You can see on both of their faces how they're just like kids again; so excited to be accompanied by a fellow traveler that really is genuinely interested in batting ideas around and playing with them for the betterment of both parties. No animosity, no big egos, just a genuine exchange of intelligence and a trained capacity on both sides to actually listen carefully. It doesn't get much better than that in a conversation! Thanks for this Bret, it'll definitely go in one of my "must hear again" loops. Peace out from Norway.
I was homeschooled with him! We also had the same piano teacher! I've been subscribed to his CZcams channel for years too. So cool to see him do a podcast with someone so high profile! Good for him!
@@HigoWapsico 1:31 "There is one conscious state happening at this moment." The answer is, "Amen." Potential (not just possible) knowledge is always Aknowledgement. Stanley Cavell's reading of Wittgenstein in "Claim of Reason" explains this at great length. "Confession" is a Latin translation equivalent to Aknowledgement, as in "fess up." I was born and raised "an intellectual," but this is our flesh, and this is our blood. "Consciousness" is a complex admixture of Memories, Transferences, Mimesis, Wills, Representations and Contexts. We English speakers are prone to Singluars where Plurals are in Order.
We will be arriving at the truth momentarily. Please buckle up, we are experiencing severe turbulence, we're on empty, and this is our one shot at landing on this narrow strip. In the likely event of an abrupt stop, we are hopeful there will be a few survivors, as the whole population is on this flight. Remain calm and cross your fingers if it helps.
Consciousness is just a biological "operating system." It's way less interesting than "knowledge," which involves a great deal more than useful associative responses to phenomena. To formulate substructural operating principles into language that can then sort associative experiences into one's intellectual toolbox with endless adaptive applicability? This is the Rubicon that turned a strange and wildly intelligent and adaptive species of primate into "human beings." I remember well when I dispensed this gift from Mount Olympus. Why don't you assholes ever say "thank you" anymore?
The last leg of our flight has taken 30years - the pilots are US neo-globalists & Co. The name of the plane is "US Hegemony" at all costs. We are experiencing a fog of lies, sophistry, and propaganda right now so don't look out of your window - entertainment is provided on our complimentary screens.
Well said my friend, we need to prepare for the coming mass depopulation, i fear it will be brutal. I live in vienna and ive never seen so many ambulances drive every single day. Lets pray for the least amount of lives lost my friends
Thank you for being courageous enough to critique Richard Dawkins. I'm a Cambridge University grad, and I've been to four of Dawkins guest lectures during my undergraduate study there (during which time he was an Oxford professor.) Honestly, I I have never found Dawkins to be terribly intelligent. He's an entertaining lecturer in his field, but his propensity to reduce complex topics ad absurdum is a clear indication of defective thinking. If you've ever seen his atheism debates, you will know exactly what I mean - he is infuriating. He is revered, so people rarely call him out on it. He also has very little knowledge outside his domain, which makes him rather dull. That being said, his Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker books really captured my imagination as a child. He's one of the four people who really got me hooked on Natural Science at a young age - the others being Hawking, Penrose and Feyman. I agree with your conclusion that he's a rather good synthesizer which makes him a decent teacher at the undergraduate level, but only an average thinker and biologist. By the way - I agree with your assessment that cultural memes are essentially extended phenotypes - but I acknowledge that since Dawkins coined both terms, it's hard to tell him he's wrong 😀. Good show.
I'm currently reading Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype. Only a 1/4 of the way through, but it's a challenging read after the first 100 pages or so. I too have read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and several of his other books (from way back to the late 80s) - and also his book The God Delusion (a decade ago). Having a master's degree in philosophy, and with a long time interest in religion and early Christian history, I was initially disappointed by that particular book, and often found myself more or less agreeing but yet with many qualifiers and exceptions. But whatever else I might be tempted to conclude from my disappointment, the last thing I would want to say is that Dawkins is "not terribly intelligent". I'm myself am an atheist, but often wanted to take exception to this or that argument; but in the end it finally dawned on me that it was only by virtue of the special interest that I've had in the subject of philosophy of religion that I was able to know that there were possible replies and that Dawkins seemed to sweep under the rug. But in many ways, I'm not at all the intended audience for that particular book to which I happened to know the caveats. I realized that I was not the intended audience when I read a review of his book from a Muslim reader who was positively ecstatic at having found and read his book who was very much struggling with his religious beliefs. He felt that book gave him permission to think very differently but what his own social circumstances allowed. And so in that respect, I think that Dawkins can honestly say "mission accomplished". I should add that Bret Weinstein does NOT at all agree with your view that Dawkins has somehow lost his sharpness or is intelligence. That he has mentally slowed down a bit is perfectly normal condition of aging (as I see in myself having turned 65 recently). I recently read his spirited defense against a variety of critics on his view of "group selection". The critics were among the best in the field of evolutionary biology and whether or not he won that particular debate is quite besides the more important point that he had quite clearly had complete mastery of the topic (as well as he should given his very long standing views on what he considers the fatal flaw of "group selection".) As an aside, I was rather shocked when the young man just acknowledged that he "never read Richard ..." which I would have thought would be immediate grounds for recusing yourself from that debate. But he keeps talking. Moreover, his shockingly dismissive attitude about Einstein's understanding of relativity was truly infuriating and absolutely does not at all square with my own reading of that history of science and physics of the time. That relativity was "in the air" in 1905 is readily acknowledged, but the very idea that Einstein merely synthethized what he "did not truly understand" strikes me as absurd. (It's also evident that Patterson has also not read Richard Alexander nor Robert Trivers, nor Jerry Coyne but maybe not relevant, though I have read them both.) What I'm confused about, ultimately, is why Bret Weinstein is talking to this man. By minute 42 I have yet to hear something concrete as opposed to the generic epistemic counsel I would start a philosophy 101 class with. That he keeps bringing it back to martial arts, as opposed to Richard Alexander and Dawkins is very telling. I feel like I'm in an elevator listening to the sales pitch, but the elevator has stopped, and it's mostly a rehash of what's already been said. He fails to take his own advice. What is he beyond a good self-promoter? Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised further on?
He's definitely intelligent but does have flaws in his thinking. I mean Newton was considered intelligent even though he spent most of his time trying to prove the portion of biblical text rewritten by the disciples was literally true.
This man is calling the creator of 'meme' and the extended phenotype an average thinker. Imagine if every average thinker was so productive. We'd be advancing much faster.
It’s channels like Darkhorse, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson that are keeping me sane. People are getting tired of MS media installing brainwashed ideologies into their brains and we need real conversations!
They’ll all be made to share a cell when they’re rounded up & removed from circulation by the thought police. Oh, to be a senescent, immortal fly on the wall of said cell.
Fair enough, but the notion of infinite sets isn't a brainwashed ideology conceived by mainstream media; it's a coherent and incredibly useful concept. Steve Patterson should be a lot more careful about where he directs his ire.
Loved it! I can't tell you how much I value being able to listen in on long form discussions that are allowed to go as deep as may be, like Dark Horse. Lots of us don't have anyone to talk to in this way. These are intellectual nutrients we're starving for.
What a fantastic discussion! I fear this one will go underrated and not widely shared as much as it should be. Thank you Bret, for the introduction to Steve. I look forward to more titillating discussions in the future.
It seems to be underrated so far. So disappointing when serious important stuff like this isn't more known about. Three hours is a little daunting but it's so worth the time.
Imo the 20 minute clip ,of " are we living in a dark age ? ", Would be a much more effective share, and then those interested in it can self select for those potentially interested in the full conversation. Asking people to invest 20 min , is much more reasonable than asking people to invest 3 hours Just my two cents Obviously your mileage may vary Be safe and be well
This is so cool. Steve and I had the same piano teacher and we were both homeschooled. Very cool to see someone so close to home surface on a podcast like this.
Steve Pattersons martial arts analogy maps perfectly with our current western medicine industry. Many specialists for single body parts that can’t intellectually compete with the holistic doctor that understands how the entire human system works. These specialists also identify as ‘knowing it all’
Yes, love this! And the specialists are often surgeons... which results in most "specialists" effectively being surgery salespeople, with no concept of figuring out what your best course of action/treatment would be.
Brett's channel has been in my top 5 for a couple years but he's really making a case for being the best podcast out there right now. From a fellow Oregonite, thank you for my daily dose of sanity!
I absolutely love this conversation and could not turn it off for the entire 2 1/2 hours! It’s so nice to hear a reasonable, rational exchange between two people with slightly different points of view and a completely different point of view from my own. Thank you for letting this conversation go on the way that it did! I thoroughly enjoy the dark horse podcast in general and especially like this one!
I had a similar experience to Steve once I met three old friends who had all studied to masters degree in economics, I was very curious to ask them some basic but fundamental questions like "Do you think our tax system works well?" or "What would you change to make the economy more efficient?". Like Steve I was met not only with bad answer but zero answer, to them these types of questions were irrelevant, I find it difficult to imagine what kind of things they have been learning the whole time.
I suppose there's a reason why they call economics 'the dismal science'. Terminology has a weird power too. When I try to think objectively 'am I an idealist or a materialist'?, I have to conclude 'materialist'. At the same time, I kind of hate that conclusion. Probably a false dichotomy: are we made of 'thoughts' or 'stuff'? Or stuff that *has* thoughts? Between A and B, it's always C somehow...
"Consciousness is fundamental" ~Dr. Donald Hoffman, UCI I took a class he taught in 2005 or so, "The Brain Body Problem", really shook me up, though I never fully understood his theory, "Conscious Realism", I think of it often. He described our perceptions as an interface with reality.
What a joy! Thank you Bret for recommending that we go back and listen to this conversation - 3 hours wasn't long enough! SO, so fascinating! I loved seeing Bret and Steve coming up with analogies to try to get their ideas across. Can't wait to see more conversations between you both!
I've been a long time subscriber to both of your channels and never in my wildest dreams would I have hoped that you two would strike up such an engaging conversation. This was fantastic! A definite light in the Darkness when it comes to intellectual dialogue about topics I very much miss discussing. I would absolutely love for a follow-up on this conversation with the both of you. I would gladly pay a subscription just to hear the two of you bounce ideas off each other
Lately I've gone through a bit of a personal renaissance and I've come to a lot of the conclusions y'all were talking about. Using a simpler facsimile to solve problems, interdisciplinary study type things have taught me SO MUCH. You can use water, temperature, and/or a tree to create some analogy to understand almost any problem. The idea of "there are only so many types of things" had my interest for several weeks and it's the essence of why analogy works in general. There are so many things I could comment on but one that really came up for me was the idea of possibilities. If we entertain multiverse theory for a second, we can imagine...if I'm depressed and stay home for 2 weeks, how many branches does my tree have for my future in those 2 weeks compared to if I am able bodied and happy? Rather than binge-watching cartoons at home, perhaps I would have a spontaneous discussion with my neighbor? Maybe we would plan a hang out? Maybe I would go for a bike ride and find a shortcut to ride my bike to work? You can't deny, the set of possible outcomes from me staying home vs me exploring my world without fear and with curiosity is far likelier to be higher. And when you consider maybe IF: hang out w neighbor and maybe I tell them about something that inspires THEM to change their course of action, then it has a multiplicative effect. I'm not religious, but I have often wondered if the great religious figures knew this without knowing it. Being kind to others fosters an environment where people feel more safe to try things. Fear of judgment for mistakes that are, in the grand scheme absolutely trivial, simply is not productive. The more freedom to attempt, the fewer barriers to synthesis of new methods and thoughts, the more knowledge and ideas open up that may not have been accessible before.
This needs to be weekly. Unfortunately I think that about most of his guests, but this one in particular was exceptional. Made me realize I had a bunch of the questions I have all actually fall under the umbrella of the bigger question of whether or not we are in a Dark Age. A little sidenote: I wish I'd have never gone to college. It trained me to actually not question. I've spent the last few years undoing a lot of the "Listen to The Science" I was taught and I'm so much better off now.
I think that when Jordan Peterson says that he acts as if God exists , he literally means that he doesn't know if God exists but in acting as if God exists he tries to do the right and just things in his life's actions . I was so happy to hear him say that , because I feel that I am not nor could I be enlightened enough to know that God exists . I think that it was beautiful hearing that assertion from Dr. Peterson . I think that it was brilliant and again , it made me feel very happy ...
@Voodio Mola ha you said it, there for you are. "I AM". For for further context I would instruct you to listen to Neville Goddard. I'm not here to change your mind but I do feel that you are important and should take my advice on this one. Have a good one.
"Religion has always served two purposes. The first, I call "Translation", which is that religion provides a framework so that one does not become immediately neurotic a in a world of chaos. It strengthens the ego. The second purpose it has always served, and for far fewer people, is "Tranformation", instead of giving the ego comfort and a translated understanding, it systematically throttles the ego to its death. Thus union with the all, The Tao, God, Buddha-Nature, all of the names."- Ken Wilber (paraphrased)
@@Eric-tj3tg ok, but why? Maybe a creator purposely designed us that way, but I won't contemplate my naval over it. I love the idea, even though humans screw it up. It's harmless, since I'm not gonna try & convert anyone, or pontificate too much. Makes me gassy. It's just that some profound things happened to me that blew my mind. That's what sealed it for me.
This was my first introduction to Patterson. This guy's fun to listen to! I hope to see more of him. It got a little vague and sticky for me in the middle with the consciousness and determinism stuff, but his analogies are where he gets a hot hand in so far as getting his points across to a general audience. And some of the conversation that I struggled with lacked those juicy analogies I needed because he was sticking his toe into the topic to see where it would go. Maybe in a future conversation he could expand on his idea of consciousness with some of his good analogies. I really enjoyed the conversation, especially Brett, who's always easy to follow because of his clarity.
The need for cooperation across domains is essential in order to stay cohesive as innovation and discoveries are made. Very thankful for this discussion, and Heather and Bret's enthusiasm towards helping humanity succeed!!
I usually have trouble following these conversations. It often feels like they are speaking past each other. But these two are clarifying each other!! Great conversation! Thank you both.
Yes. These days most of what gets called “conversation” is really a sort of dual discourse wherein, as you pointed out, people talk past each other. This is an actual conversation. One engaging with another’s ideas.
What a fascinating conversation! One of those where you wish you could take part (despite not having expertise in the fields). EDIT: I love how about half way in you fellows forget you are making a broadcast and just have a great back and forth teasing out an issue on consciousness! EDIT 2: And now I am seriously perturbed that I allowed myself to be arm twisted into accepting what amounts to an untested experimental vaccine. I have been observing some worrying symptoms in myself and cannot determine if there is a link or if it is coincidence but the notion that those we trusted may have harmed us for profit is infuriating.
To all my friends who suffer from chronic anxiety, my suggestion was always don't take the vaccine because you want to be part of the control group of humans who are the same as they always have been. Most of them succumbed to my counterpart on the other side of the fence over time, so all i did was make the anxious people i love more anxious. Imagine how anxious that makes me feel! Or, you know, don't.
Got lost a couple times in the rhetoric but Bret does an excellent job of defining the complex. Can appreciate why he was such a popular & quality teacher.
Excellent! A truly excellent conversation, engaging, interesting and it’s so uplifting to listen to you both! Would absolutely love to have beautiful minds like yours around.. Thanks very much!
There are loads of “sage” wisdom (sorry, couldn’t resist) examples). My Grandmother and mother always said, if you get the flu, go to bed and sweat it out. When I got Covid my body temp dropped fast, opposite to the official symptoms but common to many I know. I took a hot bath and felt better then out everything I could on the bed to help me sweat.. worked like a charm.
I found the religious people conversation interesting but have to say that, the more I hear people struggle and get nowhere in those type of conversation.... The more I come to appreciate JBP's take and easy response to sum this topic up ... "EVERYONE is religious. It's just a Q of where and what things they are putting their faith in." THAT statement feels more true to me than almost anything. You should have seen atheist and materialist Matt Dillahunty lose his shit and get mad at JBP when Jordan laid that one on him.and directly accused Matt of both being religious and not even being aware of it. Priceless.
There ya go. I'm sitting here feeling baffled by all the naval gazing regarding God. I have faith..I believe. Maybe because I want to, maybe we have subconscious memories of our origin, which we can't access because of free will, & we actually KNOW. Maybe the stories are questionable, but the idea is good; brilliant & hopeful, even though it's been corrupted by flawed humans. Maybe I'm not a deep thinker, blissfully ignorant, gullible. I believe, because I have had profound spiritual experiences that I cannot explain, and even with all the misery in the world, wouldn't the wonders of it make an after life seem like a piece of cake? Also, even these smart guys can't figure it out & scientists still can't prove that consciousness originates in the brain. I believe in God; I just DO.
I'm spinning a bit.. I was totally engrossed in this conversation. I appreciate you two exploring complex systems.. I didn't have the words, but the guttural reaction of "no, I will not take a novel injection for an unknown entity", even at the threat of losing family ties. I heard echoes of old wisdom like, a jack of all trades and a master of none, being a favorite.
This Has to be how it must have been to be a student in Bret's classes @ evergreen (we're all jealous of you people): True Discussion of the biggest questions. The passion in this discussion is such a pleasure to watch
Regarding the 28:00 discussion, i'm a Geneticist so naturally i'm as shocked as Bret is regarding the D-dog's blindness to how far memes arrange genes, and it is most likely as Bret says due to being insoluble with a polite society, but it's probably something similar to Sam Harris on Trump or Fauchi on the Ouchie. Noam disappoints me constantly, particularly not realising his hierarchy (language/syntax) and the hierarchy of automata (computers) are two sides of the same coin. Even Eric on his unified theory of gobbledegook is frustratingly uncharacteristic. The genes from memes stays mainly in their teams.
I wrote the above at the timestamp, but the 30 minutes of monologue/commentary that comes after is just as great, this was a really great discussion. I wonder if you'll talk about death next and it's purpose at preventing memes from resting on their laurels, i suppose you did with the belt-swap mechanism. The only thing i'd say is, how many people do you think would go into the sciences if you had to remain great to maintain funding? People need security to raise a family, and much like a prized athlete who insures their hands as a scientist you'd have to insure your brain haha. But even though it would be tough competition, i'm sure it would attracted a higher calibre of person than the platitudefest of modern emaildemia
27:40 Thats a great question which i asked myself due to corona. There is a famous german sociolgist called Harald Welzer whom i really admire. He wrote a book called "Selber denken" (translated > think on your own) explaining concepts on how to better think about and understand the world, especially with regards to media competentce. This guy fell for the whole corona narrative without hesitation. That made me question if he actually understood what he explained in that book, bc it's literally an one to one hand book on how to navigate thought all this corona bs using our horrible german past as an example.
I think that Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet explain that better. Shortly IQ doesn't correlate very well with logical thinking/wisdom due to the collective thinking(mass psychosis,or "mass formation").
German: "Selbst Denken - Anleitung zum Widerstand" damit war bei mir die Hoffnung verbunden, eine passende Ergänzung zu den wirklich empfehlenswerten Titeln von Herrn Dobelli, u.a. "Die Kunst des klaren Denkens" oder "Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken" von Herrn Kahnemann, zu erhalten. Leider weit gefehlt und vom Buch bin ich bitter enttäuscht." (Amaz-Bew.)
The problem with the dead end types who state the work is done : a lack of humility and the unwillingness to sacrifice or put one's self-image on the line for the sake of truth.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw
I think there is a big difference between publicly repeatedly saying “ok, so this is false, but we operate as though it is true” every time you talk to someone about it (in other words acknowledging the falseness and leaving the door wide open for some to question, doubt, and challenge your conclusions because of that false aspect) vs in the back of your mind knowing something isn’t true, but refusing to admit it or allow any challenge to it because you have built thing upon it that might be open to challenge as well if the false thing is exposed. It’s about honesty.
I've recently found the idea of Onthological Mathematics and it really appeals to me, as explains why there is something rather than nothing in a pretty novel way.
It doesn't escape necessity. So it doesn't do what you think it does. Kripke, Pruss or Oderberg might do you good in showing why with their books even though they have some level of disagreement.
@@thesonnen447 Don't know those three, will have to check it out, but it seems really in depth, it'll take a while. Can you give me a quick explanation on what you mean when you say it doesn't escape necessity. It'll take me a while before I'm able to read their philosophical musings.
@@Butmunch666 I invite you to read "The Pythagorean Sourcebook," which collects most of the extant writings on Pythagoreans, who coined our phrases "Philosophy" and "Philosophical School" and "Mathematics" among other terms. Our world makes far more sense in Greek.
The best physicists and mathematicians most certainly do consider the metatheory and epistemological underpinnings of their study. Read Rebecca Goldstein on Kurt Godel. Or Roger Penrose on absolutely anything. The very, very good physicists who mainly do engineering might not be as concerned with these questions, but I bet they know a lot about it. They just don't have the vocabulary to talk about it quickly, in a form a philosopher would recognize as foundational. You'd have to probe a little more.
I'm really digging the guest and the conversation! Awesome, even though or especially bc I wrote a bunch of comments as I listened. Thank you! BTW, finally someone's on this channel challenging the bad ideas still around since the turn of the 20th century. 🔥 Philosophy returns on a [edit] ☯️ horse to save Humanity!
THIS !!! I was shot down by my supervisor for wanting to explicitly state and understand/discuss the philosophical framework behind a thesis project at uni (psychology studies) I got the response that "this isn't philosophy" and to not complicate things. But how can you do good research without understanding the philosophy of science which is underpinning the whole project!!!
Truly one of the most amazing conversations I've heard so far in life. Please Bret, get him back soon and keep digging out the truth nuggets y'all started mining here cause paydirt is close at hand. Fabulous! Thanks so much.
I don't believe that contradictions can both be true. While it may seem to be the case, in most cases when you dig below the surface they aren't truly contradictory, they mesh deeper in the issue at hand. Those rare instances is just that we don't fully understand those subjects/topics/items yet.
Physically speaking there is a force stopping a whirlwind making an airplane. That thing is best explained by the realization that there is no such thing as a truly "random" physical process. A whirlwind is based on patterns that will never achieve construction, which requires intentionality toward not following those patterns.
I was familiar with and favorably impressed with each of your podcasts individually, but the synergy between the two of you took you both to a level I hadn't seen before. You both have first class minds but together you were getting up there toward brilliance. In the most basic sense, you each built constructively on the other's ideas, but then you also both occasionally and very diplomatically kept the other one from driving off the road so to speak. Then there was an elder statesman - brash student dynamic that was fascinating to watch and listen to. I kept thinking that these guys can't keep up this level of intensity for much longer and the discussion will eventually lose the initial zing, but that didn't happen. One of the most interesting and entertaining discussions I have ever witnessed. Kudos to you both!
Loved this discussion! It slowly unfolded for me a realization about what was wrong with the meta-thought processes in the world right now ... that I had intuited but didn’t quite know how to articulate. Listening to this was like finally finding that word that exactly fit the concept you were trying to describe - or like finally letting out that satisfied burp that was building up after a good meal! What a relief! Thank you!
What we call The Dark Ages was mainly a time of suppression of what was once a rich ancient culture, superior to this high blech living. Yes, I have often said this is a Dark Age!! Thank you
I'm not a scientist, but a historian. And the actual historical parallels between the fall of Rome and today are overwhelming. It's less about technology and more about changing ideologies that are self destructive. This one will be worse. The Roman supply chains, food supplies etc. Extend far beyond Western Europe these days. And the population is much more divorced from farming, and their family clans. Worst of all we have Global groups waiting to seize power. This time it won't be Lord Smith seeking workers for his clan. It will be Pfizer and Gates. And instead of the Catholic church sending missionaries back to bring enlightenment and succour, it will be the climate cult. Preaching depopulation, and eating bugs.
I was glad to hear your take on the slippery slope. I recently made the argument that the categorization by academia of the slippery slope argument as a logical fallacy, is the single most consequential element which has allowed the social and intellectual disintegration which is rampant across all facets of our culture. The out-of-hand dismissal of a slippery slope statement, completely ignores and defies forward thinking, human nature and critical analysis of probabilities. This has worked out to be deleterious to our species on every front.
Wow! I've put this one on the backburner, since I've never heard about Steve Paterson. I shouldn't have. This discussion is a gem. Please have him on again to cut and polish it!
2:04:20 This is precisely how I think about things. I always have as many open options on the table of my mind as I can conceive of, and I have rough percentages attached to them. As new information comes in I adjust the likelihood of each one, add any new ones that have occurred to me, and go on. I operate in the world as though the top 3-5 are likely to be true and if necessary I go with my top one, but I never dismiss the other options.
Thank you both for a thought provoking conversation. As a designer of complex feedback control systems for over 30 years it is my belief that the essence of your discussion and its associated dilemmas are best understood by looking at the various problems as elements of a complex system, which you both alluded to in your dialogue. In the context of your discussions and generally speaking, the fundamental problem is that there are a broad spectrum of feedback mechanisms that are unknowingly neglected because there is this tendency to tackle problems by first looking at them as closed systems for simplicity. This is often necessary to gain a sufficient understanding of the fundamental problem we are trying to solve. This approach fails to fully consider external factors that can affect the theories and the conclusions drawn from the closed system analysis. Physics has suffered from this approach for the last century with the Standard Model assumptions. However, eventually somebody comes along like Steve or Brett who are thinking outside that closed system boundary creating a new perspective that creates a new disturbance source in the system’s control loop(s). This could affect internal loops or add one or more loops around the previously closed system, requiring the designers consider a new control strategy and discover the affects in the overall loop output. If the new insights are obtained at a very low bandwidth (years, decades, centuries etc) this makes things very difficult to analyze. Another factor relating to specialization is something else I learned - if you are a specialist, you very likely do not have sufficient awareness and/or knowledge to fully understand the control system in which you were embedded. I was a generalist with knowledge in multiple disciplines. This is why I had a successful business as feedback control systems analyst and designer in the electronics industry. It is always easier to understand and develop control strategies that have higher bandwidth. That apparent higher bandwidth may also be attributed to a full lack of understanding of the system. I believe this relates to the problem that discipline specialization and the claim that “this is just the way it is” - this is well understood and obeys the laws of physics or mathematics etc. As new knowledge feedback (a typically slow loop to bring about change to established systems) arises, it gives us another viewpoint that allows us to provide better feedback and improve the overall system response through a better design due to the new knowledge insights. This is an eternal process as far as human evolution goes. As nature is inherently cyclical in all of its aspects the process can reverse itself and instead of increasing the knowledge base, that base begins diminishing what we know. The main point I am trying to make is that everything you are talking about is a complex system whose inputs and outputs will change based upon what we know and don’t know.
Fantastic conversation! The interdisciplinary nature of the conversation yielded some fantastic detours - you two should have a full podcast together, so you can really develop that "shared language" together.
Bret, I NEED to hear about the peacock feather theories please. Having observed peacocks displaying, the peahens completely ignoring them (seemingly), I concluded the displays were as much threats to contenders as courtship displays. My ideas are based on nothing substantive, simply seeing the beautiful birds in action. Loving the discussion so far, only half an hour in.
On the topic of R Dawkins, I think that Dawkins is in a similar arrogant loop that Lord Rutherford got into when he said, "Now I know what the atom looks like."
What you are touching on, is the prestige and honour of great work, the dogmatic greats, if you will, versus, the humility and philosophy of great work, the non-dogmatic greats, if you will.
I enjoyed this conversation so much that 38 minutes in, I facepalmed over its resonance, but did so with the phone itself. Even though it stung a little, I still came out mumbling something like, “…man, I like the way this kid just made sense of that.” Could listen all day.
You can see on both of their faces how they're just like kids again; so excited to be accompanied by a fellow traveler that really is genuinely interested in batting ideas around and playing with them for the betterment of both parties. No animosity, no big egos, just a genuine exchange of intelligence and a trained capacity on both sides to actually listen carefully. It doesn't get much better than that in a conversation!
Thanks for this Bret, it'll definitely go in one of my "must hear again" loops. Peace out from Norway.
I went to college with Steve. I never imagined he would reach the heights that he has. Thrilled that you had him on!
I was homeschooled with him! We also had the same piano teacher!
I've been subscribed to his CZcams channel for years too. So cool to see him do a podcast with someone so high profile! Good for him!
@@Shemdoupe that’s awesome! Sounds like this is even cooler for you, given how much more intimate a setting homeschool is vs a liberal arts college.
Did you ever ask Steve, 'who do you think you are, Steve, some sort of genius?'
Wow, I’ve never encountered Steve before, he strikes me as brilliant. This conversation was awesome. Please bring him back!
Steve is one of the few public intellectuals who can reliably see past words through to the conceptual substance of things, if there's any there.
I cannot express how invigorating this conversation was. Please have him back on soon!!
@@JohnPretty1 🤣🤣🤣
Agreed. He has a channel right down the street
@@HigoWapsico 1:31 "There is one conscious state happening at this moment." The answer is, "Amen." Potential (not just possible) knowledge is always Aknowledgement. Stanley Cavell's reading of Wittgenstein in "Claim of Reason" explains this at great length. "Confession" is a Latin translation equivalent to Aknowledgement, as in "fess up." I was born and raised "an intellectual," but this is our flesh, and this is our blood. "Consciousness" is a complex admixture of Memories, Transferences, Mimesis, Wills, Representations and Contexts. We English speakers are prone to Singluars where Plurals are in Order.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 not sure what you’re saying..
I really enjoyed this a lot too. I would love the both of them to bring Rupert Sheldrake into the next conversation of this ilk.
This is how a real discusion is done. Simply loved it.
We will be arriving at the truth momentarily. Please buckle up, we are experiencing severe turbulence, we're on empty, and this is our one shot at landing on this narrow strip. In the likely event of an abrupt stop, we are hopeful there will be a few survivors, as the whole population is on this flight. Remain calm and cross your fingers if it helps.
Correct😊
Consciousness is just a biological "operating system." It's way less interesting than "knowledge," which involves a great deal more than useful associative responses to phenomena. To formulate substructural operating principles into language that can then sort associative experiences into one's intellectual toolbox with endless adaptive applicability? This is the Rubicon that turned a strange and wildly intelligent and adaptive species of primate into "human beings."
I remember well when I dispensed this gift from Mount Olympus. Why don't you assholes ever say "thank you" anymore?
The last leg of our flight has taken 30years - the pilots are US neo-globalists & Co. The name of the plane is "US Hegemony" at all costs. We are experiencing a fog of lies, sophistry, and propaganda right now so don't look out of your window - entertainment is provided on our complimentary screens.
Don’t get vaccinated
Well said my friend, we need to prepare for the coming mass depopulation, i fear it will be brutal. I live in vienna and ive never seen so many ambulances drive every single day. Lets pray for the least amount of lives lost my friends
Thank you for being courageous enough to critique Richard Dawkins. I'm a Cambridge University grad, and I've been to four of Dawkins guest lectures during my undergraduate study there (during which time he was an Oxford professor.) Honestly, I I have never found Dawkins to be terribly intelligent. He's an entertaining lecturer in his field, but his propensity to reduce complex topics ad absurdum is a clear indication of defective thinking. If you've ever seen his atheism debates, you will know exactly what I mean - he is infuriating. He is revered, so people rarely call him out on it. He also has very little knowledge outside his domain, which makes him rather dull.
That being said, his Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker books really captured my imagination as a child. He's one of the four people who really got me hooked on Natural Science at a young age - the others being Hawking, Penrose and Feyman.
I agree with your conclusion that he's a rather good synthesizer which makes him a decent teacher at the undergraduate level, but only an average thinker and biologist. By the way - I agree with your assessment that cultural memes are essentially extended phenotypes - but I acknowledge that since Dawkins coined both terms, it's hard to tell him he's wrong 😀.
Good show.
I'm currently reading Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype. Only a 1/4 of the way through, but it's a challenging read after the first 100 pages or so. I too have read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and several of his other books (from way back to the late 80s) - and also his book The God Delusion (a decade ago). Having a master's degree in philosophy, and with a long time interest in religion and early Christian history, I was initially disappointed by that particular book, and often found myself more or less agreeing but yet with many qualifiers and exceptions. But whatever else I might be tempted to conclude from my disappointment, the last thing I would want to say is that Dawkins is "not terribly intelligent". I'm myself am an atheist, but often wanted to take exception to this or that argument; but in the end it finally dawned on me that it was only by virtue of the special interest that I've had in the subject of philosophy of religion that I was able to know that there were possible replies and that Dawkins seemed to sweep under the rug. But in many ways, I'm not at all the intended audience for that particular book to which I happened to know the caveats. I realized that I was not the intended audience when I read a review of his book from a Muslim reader who was positively ecstatic at having found and read his book who was very much struggling with his religious beliefs. He felt that book gave him permission to think very differently but what his own social circumstances allowed. And so in that respect, I think that Dawkins can honestly say "mission accomplished". I should add that Bret Weinstein does NOT at all agree with your view that Dawkins has somehow lost his sharpness or is intelligence. That he has mentally slowed down a bit is perfectly normal condition of aging (as I see in myself having turned 65 recently). I recently read his spirited defense against a variety of critics on his view of "group selection". The critics were among the best in the field of evolutionary biology and whether or not he won that particular debate is quite besides the more important point that he had quite clearly had complete mastery of the topic (as well as he should given his very long standing views on what he considers the fatal flaw of "group selection".) As an aside, I was rather shocked when the young man just acknowledged that he "never read Richard ..." which I would have thought would be immediate grounds for recusing yourself from that debate. But he keeps talking. Moreover, his shockingly dismissive attitude about Einstein's understanding of relativity was truly infuriating and absolutely does not at all square with my own reading of that history of science and physics of the time. That relativity was "in the air" in 1905 is readily acknowledged, but the very idea that Einstein merely synthethized what he "did not truly understand" strikes me as absurd. (It's also evident that Patterson has also not read Richard Alexander nor Robert Trivers, nor Jerry Coyne but maybe not relevant, though I have read them both.) What I'm confused about, ultimately, is why Bret Weinstein is talking to this man. By minute 42 I have yet to hear something concrete as opposed to the generic epistemic counsel I would start a philosophy 101 class with. That he keeps bringing it back to martial arts, as opposed to Richard Alexander and Dawkins is very telling. I feel like I'm in an elevator listening to the sales pitch, but the elevator has stopped, and it's mostly a rehash of what's already been said. He fails to take his own advice. What is he beyond a good self-promoter? Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised further on?
He's definitely intelligent but does have flaws in his thinking. I mean Newton was considered intelligent even though he spent most of his time trying to prove the portion of biblical text rewritten by the disciples was literally true.
This man is calling the creator of 'meme' and the extended phenotype an average thinker. Imagine if every average thinker was so productive. We'd be advancing much faster.
Smart ass. 🙂👍
Funny cause Bret said in this episode how good Dawkins is at synthesizing information which is the antithesis of reductionism.
It’s channels like Darkhorse, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson that are keeping me sane. People are getting tired of MS media installing brainwashed ideologies into their brains and we need real conversations!
Add #AwakenWithJP to your collection!
Be aware of Triggernometry too!
Russell Brand 🤮
They’ll all be made to share a cell when they’re rounded up & removed from circulation by the thought police. Oh, to be a senescent, immortal fly on the wall of said cell.
Fair enough, but the notion of infinite sets isn't a brainwashed ideology conceived by mainstream media; it's a coherent and incredibly useful concept. Steve Patterson should be a lot more careful about where he directs his ire.
Loved it! I can't tell you how much I value being able to listen in on long form discussions that are allowed to go as deep as may be, like Dark Horse. Lots of us don't have anyone to talk to in this way. These are intellectual nutrients we're starving for.
What a fantastic discussion! I fear this one will go underrated and not widely shared as much as it should be. Thank you Bret, for the introduction to Steve. I look forward to more titillating discussions in the future.
It seems to be underrated so far. So disappointing when serious important stuff like this isn't more known about. Three hours is a little daunting but it's so worth the time.
Imo the 20 minute clip ,of " are we living in a dark age ? ", Would be a much more effective share, and then those interested in it can self select for those potentially interested in the full conversation.
Asking people to invest 20 min , is much more reasonable than asking people to invest 3 hours
Just my two cents
Obviously your mileage may vary
Be safe and be well
This is so cool. Steve and I had the same piano teacher and we were both homeschooled. Very cool to see someone so close to home surface on a podcast like this.
Steve Pattersons martial arts analogy maps perfectly with our current western medicine industry. Many specialists for single body parts that can’t intellectually compete with the holistic doctor that understands how the entire human system works. These specialists also identify as ‘knowing it all’
Yes, love this! And the specialists are often surgeons... which results in most "specialists" effectively being surgery salespeople, with no concept of figuring out what your best course of action/treatment would be.
Brett's channel has been in my top 5 for a couple years but he's really making a case for being the best podcast out there right now. From a fellow Oregonite, thank you for my daily dose of sanity!
So there are actually two people in Oregon who don’t think men are women and math is racist? There may be hope for America yet.
I absolutely love this conversation and could not turn it off for the entire 2 1/2 hours! It’s so nice to hear a reasonable, rational exchange between two people with slightly different points of view and a completely different point of view from my own. Thank you for letting this conversation go on the way that it did! I thoroughly enjoy the dark horse podcast in general and especially like this one!
A great challenge Steve . You and Bret were much 'food for thought' ... Thank you I think that Bret is really enjoying this conversation ...
This was awesome. Some of it flew over my head. I loved the enthusiasm and generosity in this conversation.
I had a similar experience to Steve once I met three old friends who had all studied to masters degree in economics, I was very curious to ask them some basic but fundamental questions like "Do you think our tax system works well?" or "What would you change to make the economy more efficient?". Like Steve I was met not only with bad answer but zero answer, to them these types of questions were irrelevant, I find it difficult to imagine what kind of things they have been learning the whole time.
I suppose there's a reason why they call economics 'the dismal science'. Terminology has a weird power too. When I try to think objectively 'am I an idealist or a materialist'?, I have to conclude 'materialist'. At the same time, I kind of hate that conclusion. Probably a false dichotomy: are we made of 'thoughts' or 'stuff'? Or stuff that *has* thoughts? Between A and B, it's always C somehow...
"Consciousness is fundamental" ~Dr. Donald Hoffman, UCI
I took a class he taught in 2005 or so, "The Brain Body Problem", really shook me up, though I never fully understood his theory, "Conscious Realism", I think of it often. He described our perceptions as an interface with reality.
Except no one clearly defines the term "conscious."
What a joy! Thank you Bret for recommending that we go back and listen to this conversation - 3 hours wasn't long enough! SO, so fascinating! I loved seeing Bret and Steve coming up with analogies to try to get their ideas across. Can't wait to see more conversations between you both!
It's like trying to unravel a giant sweater and someone just keeps knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting...
My dad told me in the 1990s that we were entering a "Neo Dark Age."
I've been a long time subscriber to both of your channels and never in my wildest dreams would I have hoped that you two would strike up such an engaging conversation. This was fantastic! A definite light in the Darkness when it comes to intellectual dialogue about topics I very much miss discussing. I would absolutely love for a follow-up on this conversation with the both of you. I would gladly pay a subscription just to hear the two of you bounce ideas off each other
Lately I've gone through a bit of a personal renaissance and I've come to a lot of the conclusions y'all were talking about. Using a simpler facsimile to solve problems, interdisciplinary study type things have taught me SO MUCH. You can use water, temperature, and/or a tree to create some analogy to understand almost any problem. The idea of "there are only so many types of things" had my interest for several weeks and it's the essence of why analogy works in general.
There are so many things I could comment on but one that really came up for me was the idea of possibilities. If we entertain multiverse theory for a second, we can imagine...if I'm depressed and stay home for 2 weeks, how many branches does my tree have for my future in those 2 weeks compared to if I am able bodied and happy? Rather than binge-watching cartoons at home, perhaps I would have a spontaneous discussion with my neighbor? Maybe we would plan a hang out? Maybe I would go for a bike ride and find a shortcut to ride my bike to work? You can't deny, the set of possible outcomes from me staying home vs me exploring my world without fear and with curiosity is far likelier to be higher. And when you consider maybe IF: hang out w neighbor and maybe I tell them about something that inspires THEM to change their course of action, then it has a multiplicative effect.
I'm not religious, but I have often wondered if the great religious figures knew this without knowing it. Being kind to others fosters an environment where people feel more safe to try things. Fear of judgment for mistakes that are, in the grand scheme absolutely trivial, simply is not productive. The more freedom to attempt, the fewer barriers to synthesis of new methods and thoughts, the more knowledge and ideas open up that may not have been accessible before.
This needs to be weekly. Unfortunately I think that about most of his guests, but this one in particular was exceptional. Made me realize I had a bunch of the questions I have all actually fall under the umbrella of the bigger question of whether or not we are in a Dark Age.
A little sidenote: I wish I'd have never gone to college. It trained me to actually not question. I've spent the last few years undoing a lot of the "Listen to The Science" I was taught and I'm so much better off now.
I think that when Jordan Peterson says that he acts as if God exists , he literally means that he doesn't know if God exists but in acting as if God exists he tries to do the right and just things in his life's actions . I was so happy to hear him say that , because I feel that I am not nor could I be enlightened enough to know that God exists . I think that it was beautiful hearing that assertion from Dr. Peterson . I think that it was brilliant and again , it made me feel very happy ...
I think it's more that he considers behavior more real than abstract propositional truth.
Michael Weber I strongly recommend you listen to "Live in the end" -Neville Goddard. Your answers may be there.
@Voodio Mola ha you said it, there for you are. "I AM". For for further context I would instruct you to listen to Neville Goddard. I'm not here to change your mind but I do feel that you are important and should take my advice on this one. Have a good one.
"Religion has always served two purposes. The first, I call "Translation", which is that religion provides a framework so that one does not become immediately neurotic a in a world of chaos. It strengthens the ego.
The second purpose it has always served, and for far fewer people, is "Tranformation", instead of giving the ego comfort and a translated understanding, it systematically throttles the ego to its death. Thus union with the all, The Tao, God, Buddha-Nature, all of the names."- Ken Wilber (paraphrased)
@@Eric-tj3tg ok, but why? Maybe a creator purposely designed us that way, but I won't contemplate my naval over it. I love the idea, even though humans screw it up. It's harmless, since I'm not gonna try & convert anyone, or pontificate too much. Makes me gassy. It's just that some profound things happened to me that blew my mind. That's what sealed it for me.
This was my first introduction to Patterson. This guy's fun to listen to! I hope to see more of him. It got a little vague and sticky for me in the middle with the consciousness and determinism stuff, but his analogies are where he gets a hot hand in so far as getting his points across to a general audience. And some of the conversation that I struggled with lacked those juicy analogies I needed because he was sticking his toe into the topic to see where it would go. Maybe in a future conversation he could expand on his idea of consciousness with some of his good analogies. I really enjoyed the conversation, especially Brett, who's always easy to follow because of his clarity.
The best thing about this conversation was to see how excited both of you were about it
When Bret reads the ads without Heather beside him, it's like the Sponsor has kidnapped him
A biologist and a philosopher walk into a bar...
You guys are the light during dark ages! Thank you.
One of the best conversations I've ever heard Loved the different topics and that you eventually got to the agreed topic in the end. Thank you both.
Dr. McCoy was right. In Star Trek IV when he saw the lady who was in for dialysis and he said, "What is this, the dark ages?"
The need for cooperation across domains is essential in order to stay cohesive as innovation and discoveries are made. Very thankful for this discussion, and Heather and Bret's enthusiasm towards helping humanity succeed!!
Biggest smile I have ever seen on Bret's face! :)
I usually have trouble following these conversations. It often feels like they are speaking past each other. But these two are clarifying each other!! Great conversation! Thank you both.
Yes. These days most of what gets called “conversation” is really a sort of dual discourse wherein, as you pointed out, people talk past each other. This is an actual conversation. One engaging with another’s ideas.
What a fascinating conversation! One of those where you wish you could take part (despite not having expertise in the fields).
EDIT: I love how about half way in you fellows forget you are making a broadcast and just have a great back and forth teasing out an issue on consciousness!
EDIT 2: And now I am seriously perturbed that I allowed myself to be arm twisted into accepting what amounts to an untested experimental vaccine. I have been observing some worrying symptoms in myself and cannot determine if there is a link or if it is coincidence but the notion that those we trusted may have harmed us for profit is infuriating.
To all my friends who suffer from chronic anxiety, my suggestion was always don't take the vaccine because you want to be part of the control group of humans who are the same as they always have been. Most of them succumbed to my counterpart on the other side of the fence over time, so all i did was make the anxious people i love more anxious. Imagine how anxious that makes me feel! Or, you know, don't.
So this is where the cool kids hang out huh
Got lost a couple times in the rhetoric but Bret does an excellent job of defining the complex. Can appreciate why he was such a popular & quality teacher.
Excellent! A truly excellent conversation, engaging, interesting and it’s so uplifting to listen to you both! Would absolutely love to have beautiful minds like yours around.. Thanks very much!
There are loads of “sage” wisdom (sorry, couldn’t resist) examples). My Grandmother and mother always said, if you get the flu, go to bed and sweat it out. When I got Covid my body temp dropped fast, opposite to the official symptoms but common to many I know. I took a hot bath and felt better then out everything I could on the bed to help me sweat.. worked like a charm.
Interdisciplinary studying is the way to figure out complex systems which is where we can find a lot of new knowledge. I think
I found the religious people conversation interesting but have to say that, the more I hear people struggle and get nowhere in those type of conversation....
The more I come to appreciate JBP's take and easy response to sum this topic up ...
"EVERYONE is religious. It's just a Q of where and what things they are putting their faith in."
THAT statement feels more true to me than almost anything.
You should have seen atheist and materialist Matt Dillahunty lose his shit and get mad at JBP when Jordan laid that one on him.and directly accused Matt of both being religious and not even being aware of it. Priceless.
Chesterton summed it up in a sentence. " When people stop believing in God they don't believe nothing, they believe anything."
There ya go. I'm sitting here feeling baffled by all the naval gazing regarding God. I have faith..I believe. Maybe because I want to, maybe we have subconscious memories of our origin, which we can't access because of free will, & we actually KNOW. Maybe the stories are questionable, but the idea is good; brilliant & hopeful, even though it's been corrupted by flawed humans. Maybe I'm not a deep thinker, blissfully ignorant, gullible. I believe, because I have had profound spiritual experiences that I cannot explain, and even with all the misery in the world, wouldn't the wonders of it make an after life seem like a piece of cake? Also, even these smart guys can't figure it out & scientists still can't prove that consciousness originates in the brain. I believe in God; I just DO.
I'm spinning a bit.. I was totally engrossed in this conversation. I appreciate you two exploring complex systems.. I didn't have the words, but the guttural reaction of "no, I will not take a novel injection for an unknown entity", even at the threat of losing family ties.
I heard echoes of old wisdom like, a jack of all trades and a master of none, being a favorite.
Fascinating discussion.
This Has to be how it must have been to be a student in Bret's classes @ evergreen (we're all jealous of you people): True Discussion of the biggest questions. The passion in this discussion is such a pleasure to watch
I so enjoyed this conversation! Thank you so much both of you!!!
This is easily my favorite chat you’ve had on here as of recently, loved this!
Regarding the 28:00 discussion, i'm a Geneticist so naturally i'm as shocked as Bret is regarding the D-dog's blindness to how far memes arrange genes, and it is most likely as Bret says due to being insoluble with a polite society, but it's probably something similar to Sam Harris on Trump or Fauchi on the Ouchie. Noam disappoints me constantly, particularly not realising his hierarchy (language/syntax) and the hierarchy of automata (computers) are two sides of the same coin. Even Eric on his unified theory of gobbledegook is frustratingly uncharacteristic. The genes from memes stays mainly in their teams.
I wrote the above at the timestamp, but the 30 minutes of monologue/commentary that comes after is just as great, this was a really great discussion. I wonder if you'll talk about death next and it's purpose at preventing memes from resting on their laurels, i suppose you did with the belt-swap mechanism. The only thing i'd say is, how many people do you think would go into the sciences if you had to remain great to maintain funding? People need security to raise a family, and much like a prized athlete who insures their hands as a scientist you'd have to insure your brain haha. But even though it would be tough competition, i'm sure it would attracted a higher calibre of person than the platitudefest of modern emaildemia
27:40 Thats a great question which i asked myself due to corona. There is a famous german sociolgist called Harald Welzer whom i really admire. He wrote a book called "Selber denken" (translated > think on your own) explaining concepts on how to better think about and understand the world, especially with regards to media competentce. This guy fell for the whole corona narrative without hesitation. That made me question if he actually understood what he explained in that book, bc it's literally an one to one hand book on how to navigate thought all this corona bs using our horrible german past as an example.
I think that Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet explain that better. Shortly IQ doesn't correlate very well with logical thinking/wisdom due to the collective thinking(mass psychosis,or "mass formation").
German: "Selbst Denken - Anleitung zum Widerstand" damit war bei mir die Hoffnung verbunden, eine passende Ergänzung zu den wirklich empfehlenswerten Titeln von Herrn Dobelli, u.a. "Die Kunst des klaren Denkens" oder "Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken" von Herrn Kahnemann, zu erhalten. Leider weit gefehlt und vom Buch bin ich bitter enttäuscht." (Amaz-Bew.)
The problem with the dead end types who state the work is done : a lack of humility and the unwillingness to sacrifice or put one's self-image on the line for the sake of truth.
I can't fully express how much I appreciated this pod cast. I can't wait for the sequel.
I’m pretty sure I heard Bret thinking “welcome to complex systems” at one point. :)
Amazing conversation, gentlemen.
Has Steve 'solved philosophy' yet??
Super interesting conversation
Group misunderstanding (intentional, coerced or not) is the route cause of the worst human behaviours.
Never rule out ego. Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they cease existing as a human being.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
― George Bernard Shaw
I’ve been thinking we have been living in a new Dark Age in terms of logic, honesty and reality for a while now.
The lunatics have been running the asylum since before I was born (1968)
Personally, I was aware of it since about age 12.
I think there is a big difference between publicly repeatedly saying “ok, so this is false, but we operate as though it is true” every time you talk to someone about it (in other words acknowledging the falseness and leaving the door wide open for some to question, doubt, and challenge your conclusions because of that false aspect) vs in the back of your mind knowing something isn’t true, but refusing to admit it or allow any challenge to it because you have built thing upon it that might be open to challenge as well if the false thing is exposed. It’s about honesty.
I loved this discussion. I hope you two get together again soon.
I've recently found the idea of Onthological Mathematics and it really appeals to me, as explains why there is something rather than nothing in a pretty novel way.
It doesn't escape necessity. So it doesn't do what you think it does.
Kripke, Pruss or Oderberg might do you good in showing why with their books even though they have some level of disagreement.
@@thesonnen447 Don't know those three, will have to check it out, but it seems really in depth, it'll take a while.
Can you give me a quick explanation on what you mean when you say it doesn't escape necessity. It'll take me a while before I'm able to read their philosophical musings.
@@Butmunch666 I invite you to read "The Pythagorean Sourcebook," which collects most of the extant writings on Pythagoreans, who coined our phrases "Philosophy" and "Philosophical School" and "Mathematics" among other terms. Our world makes far more sense in Greek.
The talks about religion are wildly helpful ways of thinking. Thank you for this.
This was a awesome interview. Please bring Steve back for round 2.
The best physicists and mathematicians most certainly do consider the metatheory and epistemological underpinnings of their study. Read Rebecca Goldstein on Kurt Godel. Or Roger Penrose on absolutely anything. The very, very good physicists who mainly do engineering might not be as concerned with these questions, but I bet they know a lot about it. They just don't have the vocabulary to talk about it quickly, in a form a philosopher would recognize as foundational. You'd have to probe a little more.
What an utterly beautiful conversation!
I'm really digging the guest and the conversation! Awesome, even though or especially bc I wrote a bunch of comments as I listened. Thank you!
BTW, finally someone's on this channel challenging the bad ideas still around since the turn of the 20th century. 🔥 Philosophy returns on a [edit] ☯️ horse to save Humanity!
A darkhorse you mean :)
@@turbocat1984 dang!
@@turbocat1984 I fixed it
THIS !!! I was shot down by my supervisor for wanting to explicitly state and understand/discuss the philosophical framework behind a thesis project at uni (psychology studies)
I got the response that "this isn't philosophy" and to not complicate things. But how can you do good research without understanding the philosophy of science which is underpinning the whole project!!!
Truly one of the most amazing conversations I've heard so far in life. Please Bret, get him back soon and keep digging out the truth nuggets y'all started mining here cause paydirt is close at hand. Fabulous! Thanks so much.
I don't believe that contradictions can both be true. While it may seem to be the case, in most cases when you dig below the surface they aren't truly contradictory, they mesh deeper in the issue at hand. Those rare instances is just that we don't fully understand those subjects/topics/items yet.
Physically speaking there is a force stopping a whirlwind making an airplane. That thing is best explained by the realization that there is no such thing as a truly "random" physical process. A whirlwind is based on patterns that will never achieve construction, which requires intentionality toward not following those patterns.
Thank you so much gentleman!! I cannot wait to see this conversation continued!!!
That was one of the best conversations I have ever heard...great work guys
I was familiar with and favorably impressed with each of your podcasts individually, but the synergy between the two of you took you both to a level I hadn't seen before. You both have first class minds but together you were getting up there toward brilliance. In the most basic sense, you each built constructively on the other's ideas, but then you also both occasionally and very diplomatically kept the other one from driving off the road so to speak. Then there was an elder statesman - brash student dynamic that was fascinating to watch and listen to. I kept thinking that these guys can't keep up this level of intensity for much longer and the discussion will eventually lose the initial zing, but that didn't happen. One of the most interesting and entertaining discussions I have ever witnessed. Kudos to you both!
Loved this discussion! It slowly unfolded for me a realization about what was wrong with the meta-thought processes in the world right now ... that I had intuited but didn’t quite know how to articulate. Listening to this was like finally finding that word that exactly fit the concept you were trying to describe - or like finally letting out that satisfied burp that was building up after a good meal! What a relief! Thank you!
Phil you nailed it with this comment and it explains precisely how I feel
Wow....just got a 32 inch 2k screen and the beard is glorious.
I'd love to see a discussion between Steve and Daniel Schmachtenberger even if my poor brain would likely be a puddle of goo at the end of it.
Bret always looks so excited when waiting on questions guest have. Great conversation between these two!
“There is no God to flood the Earth,” scream the atheistic environmentalists fearing a rising sea level
Science is mostly unknown, but we spend most time congratulating ourselves on what we actually do know.
Good stuff!!
What we call The Dark Ages was mainly a time of suppression of what was once a rich ancient culture, superior to this high blech living. Yes, I have often said this is a Dark Age!! Thank you
I’ve been saying it too for years.
God help us!!!
We are no longer in the Golden Age, of that I am certain
I'm not a scientist, but a historian. And the actual historical parallels between the fall of Rome and today are overwhelming. It's less about technology and more about changing ideologies that are self destructive. This one will be worse. The Roman supply chains, food supplies etc. Extend far beyond Western Europe these days. And the population is much more divorced from farming, and their family clans. Worst of all we have Global groups waiting to seize power. This time it won't be Lord Smith seeking workers for his clan. It will be Pfizer and Gates. And instead of the Catholic church sending missionaries back to bring enlightenment and succour, it will be the climate cult. Preaching depopulation, and eating bugs.
These days definitely share similar dynamics as the Dark Ages. It's amazing, but fantasy is taking precedence over reality.
I was glad to hear your take on the slippery slope. I recently made the argument that the categorization by academia of the slippery slope argument as a logical fallacy, is the single most consequential element which has allowed the social and intellectual disintegration which is rampant across all facets of our culture.
The out-of-hand dismissal of a slippery slope statement, completely ignores and defies forward thinking, human nature and critical analysis of probabilities.
This has worked out to be deleterious to our species on every front.
Wow! I've put this one on the backburner, since I've never heard about Steve Paterson. I shouldn't have. This discussion is a gem. Please have him on again to cut and polish it!
"Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Absolutely fabulous conversation!
2:04:20 This is precisely how I think about things. I always have as many open options on the table of my mind as I can conceive of, and I have rough percentages attached to them. As new information comes in I adjust the likelihood of each one, add any new ones that have occurred to me, and go on. I operate in the world as though the top 3-5 are likely to be true and if necessary I go with my top one, but I never dismiss the other options.
I'm only halfway through this, and I can feel half a billion brand new neural pathways plowing through my mental landscape like moles.
Absolutely haram
Thank you both for a thought provoking conversation. As a designer of complex feedback control systems for over 30 years it is my belief that the essence of your discussion and its associated dilemmas are best understood by looking at the various problems as elements of a complex system, which you both alluded to in your dialogue.
In the context of your discussions and generally speaking, the fundamental problem is that there are a broad spectrum of feedback mechanisms that are unknowingly neglected because there is this tendency to tackle problems by first looking at them as closed systems for simplicity. This is often necessary to gain a sufficient understanding of the fundamental problem we are trying to solve. This approach fails to fully consider external factors that can affect the theories and the conclusions drawn from the closed system analysis. Physics has suffered from this approach for the last century with the Standard Model assumptions.
However, eventually somebody comes along like Steve or Brett who are thinking outside that closed system boundary creating a new perspective that creates a new disturbance source in the system’s control loop(s). This could affect internal loops or add one or more loops around the previously closed system, requiring the designers consider a new control strategy and discover the affects in the overall loop output. If the new insights are obtained at a very low bandwidth (years, decades, centuries etc) this makes things very difficult to analyze.
Another factor relating to specialization is something else I learned - if you are a specialist, you very likely do not have sufficient awareness and/or knowledge to fully understand the control system in which you were embedded. I was a generalist with knowledge in multiple disciplines. This is why I had a successful business as feedback control systems analyst and designer in the electronics industry.
It is always easier to understand and develop control strategies that have higher bandwidth. That apparent higher bandwidth may also be attributed to a full lack of understanding of the system. I believe this relates to the problem that discipline specialization and the claim that “this is just the way it is” - this is well understood and obeys the laws of physics or mathematics etc. As new knowledge feedback (a typically slow loop to bring about change to established systems) arises, it gives us another viewpoint that allows us to provide better feedback and improve the overall system response through a better design due to the new knowledge insights.
This is an eternal process as far as human evolution goes. As nature is inherently cyclical in all of its aspects the process can reverse itself and instead of increasing the knowledge base, that base begins diminishing what we know.
The main point I am trying to make is that everything you are talking about is a complex system whose inputs and outputs will change based upon what we know and don’t know.
Fantastic conversation! The interdisciplinary nature of the conversation yielded some fantastic detours - you two should have a full podcast together, so you can really develop that "shared language" together.
Loved every minute of this conversation... the danger of creativity is hubris which blocks further creativity
Thank you as always Bret!
Amen, Steve. You have the same instinct that kept me out of pursuing a career in academic philosophy. Thank you.
Superb conversation! What a joy it was to listen to this.
Great enlightening, thoughtful, challenging discussion. Can’t wait for Part 2…. Bring it on please.
Bret, I NEED to hear about the peacock feather theories please. Having observed peacocks displaying, the peahens completely ignoring them (seemingly), I concluded the displays were as much threats to contenders as courtship displays. My ideas are based on nothing substantive, simply seeing the beautiful birds in action. Loving the discussion so far, only half an hour in.
All I can say is Bret is so secure within himself that he can deliver his sponsor, “Moink” with a straight face. lol
On the topic of R Dawkins, I think that Dawkins is in a similar arrogant loop that Lord Rutherford got into when he said, "Now I know what the atom looks like."
What you are touching on, is the prestige and honour of great work, the dogmatic greats, if you will,
versus, the humility and philosophy of great work, the non-dogmatic greats, if you will.
I enjoyed this conversation so much that 38 minutes in, I facepalmed over its resonance, but did so with the phone itself. Even though it stung a little, I still came out mumbling something like, “…man, I like the way this kid just made sense of that.” Could listen all day.