Відео

Great interview! I really enjoyed hearing Dr. brown’s views clearly stated. Thanks!

richard brown is The Answer. choice. Absolute Consciousness Accessed. Higher Order Acknowledged.

Just can't stop lying. 80 likes, 108 dislikes btw.

I had the same thought, Michel Foucault and Thomas Riddle are very alike.

I'd ask jimbob to name 1 thing he did using his free will, & I'd bet money that thing was determined on something totally out of his control. hell, him existing was even totally out of his control. it wasn't even in his parents control. they had no control over whether they were fertile or not in order to have a child in the first place. he had no control over whether he had a mental or physical disability. I don't think he's look at the big picture. that seems to happen a lot with theists.

I noticed this a few years ago.. Joe said most of his team behind the scenes are Jewish so they obviously reach out and get other Jewish guests.. Joe Rogan is a shabbos goy

Thank you JimBob, these fools are unworthy of your time. Atheists are so dishonest, juvenile and dumb.

As a theist, I don't think there's a particular hard case AGAINST determinism. In fact, theism is most likely a certain form of determinism(GOD being the sovereign ultimate cause of all). I also don't think it leads to a necessary epistemic issue, but the only way it doesn't is THROUGH theism. Here's the argument: P1) In order for a means to be a justified means to an end there must be a rational link between the means and an end whereby the means rationally lead towards the end. P2) Epistemic tools are means to an end(epistemic end). C) There must be a rational link between the epistemic means and the epistemic goal whereby the means rationally lead towards the end P1) Under a non-rationally determined Universe there can be no rational justification between means and ends. P2) Under a deterministic epistemology there must be rational epistemic justification between means and ends. C) All true deterministic epistemology entails a rationally-determined Universe. P1) A rationally determined Universe requires, ultimately, a rational determining entity. P2) An ultimate rational determining entity can only be a rational substance. P3) We refer to rational substances as mind. C) A rationally determined Universe entails, ultimately, a determining mind.

fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

My concern has always been between the hyper-rationalists and the irrationalists. (These people are different sides of the same coin.). I'd put Sam Harris as part of the former, of course. I would argue that one main driver of the Germans going down the wrong path (to eventually think of Jews as the problem) is precisely (at least leading up the troubles) their reduction of reason to the instrumental/factual/conceptual. If reason is seen as simply an instrument for determining the most efficient way to a given end, it fails to acknowledge the complexity of human experience. Imagine your whole society is like this (the goal is always efficiency and practicality). There are constant pressures to always get to the bottom of things. You literally strip away the essence of everything (including the human and human experience). The human being looked at instrumentally is not much different than seeing the human as a machine. You start to ask what are the implications/consequences of this person/this group and their consequence on society instead of an intrinsic interest in that person/the people. If you are impatient and see any issue as a problem to solve, you likely have a very reductive view of reason.

The host has refuted himself by showing up for a debate. His position states that he has no control over what he thinks, says, and does. Yet, he is convinced that his uncontrolled thinking is the most accurate. Ha! Thanks anyways, Much love

Beautiful video. It is more or less the same message of buddhism or the message within the philosophy by spinoza

She Also Falsely Assumed That A Neurosurgeon Would Know Everything There Is To Know About The Brain When The Fact If The Matter Is That There Are Many Things About The Brain That Hasn't Been Figured Out Yet...

Jimbob is a troll and a waste of time.

The fact of the matter is that Jews deserve the power they hold in society

Stop noticing the overrepresentation, coincidences and influential power around this particular group of people whom we cannot criticize..... This is why groups like AIPAC, ADL, et al are toxic and quite literally prove the "conspiracy theorists" and "hateful extremists" right. As soon one notices and points out anything remotely unusual about this particular group of people, it's like the Eye of Sauron spotlights them and all the sudden every academic, activist, NGO and so called expert comes out of the woodwork attempting to portray them as some kind of dangerous criminal, smear their reputation, and have them censored/deplatformed/banned. It's like the Kanye West thing where he mentions that particular group of people's immense influence and control in the industry; and that particular group of people literally go: "Hey he publicly spoke about our power and influence so in order to prove him wrong about his assertions, let's do exactly what he accused us of by smearing his reputation, getting his business deals ruined, get his contracts canceled, and steal his money". Then of course anyone noticing the utter mind blowing irony (the chutzpah, shall we say?) of this standard response is also targeted, smeared, and meets the same fate starting the cycle over again. I mean it's _almost_ as if they're not insane hateful nutjobs but actually have a valid point.

I literally thought of 7 and shit don't know if that was luck hahaha.

The immortality hypothetical is full of contradictions at every corner, if you think of it. Immortality does not mean a potentially limitless life expectancy, it means the absolute impossibility of dying. This immortality must then be unconditional, otherwise it means that the conditions of immortality can be destroyed, and we are still mortal - unless the hypothetical hold that the conditions of immortality would themselves be indestructible, unalterable. Now something that could not be subject to any change in our universe where everything is in motion is a contradiction. (This is one example.) You may think it’s not, like Hume who believed that saying the sun will not rise tomorrow does not imply any contradiction, since you can conceive it. And that is where lies the fundamental issue: what you seems to ignore here is the epistemological framework from which Craig operates, i.e. the Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics. Objectivism hold that logic is not divorced from reality, and that if something act in contradiction to what it is (say, a woman giving birth to an elephant), it break the law of identity which is the base of logic. I would advise you to read the article "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" by Leonard Peikoff (available for free online, just Google it) if you want to understand where Craig speak from. Then you will better understand why he dismissed this hypothetical, instead of accusing him of using excuse, which is an arbitrary assertion.

if you are dumb enough to debate someone on freewill you have already conceded that free will exist as you are assuming you are able to change someone else mind as if they did have free will to do so if everything is determined then debate and dialog is utterly pointless as our conclusions are forgone and trying to engage in such things just exposes you as a hypocrite with an incoherent world view that you say one thing but do something completely to the contrary of what you are saying basically you can't walk the talk and you behave as if free will exist while being boneheaded enough to try and say it doesn't

I was determined to do that.

I feel like this discussion is a great example of different goals between regular people and professional or hobbyist philosophers. Sam’s trying to offer a secular grounding for a basic ethical framework and get people to move away from viewing morality as magical thinking. Whereas Alex wants to do endless philosophising about the meaning of words and get lost in the weeds forever, which is great too. Both are absolutely valid, but most people have kids, jobs and limited time to navel gaze. Whereas professional philosophers don’t ever want a good enough moral framework cause they won’t have a job anymore. Sam’s moral philosophy won’t ever be as good as the philosopher sitting around thinking about this stuff full time, but that’s cause 99% of people don’t have that much time to obsess over the meaning of words to the point you can’t say any statements.

Analytic Philosophy was a mistake

The clip does not feature confusion so much as a challenge to the relevance of the analogy and what can be extrapolated from it. In short "what if an aesthetic was heavily preferred, would that not contradict your morality argument?" "Aesthetics are not morality." "But what if in this case aesthetics were perceived as morality?" "Then the analogy becomes fuzzy and begs more questions than it clarifies."

I was so disappointed by their discussion... They could have explored so many topics but ran in circles instead...

While i agree with Harris a lot its hard to take him seriously after he got taken in by right wing grifters and UFO scammers.

nope

People watching YT non-experts talk about moral philosophy is entertainment. A bit like watching a gibbon observing a magic trick.

Hey, I think I diagree with you quite a bit here, would you be willing to have a conversation about it, or a debate, whichever you prefer?

But does good have to objectively make us feel good? Morality is about right and wrong, not the resulting reaction of the person that does the action.

Yeah it was great to hear O'Connor criticize basically the only thing I disagree with Harris about: calling it "objective morality". I often point out we could've just as easily subjectively picked "obey the Bible" as our basis. At that point, we can objectively measure progress towards that goal. (Nearly every imaginable subjective moral goal can be objectively measured.) Yet if we call that "objective morality" it immediately results in self-contradicting absurdities. We'd have to simultaneously say it was objectively good *and* evil to own slaves according to the Bible's rules (good because it obeyed the Bible's instructions; bad because it reduced well-being). That said, even on the rest of the topic I agree with basically all of Sam's points: * well-being is a fantastic subjective moral goal * using science to figure out the best strategies for maximizing well-being will absolutely result in finding the best strategies currently available * and I'd even agree with something he said elsewhere where the way we use "morality" has always been about well-being. That's a good point, but the way we use "movie preferences" has always referred to a fairly specific thing too, yet that doesn't make them objective. Personally I'm a moral relativist, though I do need to investigate emotivism a bit (an idea O'Connor made me aware of, but I still don't know enough about it to know if I agree or disagree). Seems like the Venn diagram overlap between relativism and emotivism might be pretty high, but again I'm very unfamiliar with emotivism so maybe I'm completely wrong about that.

Studies on thousands of NDEs shows clearly that "morality" is the only thing that matter for a dying person (it doesnt matter if are just hallucinations or visions or whatever). So IS a very relevant concept. Is a concept that was taught ? encrypted in our DNA ? in a concept from an higher consciousness ? is value in the universe ?

5:15 A tree doesn't need to have a mind to "be well" or not. I think making it a point of labels suggests a scope limited to the ongoing debates over theism. There can be objective wellbeing, without there being "objective good".

I don’t know if you could say that Sam Harris’s definition of good is a tautology, because he clearly defines it as opposed from bad. And unless your saying - good is the opposite of bad and bad is the opposite of good, is a tautology in and of itself - it holds no water

I was determined to click on this thumbnail which was suggested to me based on the UA-cam videos that I was determined to watch prior to this. I was determined to leave this comment. Every single character in this comment 🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃

Seems you are finally starting to understand Jimbob at 31:35, but your “determination” took the conversation into another direction.

Satan's chosen

Antisemitism???? Really Go Kick Rocks Victim

The point is that reading a holy book and taking it for absolute truth is unequivocally wrong and should not be done. Clearly morality changes over time, as Muslims right here in this comment section agree on. The claim “it has to be interpreted”. If it has to be interpreted then it cannot be taken as truth, because anyone can interpret things differently.

You debating and uploading is a free choice you made in order to convince people of the fact that rational argumentation does not exist

another win for Andrew lol christians who support lgbtq are not real christians man

the problem with Alex is that he doesnt truly explains his concepts or beliefs. he often makes lengthy counter arguments and claims based on arguments to disprove them but at the end of the day he doesnt sticks with them because he claims he was just counter arguing, not actually telling his beliefs. its this idea which buries him, because if a argument or a case is strong you must present your belief with better counter argument or alternative argument and be able to defend it. you cannot just hop between arguments and state you didnt made such claims, thus you are retracting it and you need to face it. and also his problem is that he, atleast at this time, doesnt really believe in objective morality. how can he morally argue what is morally correct or not? and if you listen to his debate with saboor ahmed in human rights, he defends himself by suggesting concept of pleasure and suffering selected by natural selection. lets delve in what alex had to say, his all idea is that natural selection perfectly explains why we he moral values as such. because we want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering and thus natural selection worked on this critirea. there are 2 problems, the claim is that what darwin and co founder of darwinism, suggested that natural selection cannot explain the complexites of mathematics, physics and general science we have today. it shouldnt explain this vast difference between us and monkeys. while darwin expressed this opinion, but the cofounder (forgot his name) completely left away from his own thoery. the other is, lets continue that natural selection is operating on a set of criteria based on max of pleasure and min of suffering. can the parameters of this be changed such that we had other things for maximize of pleasure and minimize of suffer? its a yes, ok can we change that since it could have been anything, could it be that pleasure was chosen instead of pain and pain was chosen instead of pleasure? Alex did say yes in his debate, and the problem with this idea is that thus if pleasure and suffering are 2 variables chosen from (i will tell later) and can be swapped by each other each other. this my premise, can it be that there were a 3rd variable that could have been chosen instead of pain or pleasure, and different to both. could it have been that parameters are different at all, neither pleasure or pain would have been chosen and somthing else entirely?. there could have been a 4rth variable ,5,6,7,8 and so on. it leads to infinite variables which leads to absurdity. it opens up the door to infinite possibilities because infinite options existed and yet one was chosen. It could not have been chosen in first place. if one option was selected, it hints towards God, since else leads to absurdity, because who selected pain and pleasure? if we accept this idea, then it denies the concept of natural selection. if natural selection is selecting on a criteria, who selected the criteria, did the criteria came after natural selection or before it. if it came before it, well natural selection is working on set criteria to create life which is fine tuning argument. A) why is there a particular order of natural selection? B) why isnt there any other particular order of natural selection? C) what chose the order/ criteria of natural selection? if its not God, then suggesting that natural selection's criteria was selected by another set of criteria, call it "natural selection 2", that chose this criteria and who chose NS 2's criteria? NS 3 chose NS 2's criteria and who chose 3's, 4 ,5 ,6 and we are back to the idea of infinite dependencies. there cannot be infinite dependencies and there must be one final independent set of criteria which is not chosen by any set of criteria and explains itself and other criteria, otherwise it leads to absurdity. and since a final set of criteria exists, there must be a consciousness Who selected the criteria for the criteria to have best explanation. A Criterion. if nothing selected criteria, on what basis? how did nothing selected somthing? which property nothing has to select somthing? is the property of nothing that selected somthing or property of somthing to select itself. if its property of nothing, then how did that property came into existence? then its not truly nothing? if its somthing which selected itslef based on a property of somthing before somthing came into being is absurd. because if somthing is non existence, it cannot have property leached to it, otherwise its not non existence. God provides a logical, conclusive and a stable framwork in the world of philosophy and metaphysics so far. and contingency argument is the strongest case for God's existence which is applied on an uncreated universe if believed to and so. also the its also an active claim to do so.

Rachel, it's not the ultimate moral imperative of Harris' The Moral Landscape. Harris basically argues that questions on morality have to have answers that fall within the purview of science, that's all.

Jimbob, I would assume that if someone attained arousal through doing harm, that would not constitute the highest peak of well-being. Maybe in the moment, but the repercussion for that person would surely lead in another direction. Maybe drinking 5 bottles of scotch will make you feel good in the moment, but you'd be dead a little while after that. Short term ecstasy is not the same as well-being.

So, basically, what Andrew is saying, is that without belief in a god, he could be a murderous psychopath. Not a moral "compass" I would follow. The thousands of years before established religions, tribes worked together without godly commandments. Commandments came from customs, not a godly word. Tit-for-tat is one way how society formed.

Thanks and congratulations. We should never ignore that all representations of our mind can be just that: representations with no equivalence at all with whatever reality is. But... still, this is a great way of interpreting the experience of the self (or first person).

Noticing is illegal now.

An interesting speaker....but why does he state that consciousness is "probably" a product (or did he say function ?) of the brain and then slide right past the very centrally important discussion hidden behind this word "probably"? It is by no means obvious or even " probable". I mean it is consciousness that is investigating the brain, not the other way around. Without consciousness what would be known of the brain anyway? I think Rupert Spira has a point with his contention that consciousness has the priority and brain is just another of the countless phenomena that appear within in it and because of it. IMHO this view should at least have been slapped at a little in this interview. Please have Spira on your podcast (if you can get him)and let his have his say.

Listen as they cry out while attacking. Anyone who pushes that Leather Apron Club is pushing anything but truth is an obvious propagandist. GFY.

take that L

Never heard of a more silly theory... it's like to say "you dont crave pizza if you are nothingness !!" ...ty genius, but once i tasted it i would like to taste it forever.