive in the short term Knowing that people can't just collect his non-auto Okay, last box guys. Good luck. I still need to grade my Herbert from you minus a zero Probably do that sounds like a win-win for both of us, right? Okay, so parlay bet on UFC this weekend Volkanovsky Shevchenko and Diaz It's probably not gonna pay you off like crazy Because I'm pretty sure they're probably all three pretty decent favorites That's my parlay this weekend Super in this case Matt and make a lot of people very happy or one person very happy for sure Gabriel Arias Indians Joel Engelman Royce Lewis twins I capola Pedro Pineda very nice ace Kim Kian Wong and Starlin Aguilar for the Mariners Mark Bissette Austin Wells Yankees Donald Dudley and Christopher Morel first auto for the Cubs Jason wainer and Nolan Aaron auto to 299 for the Cardinals Spencer Jordan Tyler saw this from a's Kim Kian Wong And Reid Detmer's angels Burke Thomas Mikabel Phillies Greg Davis and micella Urbina Twins I capola Luis Robert or sorry Luis Rodriguez Dodgers Mark Bissette blaze Jordan to 499 For the Red Sox Burke Thomas and Heston Kirstead Orioles Donald Dudley Vyondell Pena for the Nationals to 250 purple auto Sean Mattick Alex Kearlaw for the twins I capola and Nate Pearson refracted a 499 blue jays Steve Wright And there you go box one in the Emerson Hancock Mariners Mark Bissette Max Meyer Marlins Joe Parisi Kearlaw twins I capola and Jaron Durand Red Sox Burke Thomas Max Meyer Marlins Joe Parisi And Aral Vera angels That is Burke Thomas Starlin Aguilar Mariners Mark Bissette And Jordan Walker to 75 75 for the Cardinals Spencer Jordan Alec Bohm Phillies Greg Davis Cole Wilcox for the Rays Burke Thomas Color with juniors Oliver you got Royals in this See what we can do Matthew Libertura Cardinals Spencer Jordan Emerson Hancock Mariners Mark Bissette Ryan Jeffers 499 twins I capola and Joachim Cespedes White Sox Joe Christian Carlos Rodriguez for the Brewers Tomoya Comeyagi and micella Urbina twins I capola Luis Rodriguez Dodgers Mark Bissette and Ian Anderson to 250 for the Braves Tom Jones Mikabell for the Phillies Greg Davis Zach v for the Royals and Mark Newbauer Mount Castle Orioles Donald Dudley and Tristan Cassis for the Red Sox Burke Thomas. That's to 50 Zach v for the Rockies Mark Newbauer and Carlos Colman eras for the Rays Burke Thomas And Alexander Viscaino that is a speckle parallel autograph. I think that's to 299 I believe 81 99 Yankees Donald Dudley and And Pedro Pineda again, this one's to 150 for the A's Kim Keon Wong Christian Hernandez Cubs Jason Wainer Jeremy De La Rosa National Sean Maddock Julio Rodriguez Mariners Mark Bissette and Kevin Alcantara for the Yankees Donald Dudley Joey Bart for the Giant Sean Eldridge and Patrick Bailey for the Giant Sean Eldridge Yet Rafael Morel yellow auto to 75 for the Cubs Jason Wainer And Julio Carreras to 250 for the Rockies Mark Newbauer a three down nine to go Jeremy De La Rosa National Sean Maddock Christian Hernandez Cubs Jason Wainer Tristan Cassis Red Sox Burke Thomas Andrew Vaughn White Sox Joe Christian Patrick Bailey to 1.99 Giants Sean Eldridge Ryan Mount Castle Orioles Donald Dudley and Patrick Bailey Giants Sean Eldridge Christian Santana Tigers is Mark Bissette and Reginald Presciato Bowman first auto for the Padres PJ McNeely Nick Madrigal to 99 for the White Sox Joe Christian Emerson Hancock for the Mariners Mark Bissette Not yet Oliver not yet Cabe Ryan Hayes Pirates Chad Debenny and Robert Poisson Hayes Kim Keon-Wong Jazz Chisholm Marlin Joe Parisi and Aisa Lacy for the Royals Oliver Soryeth Whit Merrifield 4.99 for the Royals Oliver Sorya Max Meyer Marlin Joe Parisi Nick Madrigal White Sox Joe Christian and Oh Levis Bissabé to 4.99 for the Rangers Eric Ainge. I guess this is a case hit Zach Veen Bowman ascensions for the Rockies Mark Newbauer and Carlos Calmonaris for the Rays Burke Thomas I remember all card ship guys. So even if you're like, oh, hey Jared Kelly White Sox Joe Christian Riley Green Tigers Mark Bissette Christian Santana Tigers Mark Bissette Nick Gonzalez Pirates Chad Debenny Jeter Downs to 4.99 Red Sox Burke Thomas and Austin Hendrick for the Reds Ryan Redman Jordan Diaz for the A's Kim Keon-Wong and Sixto Sanchez the 2.99 Marlins Joe Parisi Victor Acosta for the Padres PJ McNeely Reed Detmerge for the Angels Burke Thomas Tyler Savestrom A's Kim Keon-Wong and Mycelor Bina very nice to 250 for the Twins I Coppola Austin Martin Blue J's Steve Wright Dylan Carlson Cardinals Spencer Jordan Christian Pache braves Tom Jones and one 10 for the Mariners Mark Bissette Eduardo Garcia first to 99 for the Brewers Tomoya Komiagi Okay, five boxes down seven to go Cronenworth for the Padres is PJ McNeely and Alec Bohm for the Phillies Greg Davis Tyler Savestrom for the A's Kim Keon-Wong Jeter Downs Red Sox Burke Thomas and Austin Hendrick for the Reds Ryan Redman Heston Kirstad Orioles Donald Dudley and Ezekiel Tuvar for the Rockies Mark Neubauer Pedro Pineda A's Kim Keon-Wong and Kibirain Hayes for the Pirates chat the Benny Jazz Chisholm for the Marlins Joe Percy and Jason Dominguez before 99 for the Yankees Donald Dudley Pedro Leone for the Astros Jared Nicholl Matthew Allen for the Mets Travis Melbert Jodell Angels Burke Thomas Garrett Mitchell for the Brewers Tomoya Komiagi Bobby Dahlback Red Sox Burke Thomas and Gabriel Arias for the Indians Joe Engelman Nick York Red Sox Burke Thomas And it's Rick Kelvin the Castro atomic to 100 for the Blue Jays Steve Wright Christian Hernandez Sparkle to 299 Cubbies very nice one for Jason Wainer and Wilman Diaz for the Dodgers Mark Bassett Gabriel Arias for the Indians Joe Engelman and JJ Bledet for the Marlins Joe Parisi Gabriel Masiel to 499 Bowman first auto for the Twins Icappola not look like the kind of pen they would have preferred to sign with Trent DuVoe for the Angels Burke Thomas And Glebert Torres for the Yankees to 499 Donald Dudley Austin Wells also for Donald Dudley in the Yankees Michael Goldberg we get extra auto in this A's Kim Keon-Wong feels like it would have been in the first both of those would have been in the first box we'll see if we get extra auto in this stack Andrew Vaughn White Sox Joe Christian and to 125 Robert Hassel for the Padres PJ McNeely Maximo Acosta for the Rangers Eric Ainge Micella Urbina Twins Icappola and Luis Rodriguez for the Dodgers Mark Bassett Brennan Davis Cubs Jason Wainer Luis Medina to 199 for the Brewers Tomoya Komiagi Nick Gonzalez for the Pirates Chad DeBene And we did get an extra auto Jesus Para for the Brewers Tomoya Komiagi Michael Toglia 199 for the Rockies Mark Neubauer So three autos in that box Jack Mayfield with the bases clearing double Matt says So I should be watching that game and set up the Dodgers game, which is long gone Captain Jack Mayfield. What up, Brody? How are you, man? The goose up to bat with a man on first and second Okay, five boxes left for us Jared Kelly White Sox Joe Christian Austin Martin Blue Jays Steve Wright and Pedro Leone nice shimmer for the Astros Jared Nicolle Nicolle nice catch Austin Hendrick Reds Ryan Redmond and Shalyn Polanco to 99 For the Pirates Chad DeBene You the Super I did Chad I did it got shipped to me today Dylan Carlson for the Cardinals Spencer Jordan Christian Pache for the Braves Tom Jones and Tristan Mackenzie to 250 For the Indians Joe Engelman Yeah, I did receive it. I've got it in hand as of today check Mick Abel for the Phillies Greg Davis And Marco Luciano for the Giants and Sean Eldridge Victor Acosta Padres PJ McNeely and Austin Hendrick for the Reds Ryan Redmond Matthew Libertor to 199 for the Cardinals Spencer Jordan Zach Bean for the Rockies Mark Neubauer And Pedro Pineda nice one for the A's Kim Kian Won You have some color of him earlier too Kyle Lewis to 150 for the Mariners Mark Bissette. Uh, it is It is one and only Andrew Vaughn chat Nicks buying anything for the packs or drafts. Um, you can always DM him Rex and see He's I mean, he's always buying but he's got so many like whether he's doing it at shows or he has people that bring him stuff Yeah, A's are hitting especially Pineda the one you want it to hit with Matthew Ellen for the Mets Travis Melberg Pedro Pineda again for the A's Kim Ken Wong Wander Franco for the Rays Burke Thomas and Peter Leon for the Astros Jared Nicolle Nicolle Jake Cronenworth Padres PJ McNeely and Matt Manning to 250 for the Tigers Mark Bissette Alec Vom for the Phillies Greg Davis and Nick York for the Red Sox Burke Thomas Oslevis Bissabe for the Rangers Eric Ainge and And Edward Perez to 250 nice one for the Brewers Tomoya Comey agi. Oh, who do you think it was? Reed Detmer's angels Burke Thomas Wilman Diaz Brewer Dodgers Mark Bissette CJ Abrams Padres PJ McNeely Joe Adele for the Angels Burke Thomas and the over Pueblo for the Pirates Chad the Benny Bobby Dahlbeck for the Red Sox Burke Thomas and Austin Martin for the Blue J Steve Wright and Our relic to 25 10 out of 25 is Thomas Nito for the Mets nice three-color patch there New York Mets Travis Melberg Jose Garcia yellow to 75 for the Reds Ryan Redmond and a Jose Garcia redemption Gold refractor to 50 to get a base And now a rookie gold auto for the Reds Ryan Redmond. Oh, you thought it was Adele trust me I would love to have that It probably cost me a lot more than what I what I paid for this other one though And I'd be competing with my friends like Matt in the chat stuff like that. Yeah, really nice patch But yeah, I would have loved to have the Joe Adele I don't even know I don't think that's even been pulled yet Chad or it hasn't hit the market Matt would know better He's a he's going after Joe Adele a lot in tops Chrome We have three boxes left Joey Bart for the Giants Sean Eldridge and Maximo Acosta for the Rangers Eric Ainge Austin Hendrick for the Reds Ryan Redmond and Ed Howard for the Cubs Jason wainer Nick Gonzalez for the Pirates Chad the Benny and it's shirt and a postal rookie out of Usually only get one rookie out of it. We've got two in this box or in this case. That's for the Rangers Eric Ainge Kevin made to 125 for the Cubs Jason wainer Kay Brian Hays for the Pirates Chad the Benny and Hedbert Perez for the Brewers Tomoya. Comey agi Yeah, exactly. Matt's Matt knows Chad Matt in the chat He would be after it if it was up But he hasn't seen it yet. Jazz Chisholm for the Marlins Joe Parisi Spencer Torkelson for the Tigers That is Mark Vassette Carlos Coleman eras for the Rays Burke Thomas Nick Madrigal White Sox Joe Christian and Kate Cavalli to 199 National Sean Maddock Jason Dominguez Yankees Donald Dudley and Christian Hernandez for the Cubs Jason wainer And JC Correa Brother of Carlos Correa, I believe Astros Jared Nicolli And a Atomic to 150 Zach Veen for the Rockies Mark Neubauer Christian Santana for the Tigers to finish it off as well And Mark Vassette Yeah, that's true Hopefully Matt somebody will sell it as a redemption so that it'll Save a little bit of cash if you're trying to go after it You can always DM him Rex or send an email, you know to support Yeah, you can always send him a to his personally is a personal Instagram too. I'm pretty sure you know what that is Pache for the Braves Tom Jones and Trent DuVaux for the Angels That's another Otto Burke Thomas there Maybe it's another extra auto in here. Let's see. It was pretty early in the stack Blaze Jordan for the Red Sox Burke Thomas Joe Delegate in for the Angels Burke Thomas and a salacy for the Royals Oliver Soria Bobby Dalbeck Red Sox Burke Thomas and Poyu Chen to 99 for the Pirates Chad the Benny Pedro Pineda a is Kim Keon one Ed Howard Cubs Jason wainer and Pedro Leone for the Astros Jared Nicolli Adam Kerner to 299 for the Padres PJ McNeely, so like I said, I think we will get an extra auto in this stack as well So two extra autos in the case Cronenworth for the Padres PJ McNeely and Justin Fosquay to 299 for the Rangers Eric Ainge He might have had a base Matt, but not an auto He probably didn't have a bait an actual first auto Ace a Lacey for the Royals Oliver Soria And Bobby with junior for the Royals Oliver Soria Yolk we says but it's White Sox Joe Christian and Garrett Mitchell for the Brewers Tomaya come a Yagi Wilman Diaz for the Dodgers Mark Bessette and Yeti cat to 199 for the Marlins, so maybe not an extra auto. Maybe they just both were in the first In the first individual box though interesting There goes the Angels lead It's only two no extra. Oh, it was Chad asking Matt, but five to six maybe seven Nick Lofton Royals Oliver Soria and Adley Rushman Orioles Donald Dudley Christian Robinson for the Diamondbacks Derek Gordon Jordan Walker for the Cardinals Spencer Jordan And Julio Carreras to 499 for the Rockies Mark Newbauer Jazz Gism Refractor Non-number is that his base car or is that an image variation? Do we know? there might be an image variation, but Marlins Joe Parisi and Andrew Vaughan White Sox Joe Christian Spencer Torkelson for the Tigers Mark Bessette Francisco Alvarez for the Mets Travis Melberg. Yeah, I've got one right after this too Mount Castle for the Orioles Donald Dudley and Austin Martin for the Blue J Steve Wright Brett Batty to 499 for the Mets and Travis Melberg and to Sean Knowles for the Angels Burke Thomas Victor Acosta Padres PJ McNeely and Gregory Santos bowman first auto giant Sean Eldridge Shane Bieber to 499 for the Indians Joe Engelman and there you go guys that wraps up that case so that was 2021 Bowman Chrome Baseball hobby 12 box case break pick your team number three from jazby's case breaks calm I'm Sean jazby's case breaks calm. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you next time


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering NAB 2017, brought to you by HGST. Hey welcome back everybody, Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're back at NAB 2017 with 100,000 of our favorite friends doing everything about broadcast media. It's media, it's entertainment, it's technology, it's the Met Effect, which is all the rage here at the show because you can't really separate the three. They're all tied together and really excited to be joined by our next guest in the weeds, keeping an eye on this, trying to keep up with all the crazy trends. He's Avi Swardlow, he's a manager, research and development at the Walt Disney Company. Avi, welcome. Thank you, thank you for having me. Absolutely, so first off, we talked a little bit before we went live your first time of the show, kind of general impressions of NAB. Yeah, it's big, a lot of walking, it's my first impression. Aside from the tired feet, it's really exciting to see all the new tech out here. From talking to other people who have been in years past, it seems like things move really fast here. So what you were seeing last year was completely different from what you were seeing this year. But loving all the different sections and everything from hard work to kind of some of the more data-driven stuff. Noticing that a lot more things are moving digital, that a lot of demos are now on laptops instead of physical, which is exciting to see. Have been impressed by some of the bigger company like Microsoft and IBM's machine learning efforts, and equally impressed by some of the hardware plays at DJI and GoPro. So really, really exciting stuff. It's really interesting kind of bifurcation of the market. On one hand, you've got all this crazy high-end stuff with 4K and 6K and 8K and Ultra HD and all these things and 360 and all these crazy cameras. At the other hand, you've got this democratization of distribution with YouTube and Vimeo and all these tools being brought down in a price front, you know, Samsung 360 camera, where you can be a relatively small content creator and have amazing tools at your disposal. So the opportunities from a creative point of view have probably never been richer. Absolutely, and I think a lot of what we're trying to focus on is moving in that digital direction for some of our content, trying to implement some of those lower-end or more cost-efficient tools and those distribution points to get our content to people faster, while at the same time trying to keep up on kind of the higher 4K end. You know, something that's interesting when chatting with my colleagues is that things move so fast that it's hard year to year to come here and see all the new things that, you know, are completely different from what you saw last year and yeah, you have to start implementing those things. So I think it's a balance between all of that. I think, you know, given that we're a big media company, some of those lower-end tools are really interesting to us in the sense that, you know, take news, for example, it's equally exciting to go live on Facebook video as it is sometimes to do it on a traditional broadcast. So I think learning how we integrate those and integrate those well are some of what we're trying to explore. Right. One of the topics we talked about before the cameras turned on was kind of this virtual reality and augmented reality, VR and AR. And it's pretty interesting as you talk specifically about, you know, data infusion kind of on top of techs. And I remember the first time I ever saw a sports broadcast where, I think it was Fox, maybe that put the score bug on the upper left-hand corner, and like, what is that?  Now we're so accustomed to these multilayers of data on top of their broadcasts. You take like a Bloomberg channel where some of those things, where now they have multiple feeds that are constantly going. It's a very different way to consume data, but that's what people really want these days. Absolutely. I think that, you know, last year was kind of this year of AR, VR. People thought there was going to be this massive revolution all of a sudden where everybody would have headsets and VR would become ubiquitous. And I think that will happen eventually, but it's probably going to be a slower burn, mostly because people don't have devices yet. And I think there's not enough content out there, not enough devices out there. Regardless, I think that if you're still down what AR and VR is at its core, it's the augmentation of information over something else. Right. And so I think, you know, a lot of people are now starting to explore what are the baby steps you take to implement some of that technology into your workflow, assuming that people don't have devices yet. So I think, you know, when I look at some of the virtual sets that we're seeing around the show and the implementation of information over, let's say news or sports broadcasts, that becomes really interesting. And if you can use, you know, we're talking about photogrammetry or volume capture. If you can use some of that and do interesting stuff, for instance, like if you're looking at a sports game and you're able to create, you know, in something like Unity or Unreal, an asset that represents the sports game, it becomes a much easier way to understand what's going on in the game than just a set of numbers. So it's, you know, yes, when you saw that score in the top left-hand corner, that was exciting. Now imagine seeing a live 3D version of the game. Same information unfolding just in a different way. Right. And so I think those are the baby steps towards this AR, VR implementation. And eventually you might get to a point where everybody has a headset, but baby steps to the average consumer. Right, right. And a lot of conversations about machine learning, and you said, you're excited about some of the machine learning. You've got kind of just the metadata and better metadata around the assets themselves, but now actually getting into the assets at the frame level to do more exploration so that people can, you know, see age old adage, right? Find, consume, and share the stuff that they're most interested in. So there's a lot of new opportunities because of the horsepower of these machines here that we're surrounded by in terms of the massive capacity and speed of the storage systems to do things that you really couldn't do inside the assets themselves. Absolutely, and I think our problem at somewhere like Disney is unique. It's different than a Google or Facebook. We're not looking at this huge well of content like YouTube. We're looking at a smaller amount of content, and what's really important to us is accurate metadata about our content, more so than just having metadata. So a lot of what we focus on is definitely metadata extraction, but to the extent that we're going to use these machine learning tools, we want to have really good training sets and get back really accurate data. So a lot of what we focus on is being able to have a QA layer on top of the machine learning efforts, being able to use machine learning efforts that can be honed towards one show, for instance. So we're only extracting a certain set of characters. So we really enjoy using these tools and enjoy finding ways that we can apply them to our unique problem, which seems to be different than the problem that some of them are trying to address. But regardless, they're working really well for us. So what are some of the use cases, or can you share any of how you're using machine learning to get and score that kind of metadata? Yeah, for instance, we're starting to use metadata in some of the ways other people are, and some of the stuff that I can talk about, for instance, is facial capture, location capture, things that other people are doing, but again, they're unique to one show. For instance, a Quantico on ABC might be something where we have a set of characters that we're looking for. We're starting to use machine learning to look at things like that. Interesting. Now, Disney, obviously, great company, been around forever, huge legacy. Just curious the conversations in the hallway as there's this crazy wave of technology kind of budding up against, we still have to tell great stories, and Disney has a long history of telling great stories whether through the original animation studios or all the vast properties of which you guys have grown up. Is there still kind of a creative kind of ying and yang there? Is there a threat and kind of a rebalancing about kind of technology versus, let's not forget what should be job one? Absolutely, and I think that's why I really enjoy working at Disney. It's always story first, and my background is actually in creative development in the film industry, so I always come at it from a story first point of view, and I enjoy that the rest of the company does as well, but if you look at kind of Disney's history, it's always been technology complementing story. Think about the multi-plane camera and Snow White. The reason Snow White was able to be made was because Disney democratized animation. He figured out the technology that made animation possible at a feature film scale. Without that machine, that would not have been possible. So I think in our core history, you have these certain technologies that are put to use in the service of story, and I think that's pretty much how we approach everything. We're looking for stuff that's going to augment our storytelling efforts, not replace it, not degrade it anyway, but only to enhance it, and that's in our legacy. Right, right, that's interesting. I've never heard it explained that way, but that is so much the trend that we continue to be on today. It's democratization of the data, democratization of the access to the data, democratization of the analytics of the data, and then operating at scale, which requires that today's scale, we're not talking about two-hour movie scale and actually being able to produce that animation, but just massive amounts of data that are flowing through the system. So how do you operate there? We want to use that data to empower our storytellers, to empower anybody at the company to tell better stories. But the data management, it's tough. I think a lot of what we had to do is, first of all, put in place the plumbing to make that data easily accessible, to make it easily searchable, to make it correct, to make it authoritative, to get people out of their spreadsheets that you have stored away somewhere and unify that data so that it starts to tell a story. And we've been very successful in those efforts, but it's a massive undertaking because you have companies that have not necessarily thought from a data-first point of view and are now realizing the actual value of this data. So part of what we're doing is extracting that metadata, doing it in a way that's extremely accurate and authoritative, but also going as far upstream as possible to try to find, are there other people that are already collecting this metadata, and can we have them put into kind of a central database as opposed to everybody having their own little corner of data? Is there an effort to kind of reassess the value of the data where before just raw data in and of itself was liabilities, expensive to store, expensive to keep, and there was always trade-off decisions about what you keep, what you throw away. Now, there really is the opportunity to keep it all, and there's significant data outside, maybe beyond whatever the box office gate of the feature film with all the various distribution channels and ancillary things, and obviously, Disney is way ahead of the curve in terms of licensing and realizing value beyond just the core asset. But are there new ways now that those models are being worked in so that you can justify the additional expense of all this extra metadata and storage and infrastructure, which at the end of the day, you got to pay the bill to the data center. Absolutely, I think to the extent that we can use our data to tell our stories, to gain new insights, it is extremely valuable, and I think there are efforts around the company to not necessarily store as much data as possible, but to find what data is valuable and where it is, and we're finding more and more data that is valuable, because when you are able to unify it with other data, it starts to tell a story, and that's both data about our content, about our content performance, about our consumers, what type of stories we should and shouldn't be telling. So I think it's not just taking everything, but it's figuring out what data is actually valuable and then trying to derive as much insight as possible from that. All right, so 2017, what are your top priorities for this year? I can't believe we're a third of the way through 2017. It's just a little scary. It used to be like a new year question, I guess it's not a new year question than you are. I would say one of our main goals is really to advance our automation efforts. I think also to the extent possible to advance our metadata tagging efforts as much as possible, I'd say that's kind of top of mind at the moment. In addition to some other things, but that's some of the stuff we're thinking about. All right, great. Well, Avi, thanks for taking a few minutes and enjoy your first ever. Thank you. 2017. All right, Avi Swardlow from Disney. I'm Jeff Frick from theCUBE. You're watching us live from NAB 2017 at the Las Vegas Commissions Center. We'll be back after this short break. Thanks for watching.