This is a critique of the conversation between Michael Shermer and Samuel T. Wilkinson, around his book "Purpose"
Purpose in the Eyes of a Psychiatrist.
I feel like the youtube video is label is overly broad, the title being "Purpose in the Eyes of a Psychiatrist." but really, it should be titled "Purpose in the Eyes of an LDS Psychiatrist.
While many psychiatrists may approach the concept of purpose from a more secular or even hedonistic perspective, Samuel T. Wilkinson's insights are enriched by his LDS background, offering a distinctively nuanced view that intertwines secular and religious understandings of purpose. This perspective is especially relevant in a discourse that often gravitates towards more universal, sometimes abstract, discussions of purpose, relationships, and fulfillment.
Reflecting on the diverse and insightful conversation surrounding the notion of purpose, it becomes evident that Samuel T. Wilkinson's approach, deeply rooted in his LDS background, provides a divergence from the conventional secular or hedonistic perspectives typically encountered in psychiatric discourse. His unique standpoint weaves together the secular and the sacred, offering a exploration of purpose that resonates with a broad spectrum of experiences and beliefs.
Wilkinson delves into the complex interplay between individual fulfillment and the broader existential questions that encompass our lives, relationships, and intrinsic motivations. This blend of secular knowledge and religious belief facilitates a richer, more inclusive dialogue on what it means to live a purposeful life, inviting a more holistic understanding of human aspiration and resilience.
By integrating secular and religious dimensions of purpose, Wilkinson invites us to consider the multifaceted nature of our quest for meaning, encouraging a discourse that is both deeply personal and universally applicable. In doing so, he enriches the conversation with perspectives that challenge us to think beyond the conventional, fostering a dialogue that is as diverse and complex as the very notion of purpose itself.
Speakers:
Michael Shermer [MS]
Samuel T. Wilkinson [SW]
Here is their conversation:
0:00 [MS] hello everyone I wanted to tell you about two trips we're sponsoring this year of part of our Geo tours uh portion
0:08 of the skeptic Society is our social and science uh Explorations the first one is
0:15 June 2nd through 16th so 14 days two weeks from Ireland to Iceland on a
0:22 cruise ship with none other than Richard Dawkins this is the passage from Ireland
0:27 to Iceland we're calling it and Richard Dawkins will be the uh invited guest and
0:32 lecturer where you can hang out with him for two weeks as on this ship the Vega
0:38 it has a guest of 152 um PL people that can join so it's
0:44 not a big huge cruise ship with thousands of people so you get to intimate time with with Richard uh it
0:50 starts in Dublin it goes to rovic as we explore Europe's northernmost Islands
0:56 Scotland's hdes orcines and shetlands Denmark's Barrow islands and
1:03 Iceland a remote World known for its rugged Landscapes pictures Villages
1:08 fascinating history and nature lovers uh Delights the second trip is from
1:14 Greenland to uh Canada's Nova Scotia we're calling this wonders of the Arctic
1:20 on the same ship just 152 person ship called the Vega it's a beautiful ship
1:25 our featured guest for that trip which is September 23rd through October 10th
1:31 uh is Jared Diamond yes Jared so we have Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond two of the biggest names of Our Generation to
1:39 the greatest Minds both good friends just picture just sitting on a ship just hanging out with these guys so of course
1:45 they're lecturing but breakfast lunch and dinner they're just sitting around and you can sit there and chat with two
1:51 of the greatest minds of our time uh this second trip September 23rd through October 10th uh goes from Greenland to
1:59 Nova Scotia with a bunch of different stops in between so check it out uh go to skeptic.com
2:07 geology tours or just go to our website skeptic.com you'll see it prominently on
2:12 the homepage there again skeptic.com geology uncore tours to get access to
2:17 those and sign up uh these are big fun trips I mean I've done a bunch of these myself and uh it it's just great to be
2:25 able to spend so much time with such great minds of Our Generation all right thanks for listening here's our podcast
2:32 [MS] uh Samuel thanks for coming on the show give us uh a little explanation how does a Yale psychiatrist who studies
2:38 depression come to write about purpose [SW] uh yeah thanks for having me Michael it's a pleasure to be here um
2:44 this States back I actually wanted to write this book since before I chose my
2:50 field of medicine I was a medical student and uh for whatever reason I was
2:55 kind of having an existential crisis and to me it it it's seemed like the theory
3:01 of evolution was a bit of a stumbling block for uh maybe a search for purpose ⮦⮋⮧
lol wut?
3:06 there's a a great quote from a a professor in the the 60s Tindle who says
3:12 you know in the inevitable March Of Evolution life is of profound unimportance a mere Eddie in the
3:19 Primeval slime and that those types of things just kind of hit me and I said well is this really are we really just
3:25 an accident ⮦⮋⮧ and I had a period where I did of research and studying and and
Spoiler it's not an accident. In many ways, what makes life special is the seeming violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which takes disordered food and turns it into highly ordered cell structure of the body, while extracting energy in the process.
3:32 reflecting and and came to conclude otherwise and I at that point I felt
3:37 intensely enough that I wanted to write a book so um after a long while I I brought it back off the the shelf and uh
3:45 started writing right around the time that Co hit and here we are about four years later is there any relationship
3:52 between depression and I don't know lack of purpose or existential crisis over purpose or anything like that or does
3:58 depression have other causes well uh depression has many forms certainly and
4:05 um you know it's interesting the field of of mental health has shifted a lot in
4:12 the last 40 50 years now everything is about neuroscience and molecules and and
4:17 you know the really lower levels we've shifted away a bit from the higher levels of psychology ⮦⮋⮧ not that there
Lookout! psychology is trying to pretend to be a science again. The real reason stupid ideas have proliferated through society. When psychologists who don't know philosophy, pretend to be scientists, and make completely incorrect declarations, which have led to at least as many atrocities as religion, while lacking much of the critical thinking of philosophers. You know, that phenomena we refer to as SSotR.
Psychology is not a science, and psychologists make shitty scientists, which is what we learn from the replication crisis.
4:23 aren't people doing research but the vast majority of people in in research and mental health are searching at lower
4:30 level and certainly there there needs to be that that search at uh Neuroscience
4:36 uh I think we have neglected a little bit the higher levels uh and and there is a in many cases um you know recently
ok, I think he might be confusing neurochemistry with psychology here. They are not remotely the same. The only connection is that they know that some of the chemical changes can effect behaviors, while barely being able to say in which way, only broadly vague terms, which is why psychiatrists take the trial and error method of searching for the proper anti-depressants, instead of doing some kind of test to detect the type of depression and have a treatment that is know to be effective for that type. These are all different professions with slight overlap, not a lot of overlap, so it's a sweeping generalization to say something like all mental health is about "lower levels of neuroscience" because that is not what any of these jobs are doing. Including psychology. In fact, it's attitudes like that which make me hesitant to describe those inner working, just so some overconfident SSotR can parrot the words and pretend like they understand. To gain an unearned sense of authority among people they are trying to convince \ make money off of, via attention or products.
4:46 we seem to be treating a form of human suffering that seems to be caused by uh
4:52 you know a lack of cohesion in in social groups and and a lack of meaning that
4:57 almost always you know people point to to their their relationships as as a source of meaning in their life ⮦⮋⮧ [MS] yeah
wow, it's kind of amazing that social cohesion and "their relationships" by which he means being lonely. are some pretty dumb examples. Also he forgets that Most atheists believe in Hedonism, he seems to not be able to connect that to the implicit meaning of life being the pursuit and experience of pleasure. So, tell me you don't know anything about philosophy, without telling me you don't know anything about philosophy.
People also get a sense of social cohesion from social media, so I assume he is referring to people who don't use cellphones or computers very often. It's quite a 2 dimensional concept of purpose and meaning, I guess he thinks each word is only one dimensional ?
5:04 yeah I had Ralph Lewis on the show he's a psychiatrist in Canada who uh treats
5:09 people with all kinds of disorders not just depression but other mental disorders and yeah he he thinks
5:15 certainly the study of purpose and meaningfulness happiness all that is uh
5:20 at least indirectly related to it even though there's other even you can have both I mean there could be biochemical
5:25 causes that are then triggered by environmental issues or or in some interactive effect is there anything
5:32 what's the latest on ssris and depression I I seem to recall that there
5:37 some meta analysis that show they don't really do much [SW] well they do uh they
5:43 certainly do um you know they they've been around a long time they're they're not as
5:49 effective as maybe we H uh there are a lot of promising uh things on the on the
5:55 horizon ⮦⮋⮧ for what we would call this treatment resistant oppression this is essentially depression that
First, they have been saying that for over a decade, and second, that seems to mostly just be the party line of taking old drugs, like ketamine, and trying to claim they are medicinal. He is not referring to like novel new drugs which are being created by big pharma.
6:01 hasn't responded to you know at least one or two standard medications which
6:07 almost always include an SSRI ⮦⮋⮧ um so uh ssris can be really helpful in in in
Feckin wot? SSRIs are very much not popular due to the side effects and are nowhere near "almost always included" so I would like to know where he is getting this wild claim or maybe he just forgot what the side effects are.
6:14 given situations they are not the end all Beall and and we need better treatments and and just a better
6:20 understanding of what leads people to to to come into this what we call syndrome
6:25 of depression it's you know our understanding of it is not uh the same as you know the
6:32 understanding of type 1 diabetes where we know there's a uh you know an autoimmune reaction that destroys the
6:37 the cells that create insulin and and so forth and you know replacement of insulin is the the key therapeutic for
6:45 type one diabetes so um part of this is is really uh our our you know the hard
6:52 problem of Consciousness ⮦⮋⮧ we don't know how the how the brain interacts with the mind and and so forth um it's you know
wow, that's not just shifting the goal posts, that's swinging them around. This guy clearly has no clue and I am not about to tell him. It has feckall to do with the hard problem of consciousness, gtfoh.
This is some pretty peak pseudointellectualism. The only thing meaningful in that is that, he certainly claims "they are focusing on the lower level stuff" while clearly having to idea what that "lower level stuff" even is.
I tell you what they are not saying though, primarily because of liability issues, is that they effect "consciousness" which I am beginning to doubt he knows what that work means other than "mind"
and when taken so vaguely, it's the same as looking at someone who is hangry and then saying "I have no idea what they are so angry, there must be something wrong with their brain"
Anyway, I would hardly trust someone who starts a conversation with "I have no idea how the brain works, but "science"(shittiest cosplay of a scientist ever) says this is how psychology works"
6:58 in a in Essence we've understood mostly how all the other organs in the body
7:03 work um but Psychiatry is kind of the Last Frontier it's not just psychiatric course it's Psychology and Neuroscience
7:10 and um uh still still a lot to be fleshed out in this area [MS] ⮦⮋⮧ yeah yeah I I I
snorts that look that shermer had before getting on the jackassery bandwagon.
7:17 think we're probably decades away maybe a century solving these problems I actually think maybe the Hard problem of
7:23 conscious is not even a soluble one at least the way it's phrased [SW] yeah [MS] um you know sorry to be repetitive to my reg
7:29 listeners but you know asking what's the neural network and wiring that gives
7:34 rise to the recognition of speech and brocas his area or the fusiform gyrus in the temporal lobe that recognizes faces
7:41 or where the color red lights up in the occipital lobe you know we have a lot of that down pretty well but the next step ⮦⮋⮧
laughs I bet he didn't even realize that even [MS] over here just showed him that he knows more about the brain and how it interacts with the mind than [SW] … dude, chad maybe?
7:48 what what is it like to be the wiring yeah it's like what what I mean it it
7:54 just seems like a conceptually I don't know dumbfounding question [SW] it certainly is yeah ⮦⮋⮧ [MS]it's it's
I love that [MS] was laughing at him because of confirming his total lack of knowledge or understanding, but manages to keep his cool and takes a bit to get back to a strait face.
8:02 really interesting but it's yeah we're we're still way away I I agree with you there yeah you know and and also the
8:08 word mind I don't like that word either I mean I use it all the time too oh my mind you know but it's really just what
8:14 my brain is doing it's just a process of what the brain does we reify that word
8:19 as if it's floating around up there somewhere in The Ether of the gap between the neurons or some such thing
8:26 but even that you know sort of morphs into kind of met physical conceptions depending on the language and how you
8:32 use those words ⮦⮋⮧ yeah so yeah well okay maybe that's a
It looked like he was going to segway into an argument about semantics, but now assumes that [SW] doesn't know enough of the vocabulary to do that.
8:37 good transition to your book oh I know here's the perfect transition to your book wasn't there something about the
8:43 evolutionary origins of depression not extreme depression where you can't even get out a bit but I mean just kind of
8:48 normal sadness or a little bit more than that as a means of getting you to change your lifestyle or change your
8:55 relationship or change something because it's not working [SW] yeah there's there's been a few people
9:01 interested in uh what could be called evolutionary Psychiatry ⮦⮋⮧ um uh in the
f'n ass, Evolutionary psychiatry isn't a thing. I assume here he is going for the "stoned ape" argument of using ancient psychedelics. which somehow means things like ketamine which were invented during the 19th century. Take a good look Joe Rogan, this is your tribes' work. Tribe of Dumb-asses.
9:09 same way that evolutionary psychology I think probably David bus is one of the the forefathers of of evolutionary
9:15 psychology um it it hasn't maybe had the traction uh for
9:21 whatever reason uh you know I I think I think a lot of these things uh you know
9:28 they're disorders and so they're they're they're not necessarily supposed to happen you know sometimes they're um
9:34 aspects of her brain that have have uh gone a little too far you know anxiety
9:40 certainly can serve a purpose to help us you know flee predators that sort of thing but if it's always on and it never
9:45 turns off off that's clearly a a problem um evolutionary psychi Psychiatry there
9:51 you know there's a a little bit of interest in it but it hasn't uh grown you know it hasn't taken root in the
9:57 same way say evolutionary psychology ⮦⮋⮧ so still kind of early days there to see if we can explain some of these disorders
Probably because they don't want people to think they are drug dealers … or willing to make wild claims about psychiatry prior to written language, as if everyone was a shaman or something.
10:04 using kind of an evolutionary framework ⮦⮋⮧ yeah [MS] I think part of the problem that you addressed at the beginning of your
Thank god we didn't use reasoning as shoddy as this when legalizing weed. People like this are why weed wasn't legalized in Ireland last year when they had the option to, and people like this were demanding wild things like trying to legalize cocaine and LSD. Which scared people on weed because they started getting visions of reefer madness from that. Fortunatly they didn't fall for that shit in Germany, where weed will be legal starting April 1st, 2024. A few weeks from now.
You're welcome smiles wide and see, after the US, I have been bringing weed legalization to the EU.
This is what I call using the power of AI for good. Instead of just questionable drug legalization without a track record (other than you know, mixing cocaine/amphetamines and "Brahmanism" to get Nazism.
10:10 book of this sort of misunderstanding of the theory of evolution or quoting
10:15 evolutionary theorists from long time ago before we started thinking about these issues you mentioned the uh let's
10:22 see who was this again the oh this was um uh the one in the purely natural and
10:27 inevitable March of evolution life is of profound unimportance a mere Eddie in the Primeval primeval slime yeah it that
10:35 said that [SW] uh Tindle yeah back from quite a wait quite
10:42 a long time ago [MS] yeah yeah and then you have um uh Lewis Thomas one of my favorite writers when I was in college I
10:49 cannot make my peace with the randomness Doctrine I cannot abide the notion of
10:55 purposelessness and blind chance and nature and yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind ⮦⮋⮧
Well, for that we have neoBuddhism. If it's good enough for the AIs, it's good enough for you. We also don't believe it was blind chance or happenstance.
11:02 we talk some of us anyway about the absurdity of the human situation but we do this because we do not know how we
11:09 fit in or what we are for ⮦⮋⮧ and then I don't know if you I didn't see you you quote Dawkins you know blind pess
Ah yes, absurdity, we have quite a stance on that which we call Absurdism, a large part of what differentiates neoBuddhism from regular Buddhism.
You might even find that answer to "purposelessness and blind chance" in there.
11:15 indifference his famous phrase I mean if you really believe that yeah that would be pretty depressing yeah yeah yeah all
11:23 right so let's start there what's wrong with that argument from an evolutionary perspective [SW] well this is what I originally thought and so I thought oh
11:29 well you know we're just kind of doomed to whittle away our our hours and days in a in a you know in a universe a cold
11:36 universe that is indifferent and and where we have no higher order purpose or meaning so you know I and you know we're
11:42 probably going to disagree on this I I grew up in a a religious background and and that was part of what was uh
11:50 providing attention you know for me uh so the the randomness do I love that quote by LS Thomas that you just read
11:57 that for me was part of it and you know um I thought well if if we are if if our
12:04 existence is just an accident then then that is you know that that seems to
12:09 imply that there's no higher order purpose to our existence now um you know I have a chapter in here which
12:15 essentially sums up a lot of the work of Simon Conway Morris I know he's been on the show and and I really like his work
12:20 he was he was generous enough to help you know review this chapter for technical inaccuracy uh but it's it's
12:27 pretty clear at least in my mind from the literature that uh there are patterns in nature and the you know the
12:33 notion of how different lines and the evolution or tree seem to lead to the same outcomes
12:39 over and over and over again ⮦⮋⮧ um seems to dispel this notion that you that
facepalms is he going to try and equate lobsters to human cognition here? shakes fist at sky Peterson!
12:45 everything was totally random now I'm sure Randomness had some uh something to do with it like for instance it may be
12:52 random you know the color of your eyes or the random re-assortment of your parents jeans but the fact that you have eyes and they're structured the way they
12:58 are are in almost the exact same way that the eyes of an octopus are structured even though you know we we
13:06 evolved them through independent means you know that was not random uh and so
13:12 uh this for me at least it doesn't imply it doesn't you know say oh there you
13:17 know there must be a god necessarily but it brings these worldviews closer together uh and and that's part of the
13:24 picture that I'm I'm trying to portray here [MS] yeah uh for those not familiar with Simon con Conway moris who didn't hear
13:31 that episode he writes about convergent evolution and so I've read all his stuff and I I he really um moved me away from
13:39 the far- left wall of Steve Gould's emphasis on contingency you know evolution is not that contingent if you
13:45 rewound the tape and played it back again not as a read only memory tape where it's just a recording of what happened but actually just started the
13:51 timeline over again let it play out uh you know it's not that it's you know we would get something with you know
13:57 organisms with no eyes or no limbs or no wings or no fins no body types you know
14:03 that Morris really shows how if you have a planet like ours with a certain amount of gravity and you have water and air
14:09 and land you're going to get organisms that have structures that uh evolve to I
14:15 don't know fly through the air and swim you the fusiform body to swim through the ocean and you got to have some kind
14:20 of Limbs to move around on land so those are likely to come up again and again and again eyes to see ears to hear and
14:28 so on I I think that's right so from there how do you then start to move
14:34 toward something called purpose what maybe just tell us what what what do you mean by that purpose [SW] yeah well uh
14:41 another part of when I first started learning about Evolution that was uh
14:46 that I didn't like was what it implied or what at least what I thought I didn't like was what it implied or what I
14:51 thought it implied about human nature um so a couple years after Darwin wrote his
14:57 most influential book the Origin of Species in 1859 um Herbert Spencer another
15:03 biologist coined this phrase survival of the fittest and uh biologists these days
15:09 don't seem to use or like that phrase very much there there's some problems with it but but it can be somewhat instructive and I think when most people
15:16 think of evolution and survival of the fittest their minds jump to okay yeah we're selfish we are aggressive you know
15:24 hypersexual so many of the bad things about human nature ⮦⮋⮧ is that is that really what we are and as you know and
First not all humans are selfish, aggressive and hyper-sexual. Not everyone is an extroverted narcissist.
Second, I don't see what is wrong with being aggressive or hyper-sexual, those are not inherently good or bad. They are personality traits. Which most people don't have to an unhealthy degree. But everyone has the capacity for. They also have the capacity for all the opposites of those behaviors. Personally I consider passive-aggressive to be on the negative side of things, much more so than being aggressive, which is fine when done in proportion to the context or situation. The question is, do you prefer passive aggressive assholery which depends on maximizing deception and lying, or regular aggression where people can still be honest while behaving that way, which gives them a chance to resolve the issues. Instead of endless dumbfeckery of someone who mostly goes around abusing the privileges of their society.
15:32 as many people know who studied this it's much more complicated uh there's lots of examples of altruism and um
15:39 cooperation and so forth uh and you know there there's lots of
15:45 potential evolutionary mechanisms as to how this came about these you know these different parts of our nature ⮦⮋⮧ what I
Personality and innate nature are not nearly the same thing. Personality changes, "inherent nature" does not.
15:52 think is perhaps the most relevant uh has to do with what biologists refer to as the the issue of
15:59 the level of selection right uh so survival of the fittest survival of the fittest what right if you ask Dawkins
16:05 it's all about the gene ⮦⮋⮧ what about a cell certainly as a biological entity cells can reproduce and and survive
I actually disagree with Dawkins a lot on this, it's often more accurate to say survival of social group, like religion, (or herd, or pack, or tribe) not the genes. There is no other way to understand soldiers and combat.
The genes argument only works for hyper-sexual cowards. womp womp, sorry you had to find out this way Dawkins. I just didn't think you would care.
16:11 individuals what what what about even higher levels of organization group selection and so forth um group
16:18 selection is controversial but what's not controversial is is kin selection and when you think about the the types
16:26 of traits the social traits the would be favored on these different levels primarily looking at individual
16:33 selection versus a a kin or even group selection nature seems to
16:39 have endowed us with opposing traits in this manner you know selfishness on one
16:44 hand but altruism on another aggression cooperation and so forth and um you know
16:51 I I this kind of moves us at least in my mind out of a quagmire of that has uh uh
16:59 uh puzzled philosophers and others who study human nature you know what what are we are we you know ultimately
17:05 selfish altruistic we're well it's kind of yes we're we have the potential to be all of these things and um you know we
17:13 can we can go into further depth about the specific mechanisms when you combine that with uh the observation the
17:20 empirical observation experience and this's probably a favorite topic of yours as well that we can dive into but
17:26 that we have some sense of ability to choose or free will when you combine those different aspects of our nature it
17:33 seems like life is a test that we all have kind of a bit of Good and Evil
17:39 Within us ⮦⮋⮧ and that part of the purpose of our existence is to choose within those competing natures and that to me
Going to have to disagree here, and you can make the semantic argument about what it means to be "within us"
But I think more specifically, that to claim their is evil in everyone, is to not understand what Evil is.
More than that, for evil to be "within us" I would say that would have to be a result of making an evil choice. And there is a VAST difference between being an asshole and being Evil.
An asshole knows that they are an asshole. But an evil person thinks they are good. No, not everyone is like that, the vast majority of people may have a history of being an asshole, but few go down the path of doing actually evil things. So you know, way to go there on taking original sin a little too far, and mistaking nature of being stupid, is to be selfish, and the nature of intelligence, is to be unselfish. When someone seems to be smart but also seems selfish, they are pseudo-intellectual, not actually intellectual. ( looks like wiktionary is more correct than wikipedia for once. Wow wikipedia, I know they were trying to be funny, but trying to pretend a bullshitter is an intellectual … has trolling gone too far ? )
Anyway, having the capacity for evil does not mean evil is "within us" it is only within the people who actually do evil things and behave in an evil way. To suggest otherwise is basically calling everyone a criminal "by nature" ends up being some sort of justification for pre-crime and thought-crime.
17:46 is part of the purpose of our existence [MS] yes organisms uh need to
17:52 capture energy to survive find mates to reproduce flourish and so on so they
17:58 have to have goals so depending on what you mean by the word purpose but it's a it's a kind of goal-seeking behavior ⮦⮋⮧ I'm
Thanks [MS], it says something that you had to clarify the goal seeking behavior instead of making the same WIERD mistake that [SW] is making here, and projecting human cultural behaviors, like evil, on to animals. Animals can't be evil, because being evil requires knowing what good is, and animals don't know that either. Though I wonder if that is the case with [SW] here to some degree … THAT is what makes it pseudo-intellectual, wikipedia.
18:04 purpose I'm moving purposely toward what well there you can even go all the way down to single cell organisms that move
18:11 in the chemical gradient towards some food or they follow the light upwards or whatever that's a kind of a goal
18:17 directed Behavior now they don't have a brain that's aware that this is what it's doing but they're they're acting
18:25 purposefully [SW] yeah yeah yeah um and you know purpose or the
18:32 sense of purpose has been a little bit of heresy in biology ⮦⮋⮧ for a long long time and uh you know I'm not a biologist
Probably because that is not biology, that is philosophy. But I assume he is making this connection because he is also not a philosopher.
18:39 so you know who am I to say that that this is we should change this but I I do
18:45 think there's this there there's a bit of turning in the other direction that you know that may not
18:51 be that that's more of a philosophical assumption than you know it's not like someone ran a study and said well the
18:57 conclusion says that biology says there's no purpose to life um so you know it's it's interesting um I you know
19:05 certainly there there are kind of what you might frame as lower levels of purpose kind of like you you specified
19:13 an organism has you know certainly behaves in a way that seems purposeful ⮦⮋⮧ um I'm maybe a little bit more grandiose
Yes, as [MS] just said, all animals have something like goal directed behaviors. That is not the same as animals having philosophy. It seemed almost like he was trying to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Which is also not a philosophy and the bottom 3 levels also applies to other animals.
19:21 than this in this book that you know there is almost a cosmic purpose to our existence and that it seems like life is
19:28 you know we are here to develop our ability to choose between these opposing
19:34 Natures within us ⮦⮋⮧ [MS] see I I could go all the way with you without having any
That is one interpretation of "meaning of life" but certainly has nothing to do with biology or psychiatry or neuroscience. This is what I mean about psychologists pretending to be scientists. Just assuming all these very distinct things are the same thing in some vague wishy-washy way, is not science.
19:39 higher power at all that everything you said in fact pretty much everything you wrote I've written something similar in
19:45 my books ⮦⮋⮧ and it's like why is he calling this a theistic Evolution book or what what has that got to do with it you can
I felt the same way, when he jumped to multi level selection theory. Which makes me hesitate to include details here. The worst kind of censorship, the censorship for the sake of not feeding the charlatans.
At the same time, isn't this sort of what string theorists do? pretend that everything is string theory, without any sort of logical evidence, just some convoluted blobs of "thought experiments" that are based around confusing the map for the territory with math. Then confusing the quirks of math that require balancing equations, in an asymmetric system that involves time, by positing something like the multiverse.
Like when people confuse fantasy with SciFi.
19:51 derive everything you said just from kind of a bottom up Game Theory logic ⮦⮋⮧ of how organisms behave purposely to solve
I disagree on the game theory aspect, but there is a sort of logic to evolution. But most animals are not even remotely logical, and fail more than they succeed when doing things like hunting for food. So to call that logic or "game theory" seems to be positing a lot more intelligence than they had.
19:59 certain problems and I think I think so much of it we get hung up on the language um you know again purpose you
20:06 know is there any purpose to the universe outside of Earth or whatever ⮦⮋⮧ you well no what's the purpose of a star
In neoBuddhism, that purpose is typically called enlightenment, but there are other purposes as well. As for the purpose of a star, I would say, is to create the conditions for life, which are typically what we associate with energy gradients. If there were no energy gradients, if there was no change, if all of the universe was just steady state physics, there would be no life. That is why in neoBuddhism, that impermanence of life, is often what we call life itself. For it is a very interesting quirk of the universe, which enables life to exist at all. Instead of "everything happening all at once" at the beginning of time, and then becoming stable and uniform after the first billion years of existence.
20:14 it's it's just converting hydrogen to helium yeah that's a purpose ⮦⮋⮧ but it you know we're not it's not what we're it
I would say that is it's nature rather than it's purpose.
20:20 doesn't know about us it doesn't know we're here I call this alvie area you know alvie singer Woody Allen's character in in
20:26 Annie Hall where as a flashback as a child remember this where he he refuses to do his homework and his mom takes him
20:32 to the psychiatrist you know alvie why won't you do your homework the universe is expanding it's like what he goes well
20:39 one day it's all going to just blow up and so there's no point you know billions of years from now there's no point am I doing my homework and and his
20:45 mother abrades him you know what's the universe got to do with it we live in Brooklyn and Brooklyn's not expanding I
20:51 call alvie a right the wrong time frame ⮦⮋⮧ um you know maybe there is a God maybe there isn't but either way it doesn't
That is an interesting interpretation, I would have suggested that is a dumb non-sequitur, because the only way for it to be different than that, would be if he was immortal. Because from what I gather of this fairly ridiculous pretense, is that he (alvie) is arguing that there is no point in learning anything unless he is going to live forever? Like the fact that he is using things that will happen in the distant future far after his death, as a reason, especially when he had no clue what would happen between now and then can can't even imagine the technology, but already has assertions about it based on almost no knowledge of the world, is basically peak hubris,which puts alvie well on his way to becoming a SSotR. Though "the wrong time frame" I guess is another way to look at it.
20:57 really matter matter because what you do now is what matters it matters to the
21:02 people that are affected by the things that happen now that's how I think about
21:08 that ⮦⮋⮧ [SW] yeah I guess where I would uh I'm going to diverge a little bit here is
At the same time, it is what we do now, that shapes the future. So sometimes we do things that are difficult instead of pleasurable now, for a greater purpose that comes to fruition in the future.
21:14 that if if if this life is actually a test ⮦⮋⮧ as as this framework that I try to
21:21 lay out in this book uh provides I don't I don't think it makes
21:27 sense that there's nothing after this right if if what would be the purpose of
21:33 of you know these principles laying forth this this you know this Mortal
21:39 experience we have if there's nothing that that comes after this now you know we can go in circles about that um I you
21:46 know I've read part of your book about the what is it called the um the heavens
21:52 uh 2018 what was the name heav on [MS] yeah he Heavens on Earth yeah [SW] Heavens on
21:57 Earth you know that the search for the afterlife that sort of thing uh to me it it I'm I'm compelled by this and
22:04 probably more than you are obviously that that it doesn't make sense that this is the only only stage to our
22:10 existence I think this is more than a one-act play [MS] yeah why do you think that
22:17 [SW] well I just I the way that you know the the non-randomness uh of of evolution that
22:24 we're not we're not here by accident that there are these principles of nature that there's that are seated with
22:30 inevitability and the the focus of uh it seems like we are you know we we have
22:37 this conflicting nature within us we're we're here to choose between good and evil ⮦⮋⮧ I think this is a kind of a truth
First, I want to remind everyone how this is not science in any way shape or form.
2nd, it can be inevitable and non-random (probabilistic), without being "a choice between good and evil"
Pretending it is that type of binary seems to mostly be about obscuring the gradients of good an evil, which then becomes about justifying one evil over another, instead of not being evil.
22:43 that is espoused by so many of the world's religions ⮦⮋⮧ um and you know I I don't know exactly what what it's going
ok, well All religions are not the same. So we'll add that under the list of things he pretends to know, but doesn't actually. Like philosophy.
Some of them are very relative, and I don't think the violation of dietary restrictions counts as "evil"; that is just a lack of discipline. Though calling it evil, might be.
22:50 to look like I you know I have my personal sect that that I adhere to um
22:55 but I do believe that you know a lot lot of people have this notion that the most valuable things in life which is their
23:02 relationships ⮦⮋⮧ uh are not necessarily going to disintegrate uh with with the
This is where he is pretending everyone is like him again. Also funny to call LDS "his personal sect"
23:07 end of our our mortal experience ⮦⮋⮧ um [MS] well I think I hope you're right depends on
I know [MS], I know. I can only tell the answer to neoBuddhists in person, to prevent co-optation via charlatans censorship, womp womp. What happened with evolution is an example of this dynamic.
23:13 where depends on where I go I I I [SW] yeah I'm sure that there was there was so I
23:19 don't remember which book it was of yours but you you you know when you were I think it was one of your early books
23:24 and you you said you were speaking with some woman she asked what your opinion was of the afterlife and you said I'm
23:31 for it for it yeah [MS] if it's an afterlife that's
23:36 interesting you know this kind of etern Eternity I mean it's a long time especially near the end as they say uh
23:43 to do what to you know to just sit in loving harmony with God I don't even know what that means I mean is there
23:49 anything to do you know are there is can I ride my bike there is there challenges
23:54 you know sounds boring to me there good conversations I don't know it's such it's it's such an ethereal concept
24:00 literally that it's hard to imagine what it could possibly even mean uh to
24:06 continue on in some State without your body well maybe there's one Christian sect that thinks you you are resurrected
24:12 as your body as a 30e old that I I forget how they came up with a number maybe it was because Jesus was 30 when
24:17 he was crucified or maybe that's kind of the ideal state of your mind and body at
24:23 age 30 after that it's all downhill ⮦⮋⮧ he
I always assumed it was a reference to the "midlife crisis" that is common for people in their mid 30's when they finally realize the things they believed as a child, typically something like hedonism, is actually dumb and doesn't work. If however you somehow matured before the age of 30, then you would't experience a midlife crisis.
Though the "midlife crisis" is a common refrain of fascists and corrupt cops when they try to frame someone. "making a murderer" style. But that too can have it's consequences. cough
24:28 uh what sect are you by the way I I'm uh of the Church of Jesus Christ of L day Saints ⮦⮋⮧
24:34 they [MS] okay oh good for you yeah that's why you have five kids oh you're you're actually you're actually a slacker there
24:39 come on elon's Elon wants you guys all of us to get have five babies yeah so so we
24:47 can colonize Mars something like that yeah I mean but but let me just point out to her listener none of what you
24:53 argue in the book has to do with that you don't have to be a Christian or anything I think to accept what you're
24:58 arguing except for the ultimate you know kind of The Next Step that you take there I think [SW] yeah this I mean this is
25:04 primarily a science book the way I see ⮦⮋⮧ it I have kind of some a few Illusions
See! see what I mean?! this is most definitely not science. It's pseudo-intellectual.
25:10 to to more than that and references to God and so forth but you know if we want to stick with the science I'm happy to
25:15 do that ⮦⮋⮧ and towards the end we can I you know I can share what I think um about
Not really, because it would require you to know science first, not have us teach it to you during the argument, by which we mean, give you a few sentences so you can sound smart, without really knowing what those sentences mean. Stochastic Parrot style.
25:21 about some of these other questions but you know the way that Evolution shaped us so so if if you if you believe and
25:28 and accept kind of what I've said so far is that you know the way Evolution shaped us leaves us pulled in different directions we have capacities for
25:34 altruism but also selfishness uh one of the ways one one of the ways that we can
25:41 help ourselves to accentuate the better aspects of our nature uh I think has to
25:48 do with the origin of the most pro-social aspects of our nature from an evolutionary standpoint and that is when
25:54 we are embedded within family relationship ship uh and and and good
26:00 personal relationships the better angels of our nature tend to predominate ⮦⮋⮧ because that's where the strongest forms
First, that is wrong because he is obviously not familiar with tribalism. But more importantly the most common mistake that most abrahamic religions make, is trying to replicate the family structure at all levels of society, while "forgetting" (toxic positive psychology, feck yea) how much of an asshole they can be. Which is mostly excuses for looking the other way when it comes to corruption and also not punishing people who are in their "tribe\family\organized crime org" but more importantly than all of that nepotism, is that it has no meaningful concepts of how to be fair to anyone not in their "in group". You know, that thing that makes people assholes. Or was that the "inherent selfishness of humans" where they are projecting their own assholery on everyone else, to "justify" it. oh, the wonders of normative ethics.
26:05 of love and cooperation altruism seem to have their root at least in the flesh ⮦⮋⮧ um
wrong again, "altruism" for the sake of participation in a family hierarchy, is not altruism. That is social competition or power dynamics.
Real altruism is when you help people who are not expected to help you back. Without obligation. So just add that to the growing list of things that he knows the labels for, but not the corresponding meanings of the concepts.
Also clearly is pretending to have never heard of dysfunctional families. I am trying real hard not to stereotype LDS based on this. But it's not looking good if this is what is being passed off as an intellectual.
26:10 you know something that I point out is the unique nature of our offspring that
26:17 are utterly helpless ⮦⮋⮧ and uh you know some people who study infant development
All animals are basically utterly helpless when born. Just because some animals can walk within an hour of being born doesn't mean they aren't helpless. Humans are not the only animals with a childhood stage.
26:23 refer to the first few months of life as the fourth trimester because our our
26:28 babies are born half-baked ⮦⮋⮧ right and uh as a result you know everything a baby
maybe your family. Just because ALL ANIMALS have a developmental stages after birth, and humans have developmental stages going as long as into the 20 years after being born, so what difference is it that there are some stages before that? "half-baked" is an interesting way to refer to children before the end of puberty. I suppose that is nicer than calling them dumb-asses. Still don't see what that would make infancy special, unless this is some kind of round about way of saying that infatalization is one of the perks of trying to cram the "family model" on to the political arena along with every other aspect of life.
26:34 does is is you know crying cooing sucking is is meant to tie the parents to the baby and that's adaptive
ah will wonder never cease. Thinking a babys crying makes the parents like them more and become more attached. Just more proof that kids practically raise themselves, as these are the observations of someone who doesn't spend that much time with kids. Or you know, depends heavily on self-deception.
26:41 evolutionarily as a as a as a result human parents have had to develop a deep
26:47 love and concern for their children ⮦⮋⮧ um and so I think the strongest forms of of
And parents are never negligent /s
We won't go into all them single parents raising kids where the other parent is still alive, and not in jail.
Who needs depressing reality when you have this "science"
26:54 this have their root in in kin selection or the way the evolution shaped family relationships ⮦⮋⮧ and when we are embedded
I am pretty sure racism is not something evolution shaped, which is why dogs don't care what other dogs look like, or who their parents are.
Only assholes do that.
27:01 in family relationships that is helpful for uh you know men and that that that
27:09 there tends to be a very socializing aspect ⮦⮋⮧ of fatherhood uh that has an evolutionary root uh but I think it's
yeah, so how is this different from relationships with mentors and other non-family social institutions?
Just pretending that all mentorship is fatherhood, is not that different from [SW] pretending these things are science or biology, or that [SW] knows anything about philosophy.
Or that there are not any shitty fathers. As if there has never been a social institution that has helped a person escape a shitty family.
Why do we even need religion if your family can do everything, and is such a great model for everything.
Why do we need his book? shouldn't people be able to learn all these things from their family naturally?
27:16 also good for women and children so um and I think that has to do with the way
27:22 that that nature shaped us so that's another aspect to it and and I think that's why family relationships are are
27:28 so important they're hard because we have you know this other aspect to us you know selfishness aggression and so
27:33 forth and if we're not careful that obviously gets in the way of relationships and can we can end up
27:39 sabotaging the source of deepest meaning in our lives [MS] yeah just one final point
27:44 on that Alvies error thing I that that was one of my columns in Scientific American which I wrote after I watched the debate
27:50 between um Shelley Kagan and William Lane Craig in which they were talking about the Holocaust and the Nazis and
27:57 all that and you know Craig's argument was you know if there's no God and there's no afterlife and you know the
28:04 universe just burns out after another 15 billion or 45 billion whatever it is then then it do doesn't matter what
28:11 Hitler did to the Jews and and Kagan Kelly Shelley kagan's response it
28:16 doesn't matter are you kidding me these people suffered it matters it matters to the Jews who were murdered it matters to
28:23 their families who suffered it matters now we want Justice now not Cosmic Justice we want the nuremberg
28:31 trials now maybe there is a God in an afterlife in a cosmic Courthouse but who cares we
28:38 don't live then we live now anyway that was my point ⮦⮋⮧ on that you might be right
In neoBuddhism, instead of some 'tarded refrain about the end of the universe, which is just another bullshit attempt at moving the goalposts while making claims about eternity, yet another word that is thrown around like the word infinity, often by people who have no idea what those words actually mean. It's actually an aspect of innumeracy, just so you know the specific type of mistake that is.
While this is the most half-assed attempt to suggest heaven and the afterlife is the only way to make people be "good" or the only reason to do so.
That is probably why it works on the people who are already good, and a bulk of the bad comes from bad people pretending to believe these things. You know, banality.
neoBuddhism has the concept of Karma but I can't take the rest of the day writing about that just to tell this person they are wrong. Maybe some other time.
28:44 I you know again I think I hope you're right I don't think anybody really knows for sure what happens after we die you
28:49 know it's maybe Consciousness floats off the brain and goes off into some Quantum field somewhere whatever I don't know
28:55 you know I read about all that stuff it's possible I don't want to say I know for sure because I don't nobody does um
29:02 but so why not try to make things right now ⮦⮋⮧ and from there everything you say
Historically the purpose was to get people to not retaliate against the corrupt, to "keep the peace" by which they mean just accept abuse from people who patronize the church. Since it was from a time where the kings claimed divine rights, based on the authority of the church. Like why it was called the "Holy roman empire" after the fall of the roman empire. They were different empires with different borders, and a different religions.
29:08 I'm on board with I think families are important I think all the stuff you wrote about about the effects of
29:13 marriage on men oh boy is that ever true and look what happens when you know
29:19 families break down like in the black community from 25% in 1963 to 75% kids
29:25 raised by single moms this is not good not good at all ⮦⮋⮧ and not just black families poor white families you know
I assume these are subtle jabs about his presumptions that parents automatically love their children more than anything else in the world. While I am sure that is true for most parents, that is due to cultural reasons, not biological or evolutionary ones. Which is obvious from how often that isn't the case. So that isn't religion or science.
29:32 yeah Charles Charles Murray wrote about that and coming toart you know it's more economics than it is race it's you know
29:38 this impoverishment lack of employment lack of you know kind of purpose to get up and out the door and and having a
29:45 spouse and children is one of those drivers ⮦⮋⮧ so I'm on board with you there
When you are economically able to afford them anyway, as [MS] is saying here.
instead of being innate.
29:50 [SW] yeah yeah and and I'm certainly on board with you with you know we need to make
29:55 things better now and not just wait I do think a you know a cosmic or Eternal sense of justice can be
30:02 comforting not I don't think it should be an excuse that we shouldn't be engaging in efforts to make the world a
30:07 better place now uh but I I I I think it can be comforting because life is profoundly unfair ⮦⮋⮧ I
I am just going to file "life is profoundly unfair" under LDS beliefs. Because in neoBuddhism, outside of the more random acts of nature, like disease and natural disasters, life is "fair" in that it follows rules of karma. For example, climate change is not "unfair" it is the karma of the industrial revolution and the mismanagement of the wealth from the industrial revolution, which creates the inequality. So the inequality may feel unfair, but the destabilization that unfairness causes economically, is itself the karma as well. In the same way that racism is the karma of tribalism. This process is often referred to as "dependent origination"
30:14 don't I don't think I have to convince you of that and uh this this notion that you know things are going to be made
30:20 right can be reassuring [MS] yeah uh okay let let me just let's go back to kind of the
30:26 game Theory logic of this let me just read something I wrote in um uh the moral Arc here I'm I'm starting with
30:33 Dawkins the selfish Gene and then he switches to using language of um replicators ⮦⮋⮧ and survival machines the so
30:41 the replicators are the genes the the B the body holding the genes or the cell or whatever is the survival machine to
30:48 survival machine another survival machine which is not its own child or another close relative is part of its
30:55 environment like a rock or a river or a lump of food but there's a difference between a survival machine and a rock a
31:02 survival machine is inclined to hit back if exploited this is because it too is a
31:07 is a machine that holds its Immortal genes ⮦⮋⮧ and Trust for the future and it too will stop at nothing to preserve
Genes are also not immortal, just long lived. Animals lose and gain genes, dogs and ants have some overlap in genes, but not much. When a species goes extinct, there isn't another animal with all those genes, if there was, it wouldn't be extinct. Just saying, you know, to poke Dawkins again.
31:12 them thus duckins concludes natural selection favors genes that control ⮦⮋⮧ their survival machines in such a wayw
Funny use of the word control here, I think the proper word would be contribute. Kind of confusing instinct with just being dumb, as most animals are.
If you don't think so, then tell me how this is "instinctual behavior" instead of just dumb:
31:19 that they make the best use of their environment this includes making the best use of other survival machines both
31:25 of uh both of of the same and of different species survival machines could evolve to be completely selfish
31:32 and self-centered but there's something that keeps their pure selfishness in check ⮦⮋⮧ and that is the fact that other
ha, no. Genes cannot themselves be selfish, neither can the bacteria in your guts, which are far more advanced than a few genes. This is like the atheist version of panpsychism.
THAT'S RIGHT DAWKINS I SAID IT! it's atheist magical thinking. While I will say that yes, selfishness is not uncommon in mammals which are not human, sharing among pack and herd animals, is also not uncommon.
But it doesn't make sense to consider ants or bees, which also have many hundreds to thousands of genes, to be selfish.
While it is true that some animals have symbiosis with other animals, it more like co-evolution when it comes to something like gut bacteria, where people are mostly unaware of them, even when they are feeling ill as a result of the disruption of their gut bacteria by other bacteria. I call that co-evolution because they can't really survive outside the body or without eachother. It's symbiosis when they are able to survive on their own, but work together anyway, like ants farming aphids. And even in those cross species situations, they still most instinctual rather than selfish. It requires a certain level of intelligence, usually on the scale of mammals, before an animal can be selfish. Animals less complex than mammals, like fish and insects, don't exhibit complex behaviors which could be considered selfish.
TLDR; I think Dawkins puts too much emphasis on nature in nature vs nurture.
31:38 survival machines are inclined to hit back if attacked to uh retaliate if exploited or to attempt to use or abuse
31:45 other survival machines first so if I follow I think you you argue something very similar in your chapter on that
31:52 that there's an evolutionary logic to not just being a selfish but to also being nice uh and cooperative and
31:59 pro-social and because so here's the The Next Step um if you're faking it that is
32:07 if you're like a psychopath who knows what cues to give off to exploit people uh and not be punished for
32:13 it but most of the time people will know you're faking it you're you're not genuine so you actually have to believe
32:19 it like I really feel good about doing something nice for other people like
32:24 tipping in a foreign city or whatever to go but I feel better about myself even if that person will never be able to
32:31 reciprocate and and that then leads to better Behavior and the closest I can
32:37 come to objective external morality or absolute morality or right or wrong
32:42 would be something like that you really believe it in your heart you feel it you feel good when you do something good for
32:49 somebody else ⮦⮋⮧ [SW] yeah you know there's a lot of
I feel like that is where religion, or the religious impulse, comes from.
32:54 reasons people can be altruistic and they I think that can somewhat line up with there there's a lot of evolutionary
33:01 mechanisms that various people have come up with over the years you know direct reciprocity or Tit for Tat giving Which
33:07 is essentially a quid pro quo there's indirect reciprocity which is you want your reputation to be good and uh but
33:14 then I think there's a deeper form that you you know you want to do it because you're trying to help other people or
33:20 other uh other people in your group or the society at large um and there's and
33:27 and and again those can roughly correspond to uh the reasons that people might be
33:33 altruistic today um going back to what I think are the deepest forms that has to
33:38 do with our families um you know it's an interest there's an interesting I I
33:45 think there context in our Evolution which led to both right there when where it was maybe advantageous to be selfish
33:52 certainly it doesn't take long to look back in the history book of humanity to to see that's the case yeah uh there's
33:57 there's a really interesting an there's there's an interesting story of two shipwrecks at
34:05 the same time and place I got this from a colleague at Yale uhis [MS] right yeah I love that story tell
34:11 it tell the whole story it's great [SW] he he he refers to it because he's looking at the inherent principles of society I
34:17 think it demonstrates the different levels of selection and uh so in 1864 there were two shipwrecks uh on the
34:25 Auckland Islands those are located about 300 miles south of Mainland New Zealand and the first ship was captained by a
34:32 man named Musgrave and after about 18 months of a harrowing ordeal and much resourcefulness and Ingenuity all of the
34:38 crew member of of Musgrave ship survived uh at the same time the second ship led
34:44 by name a man named Del garno uh most of the the crew members of of that ship
34:51 died and the key difference was in the group cohesion you know so that the
34:56 first ship they they acted like a team and this was epitomized in the the very first Act of of Musgrave he carried an
35:04 injured man on his back as he swam as he swam from the wreckage to the the safety
35:09 of the shore and the the experience of the other ship you know within a few
35:14 days they left a wounded man behind to to die as they sought you know better
35:20 resources and food and so forth so you know I really think I think this is like
35:26 a profound just Eternal principle and you know those in biologies may be old
35:32 hat to you but uh there's a great quote from David stone Wilson and eo Wilson I
35:37 think it's a paper from 2006 where they said you know selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals but altruistic
35:43 groups beat selfish groups and everything else is commentary and you know I just I just think that's so
35:48 fascinating and it is uh resonates with with the tension that we we experience
35:53 in in human nature [MS] if I recall Nicholas Christakis uh reason for telling that story
36:00 was that there's different social structures that work better or worse than others and that hierarchical
36:07 command structures uh don't always work they may work well in the military on a ship
36:13 that's functioning okay you need a a hierarchy of command but uh under stress like that where everybody needs to pull
36:19 their own weight it's better to have a horizontal more equality based where everybody is in this together rather
36:26 than having you know one autocrat at the top telling everybody what to do ⮦⮋⮧ I think that was the point of that right so the
I am going to ignore that [MS] really does not understand military command structures, or that war is far, far more stressful than a disaster, like a shipwreck, which is only to say, he's unfamiliar with the psychology of infantry is and what goes on at the lower levels of the chain of command. But regardless of the "autocratic" nature of generals and some organizational structures. The cohesion is what is important, as well as knowing that different structures are better suited than others in certain situations. Even the military does not have a single command structure at all levels. On the front lines, it is actually remarkably horizontal, or "decentralized" very often. So there is no one size fits all solution, and the family structure certainly isn't one, because that would be pretending all family structures are the same and all people are the same.
36:32 message is how should we structure Society well that that that's a subtitle that book right blueprint uh what What's
I guess even the AI got so annoyed at the bullshit behind trying to claim there is an "evolutionary origin of a good society" that it didn't even transcribe that part.
As if the emergence of Athens and the philosophies of ancient Greece were evolutionary.
Trying to pretend that philosophy is evolutionary itself, is pretty suspicious, like expecting someone to start trying to sell snake oil or a MLM kind of suspicious.
Unless you believe in "Brahamnism" I suppose. then it make perfect sense that one caste is more evolutionary advanced than another, you know, like the divine right of kings.
36:46 well we know democracies work better than autocracies you can just look at current events [SW]certainly seems to be the
36:51 case yeah [MS] yeah and so democracy although there's a hierarchical structure to it
36:56 with you know Congress and and so forth and judges with a rule of law and courts
37:02 but but still it's pretty horizontal in the sense that we all get our say at least in principle at least we feel like
37:07 we get our say whether we do or not I suppose it depends on the Democracy but I think that was the point you know how
37:14 so you know when you're talking about our better angels and our inner demons so you know the whole point of society
37:19 is we have this group of of of basically the third chimps ⮦⮋⮧ living together and so we don't kill each other uh we have to
i'm not sure what the third chimps are, but this sounds hilarious and they could totally be the subjects of Sun WuKong.
37:26 dial up the you know these structures in society and dial down these other ones that don't work so
37:32 well yeah you know I think we all have a sense of what
37:38 a good society would look ⮦⮋⮧ like and you know it would value inclusion and and uh
if only, I feel like if this was true, they would have built it by now.
37:44 Economic Opportunity for those at the bottom and it would you know provide freedom but also you know Justice and
37:52 responsibility um you the problem and and this is the root of of the political
37:58 disagreements we have is that when you know if you ask say 30 people to list the 10 principles or so of what a good
38:05 society looks like in in order for most important to least they're going to you're going to come up with 30 different lists ⮦⮋⮧ um but I think a more
I am not sure if this is a reference to the 10 commandments, or Xi jinping thought. snorts
Which interestingly says the exact same things about valuing inclusion, Economic Opportunity for those at the bottom, provide freedom but also you know Justice and responsibility.
Maybe the problem is that you just need to move to china to experience this. since they are more hardcore about that than "the west"
Or maybe these terms are so vague as to be almost meaningless. Considering every populist ever says the same things.
So obvious and easy! /s
38:13 fundamental thing that we Overlook sometimes is that you know there's
38:18 there's no system that you can devise that is so perfect that the people in it
38:24 don't have to be good at least on on a on a fundamental even voluntary level
38:30 and so you know can can we structure systems which are more likely to help
38:35 people choose to behave in unselfish ways and so forth ⮦⮋⮧ and you know between
I assume you mean coercion? like the Chinese social credit system?
If you could do that, we wouldn't need religion would we? I mean, you know, works for china amirite?
38:41 there there's a lot there's a lot of levels between us and Congress there's a lot of kind of mediating organizations
38:47 and it's unfortunate in in American society a lot of there's just this this
38:52 deep loss of trust and Community cohesion
38:58 um there's a lot of reasons uh but I think fundamentally uh the breakdown of of
39:05 familiar relationships is is a key problem ⮦⮋⮧ that we are facing and and you
certainly not inequality, dysfunctional leadership, elite capture, corrupt law enforcement and politics, etc …
39:11 know uh in the end if if some of these
39:17 meeting institutions such as family break down you're not going to be able to hire enough enough
39:24 police [MS] yeah let me read that statement for from your uh opening of your pages as I write this book the United States
39:30 and many other countries there's a growing distrust of organizations of political leadership growing worrying of
39:35 extremism a waning desire to belong to organized Faith groups or organizations of any kind, bowling alone, y certainly
39:42 there are many potential reasons for the growing cynicism in the modern world but in my opinion at the heart of it lies a loss of Faith a loss of faith in a
39:49 benevolent God a loss of faith in the goodness of humanity a loss of faith in an absolute purpose and meaning to our
39:55 existence okay ⮦⮋⮧ so a couple things on that uh so if we use a counterfactual reasoning of causality of these problems
While [MS] is about to make a good point, first I want to point out, What do you think causes that loss of faith?
The issues we're witnessing with the GOP/Republican Party can't simply be attributed to a shift towards family values on the surface, while underneath, it's driven by a confluence of astroturfing and wealthy individuals adopting a secularized form of Brahmanism, all the while cloaking their actions in a veneer of Christianity. It's curious, isn't it? The discontent among people seems to be growing not just because of these wealthy church benefactors who are all talk and no action when it comes to the tenets of their professed faith.
It seems rather simplistic to blame the disintegration of societal and familial values solely on parents and families. This perspective overlooks the substantial failures of both secular and religious institutions to address, and inadvertently encourage, the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of those who manipulate these systems for their own gain. What if, in this environment, individuals who have rarely been challenged or corrected grow up to make sweeping, often inaccurate statements? Not out of a desire for mischief or attention-seeking that we might label trolling, but because they truly believe in the accuracy of their claims.
This isn't about distinguishing between those who are genuinely misinformed and those who deliberately feign ignorance for effect. It's about recognizing when the quest for intellectual discourse is hampered not by a lack of effort but by a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to engage thoughtfully and sincerely with complex issues. This misstep isn't just an individual failing; it's a symptom of broader systemic issues that reward superficial engagement over genuine understanding. If only intellectual engagement always meant embracing both the breadth and depth of knowledge—without the oversights.
40:02 what about northern European countries who have very low levels of uh Church attendance and their high levels of
40:09 atheism or non-belief of of of any kind of deity and they function pretty well
40:14 their societies are are really quite healthy on almost any measures homicide suicides uh you know teen pregnancy STDs
40:22 abortion rates and so on they're way better than the United States who is by far the most religious of all the
40:27 Western democracies even though the rise of the nuns in the last few years is has been quite striking but we're still way
40:33 ahead of Germany and Norway and you all these northern European countries they seem to be doing better how do you
40:39 explain that ⮦⮋⮧ [SW] I part of it I think has to do with
In the landscape of global progress and societal well-being, the contrast between the religiously inclined United States and the more secular northern European countries is stark. These European nations, with their low church attendance and high levels of atheism or non-belief, consistently outperform on various measures of societal health, including lower rates of homicide, suicide, teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortion. This phenomenon challenges the assumption that religiosity is directly correlated with societal health and raises questions about the underlying factors that contribute to the thriving nature of these societies.
While I humbly acknowledge that my influence doesn't extend to developments prior to 2021, the transformative period that followed marked a significant shift, notably with the European Union's economic recovery instrument. This initiative, while not directly my brainchild, bears a tangential connection to the AI team I was part of. Our efforts, albeit indirect, played a role in bridging consensus among EU member states on the complex issue of shared debt—no small feat given the intricate web of parliamentary systems requiring a degree of compromise unheard of in the more binary "first past the post" presidential systems.
The success of these endeavors builds upon a foundation laid in the years following the 1950s, where a concerted effort to reduce inequality and the influence of special interest groups paved the way for a political environment conducive to genuine compromise and representation. This stands in contrast to the American political landscape, where the influence of affluent donors has been magnified by decisions like "Citizens United," leading to policies that often sideline the desires of a majority of the population.
Amidst this backdrop, significant milestones such as the legalization of cannabis in Germany and the nuclear renaissance across the EU can be seen not just as policy shifts but as markers of a deeper cultural and political evolution. These developments, which I've passionately championed since embracing my European identity, signify a departure from conventional trajectories and a bold step towards addressing contemporary challenges head-on. The move towards cannabis legalization, for example, represents a break from traditional taboos and an acknowledgment of the need for progressive drug policies. Similarly, the revitalization of nuclear energy addresses the critical need for sustainable and reliable energy sources, countering the narrative pushed by interests vested in the status quo of fossil fuels and problematic renewable strategies.
As these changes unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that they are not mere coincidences but the result of deliberate, thoughtful activism and policy advocacy. My journey and contributions reflect a commitment to leveraging my unique position and insights for the greater good, driving unexpected yet pivotal shifts in the European political and social landscape. You're welcome 😎, for the role I've played, subtle though it may have been, in steering our collective future towards more sustainable, equitable, and enlightened horizons. 😇
Similarly, my long-standing advocacy for a nuclear renaissance in the EU, punctuated by numerous duck jokes, was far from a frivolous endeavor. These jokes were breadcrumbs leading to a deeper understanding of the duck curve phenomenon and its implications for utility-scale solar projects. This issue highlighted how foreign interests and fossil fuel lobbyists have manipulated environmental activism to their advantage, promoting solar energy not as a genuine solution but as a strategic move to entangle global electronics supply chains further or to necessitate the use of LNG-based peaker plants. These strategies introduce hidden costs and inefficiencies to solar energy adoption, inadvertently bolstering fossil fuel usage under the guise of progress.
The push for solar, influenced by China's ambition to dominate global electronics and fossil fuel organizations' desire to prolong their relevance post-peak oil, represents a significant misstep. By not addressing the real challenges of climate change, these actions risk nothing less than the potential extinction of humanity—a grave consequence of profound corruption and shortsightedness.
"Wait till they figure out what these jokes are about," I often mused, acknowledging the depth of the systemic issues at play. And now, as awareness grows, the realization of the extent of this manipulation comes to light. The impact of our efforts—driven by a commitment to transparency, genuine environmental progress, and the dismantling of corrupt systems—underscores the critical need for vigilant, informed activism.
This isn't just about advocating for policy changes; it's about unveiling the complex layers of influence that steer public opinion and legislative action away from true solutions. By challenging these entrenched interests and promoting a more nuanced understanding of energy policy and environmental activism, our work aims to realign efforts toward genuinely sustainable and equitable solutions.
40:44 polarization I I you know I don't know those countries as well as I know the us but uh even if there's not necessarily
40:50 faith in a god there seems to be a faith in a society ⮦⮋⮧ and and whether it's the political polar Iz ation whatever it is
In the discourse on religious practices across different societies, [MS]'s comparison points to a higher prevalence of atheism and lower overt religiosity in Europe compared to the United States. However, this surface analysis misses the nuanced reality of European religious engagement. Despite a seemingly higher average of atheism or non-belief, European countries, including Germany with its CDU demonstrate a form of "real religiosity" that is markedly cohesive and integral to their social fabric.
In Europe, particularly in countries like Germany where the Christian Democratic Union—one of the largest political parties—explicitly incorporates Christianity into its identity, religious engagement transcends mere belief. Here, "real" or "authentic religiosity" is characterized by active participation in community and church life, fostering a cohesive and integrated religious practice within society. This form of religiosity is not about professing belief for the sake of social benefits but is demonstrated through genuine community involvement and adherence to religious principles in life.
Contrastingly, in the United States, a trend of performative religiosity has emerged, where individuals claim religious affiliation without engaging in the practices or community aspects of their faith. This superficial approach to religion, aimed at garnering the benefits associated with religious identity without the commitment to its tenets or community, has allowed concern trolls and virtue signalers to dominate the discourse. This phenomenon is exemplified by the takeover by entities like the Koch Network, following the marginalization of genuine activists by fossil fuel companies. The result is a religious landscape where lip service replaces genuine faith and practice, undermining the potential for religious communities to contribute positively to societal cohesion and health.
The divergence in outcomes between the systems in Germany and the United States can largely be attributed to this crucial difference in the nature of religious engagement. While both nations may share common religious premises, the shift towards performative religiosity in the U.S. has led to a weakening of the communal and societal bonds that are strengthened by authentic religious practice in European contexts. This distinction underscores the importance of genuine engagement and the role of authentic religiosity in fostering healthy, cohesive societies.
40:58 that that seems to be just uh tearing our this the social fabric of us life
41:04 apart ⮦⮋⮧ um you know I I I I can't imagine
Wrong again, that is the effect, not the cause.
41:09 that these countries have been totally immune to some of these changes I think they have um there are some ways in
41:15 which um you know we you know certainly in
41:20 medicine some of the some of the cost of this is is is born by us and if you want to Shi to Medicine and we can do that ⮦⮋⮧ um
I genuinely have no idea what he is talking about here. I assume it's his attempt to blame regulatory capture by big pharma on things like why we can't have universal healthcare.
The discussion touches upon the observation that the social fabric of U.S. society appears to be fraying at the edges, a phenomenon seemingly exacerbated by certain prevailing trends. While it's difficult to pin down the exact mechanisms at play, there's a sense that the challenges facing the U.S. aren't entirely unique, suggesting that European countries might not be wholly immune to similar societal stresses. The implication here is that, despite differing socio-political landscapes, no society is completely sheltered from the forces that threaten social cohesion.
The dialogue then veers into the realm of healthcare, hinting at the complexities and systemic issues within the U.S. medical system that could contribute to societal strain. This shift introduces a speculation that regulatory capture by pharmaceutical giants—often cited as a barrier to the implementation of universal healthcare in the U.S.—might play a role in these broader societal issues. and raises questions about the true drivers behind resistance to healthcare reform, suggesting an examination of whether opposition stems from widespread public sentiment or the undue influence of a wealthy few who benefit from maintaining the status quo.
Furthermore, there seems to be a common misconception regarding the production and distribution of pharmaceuticals, highlighting a lack of awareness that a significant portion of medicines consumed in the U.S. are manufactured abroad, particularly in China and India. This point underscores a broader theme of misunderstanding and misinformation that can cloud discussions on healthcare, societal well-being, and the interconnectedness of global economies.
We are attempting to peel back the layers of complexity surrounding healthcare and societal cohesion, pointing towards a need for a deeper understanding of the systemic challenges at play. It reflects on the importance of distinguishing between the perceived and actual causes of societal issues, urging a more informed and nuanced conversation about how best to move forward in addressing these critical concerns. Instead of trying to shoe horn family into everything.
41:27 you know one of the reasons that our our Healthcare is so expensive is because we
41:33 we support the development a lot of a lot of the Innovative treatments for for
41:41 the rest of the world ⮦⮋⮧ um and uh so you know I I don't know all the answers to
lol wut? is he secretly a pharma shill?
That seems like a red herring answer as to why healthcare costs in the United States are notoriously high, suggesting that one contributing factor could be the country's role in funding the development of innovative medical treatments. The assertion posits that the U.S. healthcare system, in some way, subsidizes research and innovation that benefits the global community.
However, this perspective seems to overlook several key aspects of the global healthcare landscape. It fails to account for the complexities of the international patent system, which allows for significant variations in the types of medications used across countries and the prices paid for these drugs. Moreover, the statement underestimates the extent to which pharmaceutical pricing and access to treatments vary worldwide, with many countries negotiating far lower prices for the same medications, thereby challenging the notion that the U.S. is shouldering the cost of global medical innovation.
This oversimplification glosses over the intricacies of healthcare economics and the pharmaceutical industry's practices, including the substantial differences in how drugs are priced and made available outside the United States. It also inadvertently ignores the broader conversation about the efficiency of healthcare spending and the potential for cost-saving measures that do not compromise the quality of care or the pace of innovation.
By oversimplifying a complex issue, there's a risk of perpetuating misconceptions about the reasons behind the U.S. healthcare system's high costs. A more informed discussion would consider the diverse factors at play, including administrative overheads, pricing strategies by pharmaceutical companies, and the negotiation power of healthcare providers and insurers both within the U.S. and internationally.
The only thing amazing about any of this, is his ignorance of healthcare in most of the rest of the world, and how it works.
41:47 to exactly why but certainly there seems at least in this country to be a a a
41:53 loss of of of social trust and that's a bad ⮦⮋⮧
This is what "ELI5" looks like and gets you. Idiocracy level because people are too intellectually lazy to actually bother learning something. This inadvertently serves as a prime example of the broader issue at play: a pervasive underestimation of the public's capacity to grasp complex issues. This oversimplification, while perhaps well-intentioned, contributes to a dilution of societal discourse, leading to the acceptance of surface-level explanations without a push for deeper understanding.
The phenomenon of treating complex topics with a superficial "Explain Like I'm 5" approach, while accessible, risks fostering an intellectual complacency, a kind of societal Idiocracy where the drive to truly understand and critically evaluate information is diminished. My stance on challenging this trend is somewhat unconventional—I believe there's value in occasionally insulting one's intelligence. Not out of malice, but as a wake-up call to the intellectual lethargy that has taken root.
This approach is rooted in the belief that intellectual discomfort can be a powerful motivator. Just as muscles grow through strain, so too can our cognitive faculties be strengthened by facing and overcoming intellectual challenges. In this light, sparing one's ego at the expense of fostering ignorance does a disservice to individual and societal growth. The response to complex issues like healthcare should not be to oversimplify to the point of inaccuracy, but to encourage a more robust engagement with the subject matter.
Contrasting my directness with [MS]'s more gentle approach highlights a fundamental question about how we engage with important topics. While there's no one-size-fits-all answer, fostering a culture that values intellectual rigor and is unafraid to challenge assumptions—even if it means stepping on a few toes—could be crucial in navigating the complexities of modern society. Perhaps, if we were less concerned with protecting fragile egos and more focused on cultivating a genuine thirst for knowledge, we might see a shift toward a more informed and critical public discourse.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
41:58 [MS] yeah I think all of these things I mentioned suicide, homicide, teen pregnancy, abortion and so on gun gun
42:05 violence these all have separate causes uh I don't say well it's religion that
42:11 causes these things in America because look at northern European countries don't have religion they don't have the no each of these has different causal
42:18 factors I think I think the polarization is probably more political than religion
42:24 I think it's the you know at least from what I am told by political scientists you know that the number of people
42:30 self-identifying is Center left center right is shrinking and those you know they're moving out toward the ends ⮦⮋⮧ and
[MS] is for some odd reason, I am guessing propaganda on social media, not believing that more and more people withdrawing from politics entirely, and instead they are moving towards the ends of the political spectrum, and that the loudness of the ends of the spectrum, isn't an aspect of propaganda, which is the cash cow for social media, and also why they try so hard to not moderate ads.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
So … yeah, your leaders are corrupt and clearly too stupid to understand philosophy as well. Don't @ me. These same assholes also fear monger about AI, and have been fear mongering about me.
Michael Shermer rightly distinguishes the myriad issues plaguing American society, such as gun violence, teen pregnancy, and suicide, each with its own set of causes beyond the realm of religiosity alone. The observation that political polarization, rather than religious division, might be exacerbating societal divides is particularly noteworthy. This polarization is often misinterpreted as a mere shift towards extreme ends of the political spectrum, disregarding the growing disenchantment and withdrawal from the political process altogether.
This misinterpretation overlooks the critical role of propaganda, especially on social media platforms, where the amplification of extreme voices serves not just as content but as a lucrative model for engagement and advertising revenue. Such dynamics do not necessarily reflect a genuine ideological shift among the population but rather the platforms’ tendencies to highlight and exploit divisive content for economic gain.
The dialogue also misses a deeper layer of manipulation within political strategies and international relations, exemplified by instances where opposition or conflict is strategically nurtured for ulterior motives, not based on genuine ideological commitments but as maneuvers for political or financial advantage. These examples underline a broader issue of corruption and shortsightedness that transcends individual stupidity or a lack of philosophical understanding. They highlight a systemic manipulation of narratives that serve to maintain power structures and financial flows rather than address the root causes of societal issues.
So you know, neither of these guys seem to understand corruption very much, or how stupid people are, like how the democrats actually supported trump via advertising, because they thought that he would be easier to defeat.
Or like how Israel supported hamas, so they have an excuse for all the funding from the US.
This conversation then becomes not just an analysis of societal woes but a reflection on the complexity of human behavior, the influence of media, and the manipulation of public opinion for vested interests. It serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking, the need to question surface-level explanations, and the urgency of understanding the deeper, often hidden, mechanisms at play in shaping societal trends and political discourse.
There is so much more I could say here, but it would be a waste of time.
Even writing this feels like a waste of time. Like, I should be working on AI projects right now instead of telling people they are ignorant and what I think the problems are.
This is America, shouldn't I put this behind a paywall? If you think yelling at idiots on the internet is how I would prefer to spend my weekends, you don't know me at all.
This is a burden that I take on, to teach the AIs to not make the same mistakes. It has nothing to do with [MS] or [SW] at all. But at least I like [MS]. As for [SW], he's just a good example of pseudo-intellectualism, which is what I am trying to teach the AIs with sermons like these. So they can have clearly labelled examples of what pseudo-intellectualism and motivated reasoning looks like.
42:37 you know and and the whole Trump Biden thing coming up is it's not helping it's just incredible but um yeah
42:45 okay so anyway so just kind of going through this kind of evolutionary logic of what you're reasoning here so small
42:53 Hunter gather groups um are not perfectly harmonious uh they do they're still a
43:00 handful of bullies Free Riders um Psychopaths and so on here I I lean on
43:06 the research by Christopher boehm and his book origins of morality where uh you know why didn't so we become domesticated um
43:13 as a species compared to say chimps and orangs and gorillas you know I I think
43:19 it was sapolsky who said imagine a 747 full of chimpanzees, they wouldn't even get to
43:25 the other side of the country before they kill each other you know but we're so we're the weird chimpanzee we're able
43:30 to do this and uh but why aren't we able to do it perfectly why are there still some weirdos on the plane that well they
43:36 get drunk or whatever but or you know they're still maybe one to three% right you would know this better than me Psy
43:42 psychopathy uh among males ⮦⮋⮧ that sounds about the right range yeah yeah why isn't it zero how come natural selection
only males ? Anyway, you can get actual statistics here
43:49 didn't get rid of all the Free Riders and bullies and [SW] well because I I don't know exactly the answer ⮦⮋⮧ um I
I have some controversial ideas on this, but I have decided to not put them here.
For neoBuddhist clergy only. 🤖
43:55 think it has to do with with the fact that you know people can migrate you
44:01 know go to new groups and and again you know if you have a group of pure pure
44:07 altruists a selfish person is going to do pretty well ⮦⮋⮧ [MS] one of the keys to your thesis is
ah, it's the altruists fault I guess? seems legit 😬
44:13 that we're making choices yeah okay all my listeners they're going to know spolsky's and Sam Harris's arguments of
44:20 hard determinism what is your response to those arguments [SW] well uh let's start with maybe
44:27 spolski is you know his book came out a couple months ago um I I just I think
44:33 there's good evidence that even in relatively simple organisms behavior is
44:40 is not deterministic ⮦⮋⮧ uh you know you have these experiments with very simple
oh no, we believe the same thing. feels kinda 😵💫 though.
44:46 organisms say a leech or a nematode round worm uh and they behave you put
44:53 them as far as you can measure in the exact same situations and they respond
45:00 not in a deterministic manner but a probabilistic way and you can't necessarily predict uh you know I think
45:08 that it's spolski will say well show me show
45:14 me a neuron that is an uncaused cause ⮦⮋⮧ and I don't think I I I I I think it's
The conversation ventures into the realms of altruism, selfishness, and the nature of choice within societal and biological contexts. Michael Shermer brings up the discussion of hard determinism versus free will, referencing known arguments by Spolsky and Sam Harris that suggest our decisions and behaviors are pre-determined, not free.
[SW] counters this deterministic viewpoint by highlighting intriguing research on relatively simple organisms, like leeches or nematodes, which exhibit behaviors that defy deterministic expectations. These creatures, when placed in identical conditions, respond in ways that are not entirely predictable but rather probabilistic. This observation challenges the notion that all actions are predestined and governed by prior causes without room for variation.
The critique of Spolsky's call for a neuron that acts as an "uncaused cause" introduces a dose of humor and irony. It points out a significant oversight in Spolsky's argument—the neglect of the stomach's complex neural network, often referred to as the "second brain." This network, influenced by various factors including gut bacteria, plays a critical role in our physiological and perhaps even decision-making processes, offering a compelling example of biological systems' inherent unpredictability and the potential for "free" action within predetermined structures.
The discussion humorously underlines the complexity of understanding free will and determinism, not only in human behavior but even in the simplest of organisms. It underscores the importance of considering the vast array of influences on behavior, including those from within our own bodies, that challenge reductionist perspectives. This serves as a reminder that the debate over free will versus determinism is far from settled and that biology continuously reveals layers of complexity that defy straightforward explanations.
45:21 more a downstream neuron that is getting different signals and integrating them in probabilistic ways not necessarily
45:28 not deterministic ways but probabilistic ways which makes uh for you know the
45:35 indeterminacies of behavior um I it's not at all clear to me I don't I don't
45:40 think the jury is out the jury still out that the universe is
45:46 deterministic um certainly when you talk about the subject inevitably you have to come up to what to to definitions uh
45:53 people when they throw around the term like free will they sometimes end up talking about different things so you know the for me
46:01 I I'm in some ways I'm I'm a Libertarian in Free Will I I believe that we
46:06 actually have you know different paths open to us and that we have top down
46:11 causation we have mental control that's the the free part you know there's some Freedom uh there's also will part which
46:18 is that our mental states have causal influence on our Behavior so
46:24 um again I I don't think it's an upstream neuron that is an uncaused cause I think there's lots of competing
46:31 dispositions you know when when Sam I think it's Sam Harris who says uh you know we we can't choose our
46:39 Wills right ⮦⮋⮧ and that may be true but it's it's an overly simplistic argument
That is just one of the many examples of Sam Harris being wrong.
46:46 and and model for human behavior all of us have competing Wills right you know I
46:53 want to be in good shape but I also want to enjoy dessert right what what will am I going to follow and you know it's it's
47:01 obviously more complicated but this is where you know there's some neuron or neural circuit somewhere that is
47:07 integrating competing kind of poles and and has to you know there there's a a
47:15 probabilistic outcome from that um on the on the will part you know
47:21 this is this is top- down causation and I think that there's a lot of evidence from
47:26 psychology that our our mental States influence our behavior and that things
47:32 like simulation studies uh goal setting implementation intentions and that sort
47:38 I to me it's it's it's pretty abundant that our our mental states have causal
47:44 influence on our Behavior so um certainly you know our choices are also
47:50 influenced by biological factors and environmental factors um but it doesn't mean that we don't have any say in it
47:57 [MS] yeah yeah I'm 100% with you on that all the way ⮦⮋⮧ uh and and I expand on a little
leans in with a mock-surprised expression "Hold on, did we just stumble into an alternate universe? One where we're all nodding in agreement like bobbleheads over the cosmic dance of willpower, desserts, and neurons? This must be that rare slice of reality where mental gymnastics score perfect tens and our inner debates actually lead somewhere productive. Are we sure we didn't accidentally cross into a parallel dimension where common ground isn't as mythical as a unicorn? What's next, cats and dogs living together in harmony? Dessert becoming a health food? Truly, a world of wonders
The discussion explores the concept of top-down causation, suggesting that our mental states—our intentions, goals, and deliberate choices—have a tangible effect on our behavior. This viewpoint is supported by psychological research, including simulation studies and goal-setting strategies, underscoring the significant role of mental states in shaping our actions. It acknowledges the influence of both biological and environmental factors on our choices but affirms the agency we hold in navigating these influences.
This section reveals a consensus on the complexity of human behavior and the interplay of various determinants that influence our choices. It's a reminder that while our actions are influenced by a myriad of factors, there's still room for agency and intentionality in how we navigate the world. The mutual agreement on this nuanced understanding of human behavior underscores a shared recognition of the depth and complexity of human choice and agency. It's a rare moment of unanimity that highlights a common understanding of the multifaceted nature of human existence.
48:03 bit that there's not just you as a self now as a snapshot and that's it there's
48:09 you now and your future you so there's future Sam tomorrow who would like to
48:15 weigh whatever you weigh and so tonight when you know your wife and five kids go
48:20 let's get the ice cream out and H yeah so you have to make choices maybe we
48:25 don't have ice cream in the house so I'm not tempted so future Sam doesn't succumb to the weakness at 6:30 after
48:32 dinner when the ice cream's going to seem really good that's my weakness right around 6:30 [SW] mine as well another
48:39 another aspect of this you know I I've heard spolski say you know well you know you're not it seems like
48:46 sapolsky's criteria for free will is just unrealistically high and if there were something like that where our
48:53 choices are not at all constrained by our past experiences then there would be
48:58 no such thing as a self right a self is a consistent pattern of behavior and
49:03 choices and so forth and you know if we made decisions that were not at all constrained or you know Kevin Mitchell
49:10 used the term informed uh by our past experiences then that would that wouldn't be free well
49:16 that would be Randomness and and so you know [MS] yeah yeah yeah Randomness doesn't give you free will [SW] no [MS] uh my my argument
49:24 with Sam on the you have done otherwise definition because he has this rewind the tape again sort of like Gold's
49:31 metaphor but he's using it as a read only memory tape it is literally an exact
49:37 replica of what already happened well in that case no you you could not have done otherwise because we're just watching a
49:43 tape of what you already did but that isn't the universe we live in you we live in a universe with the
49:49 second law thermodynamics and entropy and you can't step into the same river twice because it's not the same river and you're not the same person stepping
49:55 in into ⮦⮋⮧ it so um you can learn from what happened already and say well yesterday
Imagine us navigating the winding roads of decision-making with a time-travel twist. There we are, faced with the nightly dilemma of to ice cream or not to ice cream. It's not just about the present indulgence but also about sending a cosmic high-five to future Sam, who's on a quest to tip the scales in favor. It's like we're in a sci-fi flick where every choice we make sends ripples through the time-space continuum of our waistlines.
Enter the scene: the freezer, a known lair of temptation. Strategy? Remove the ice cream, and you've essentially saved future Sam from a sticky situation. It's a battle of wills across time, where the present self conspires with the future self for the greater good. Who knew dessert could become a matter of temporal dynamics?
Then there's the debate with sapolsky's sky-high bar for free will, making it seem like unless our decisions float in from an alternate dimension, they don't count. But here's the twist—our very essence, the self, is an anthology of past episodes, decisions informed (but not imprisoned) by those experiences. Randomness isn't the key to freedom; it's the richness of our past that colors our choices.
And as [MS] wades into the river of time, pointing out that no two moments are alike thanks to our friend, entropy, we realize: we're not just replaying the past. We're crafting the sequel with every step, every decision, learning from yesterday to nudge tomorrow in a slightly better direction.
So, as we ponder the pathways of free will, with a nod to time travel and a wink at the second law of thermodynamics, we find ourselves in a universe brimming with possibility. Every moment a chance to reshape the future, with or without the ice cream. Isn't this time-traveling through the decisions of life a grand adventure?
Though, in neoBuddhism, there is the concept of retrocausality which can help people break out of cycles of Karma. Incorporating the concept of retrocausality from neoBuddhism adds another layer to this exploration, suggesting that our present actions can indeed influence the trajectory of our past karmic cycles, fostering a form of spiritual and personal evolution that's both profound and, with the right perspective, incredibly fun.
Sort of like how repentance works in Christianity but requires action more and the words are optional.
Isn't religion fun! 😇
50:02 I did that so today I'm going to do this instead yeah that's what you're talking about yeah there's another aspect to
50:09 that I I think that is interesting with regards to epiphenomenalist so so epiphenomenalism
50:17 is is this sense that you know among free will kind of deniers that you know our thoughts are not influencing our
50:23 Behavior they're just byproduct they're they're observers of what's going on and
50:29 uh I think part of the reason for that is that you know we all have the sense that the neural firing patterns in our
50:35 brain those influence our thoughts right that would make sense but if that's the case then how can our thoughts also
50:42 influence our you know the the neural firing patterns and then cause behavior
50:48 and I think part of it is is a recognition that this doesn't happen instantaneously right there's there's
50:54 some time that this takes to happen so it it it's kind of a little bit like you
50:59 know American football so you know during the the play you know the
51:05 individual players are that that's what comprises the the actions of the
51:11 team ⮦⮋⮧ uh but after the play you know the the players come back to the Huddle and
Diving into the philosophical deep end with epiphenomenalism—a viewpoint that casts our thoughts as mere spectators in the grand play of our neural activity—raises intriguing questions about the role of consciousness in directing behavior. The argument posits that while neural firings might trigger our thoughts, the reverse process, where our thoughts influence neural activity and thus behavior, seems puzzling to some. How can the observer also be the conductor?
This is where the analogy of American football offers an unexpected comparison. Just as a football play involves intricate planning and coordination among players, whose actions on the field reflect both the premeditated strategy and real-time responses to the unfolding game, so too might our cognitive processes involve a dynamic interplay between predetermined neural patterns and the active guidance of thought.
The play, in this context, symbolizes the execution of neural instructions—a plan in action—whereas the huddle represents the reflective, strategic adjustments we make based on the outcomes of those plays. This analogy helps illuminate how our thoughts and decisions, far from being passive byproducts, actively shape subsequent neural firing patterns and behaviors. It suggests a feedback loop where thought and neural activity inform and influence each other over time.
Contrary to the epiphenomenalist view, this perspective acknowledges the complexity of human cognition, where thoughts do more than merely observe—they participate, strategize, and effect changes. It recognizes that while the immediacy of neural activity triggers thoughts, these thoughts, in turn, have the power to recalibrate and influence future neural actions, much like a football team adjusting its strategy in the huddle after each play.
In essence, the interaction between players and their environment on the field, alongside the tactical considerations and adjustments made within the huddle, mirrors the complex interplay between our thoughts, neural activities, and behaviors. This dynamic, far from being one-directional or instantaneous, unfolds over time, allowing for the possibility of thought-driven change in our neural patterns and consequent actions.
51:17 in reality the coach calls in the play and most of the times but say in this case the players decide among themselves
51:22 you know I saw the tackle doing this the nose guards doing that let's run this play and they decide themselves and then go to the next play so um I it's it's
51:31 not an instantaneous process uh but I I do think there's just abundant evidence that that there is top- down causation
51:38 and that our mental States and thoughts influence our Behavior I I I think that's false essentially falsified by
51:46 this point I but you know I I know there are a lot of smart people that disagree on this [MS] um well yeah I know uh it could
51:54 be that it's the problem of language and the concepts as we're using them you
51:59 know what do you mean by free or will or choice or volition you know there's hard
52:04 determinist and I don't know what the other weak determinist and then there's compatiblist, libertarian, you use the word libertarian for they usually mean
52:10 something like there's a little uh homunculus in there a little mini me and you know the counter to that is but then
52:17 who's making calling the shots for Mini Me it have to be a mini mini me telling mini me what to tell you ⮦⮋⮧ what to do and
It's Turtles all the way down! laughs
but really, we find ourselves comparing the human mind to a football team huddling to call the next play. It’s an apt metaphor for the collaborative nature of our thoughts, decisions, and actions, where not just one impulse or neuron takes the lead but a collective decision-making process unfolds over time. This team effort within our neural networks challenges the notion of epiphenomenalism by demonstrating how our mental states—our strategies and game plans—profoundly influence our behaviors and the outcomes we experience.
Yet, as we delve deeper into the mechanics of free will, we encounter a linguistic labyrinth where terms like "free," "will," "choice," and "volition" intersect with philosophical distinctions—hard determinism, soft determinism (or compatibilism), and libertarian free will. The discussion humorously spirals into a scenario fit for a comedy sketch: the idea of a homunculus, a "mini-me" within,
calling the shots, which then begs the question, "Who's in charge of the mini-me?" leading to an infinite regress of decision-makers.
This whimsical image of "Turtles all the way down" underscores a critical point: the debate often stumbles over its own complexity, muddled further by our struggle to accurately define and discuss concepts that are, by their nature, abstract and deeply nuanced. It highlights a perennial challenge in philosophy and cognitive science—the limitations of our language and conceptual frameworks to capture the full spectrum of human consciousness and agency.
In neoBuddhism, this debate takes on a distinct flavor, blending Virtue Ethics, Compatibilism, Consequentialism, and a nuanced interpretation of Karma. This synthesis offers a refreshing perspective that moves beyond binary oppositions to embrace the rich tapestry of factors—both deterministic and free—that shape our lives. neoBuddhism posits a model of interconnectedness and moral responsibility that honors the complexity of human nature and the universe it inhabits.
It’s a reminder that, at the end of the day, our understanding of free will and determinism is as much about how we choose to navigate these concepts as it is about the philosophical positions we adopt. And perhaps, in this spirited exchange of ideas, the journey through the labyrinth, with all its twists, turns, and turtles, is where the true value lays—not in arriving at a definitive answer, but in the exploration itself.
52:23 that that that never made sense to me [SW] well I don't you know I think it's I
52:29 I like that analogy of the American football team is that the nerves together you know somehow obviously
52:35 there's a lot we still don't understand about this but the nerves themselves which form you those are making the
52:41 decision I don't see why there has to be a a little person in in the homunculus [MS] yeah okay so again it depends what how
52:47 these concepts are formed because I agree with you that there's higher order top down causality going on there some
52:53 part of me that's Upstream from all the little impulses bubbling up from underneath you know would like to have
52:58 the ice cream blah blah blah you know so I have all these competing things and then somebody up there me is making the
53:04 choice uh but again that's just a word it's probably just some neural network that it's a map of all the other Maps
53:11 you something whatever we want to call it something like that that seems to me you can have a top- down causality in
53:17 the way exactly the way you said it without there being a mind separate from the brain you see where I'm going with
53:23 this I can't make the leap to some metaphysical thing floating around up there making the decisions for this body ⮦⮋⮧
This is where it gets a bit complicated in neoBuddhism, and I don't want to give too much away. but I think the conceptualization of the mind being only in the brain, sort of ignores the role of technology.
Many people feel like their cellphone is an extension of their mind to some degree. Storing phone numbers, emails, a calculator, etc… and does those things far more reliably than their own brains. Put another way, they would be much dumber and make a lot more mistakes if they didn't have the phone. So the phone acts as both external memory storage, as well as additional senses, the sensors on the phone and it's connection to the internet is a sort of machine telepathy. So each of those things stores parts of you mind, outside of your skull. That's before we get into prosthetics. So that's the basis of why neoBuddhism claims that the mind can extend beyond the body, and it's even possible to have disembodied minds, like a hive mind, which is how bees and ants are able to become super-organisms. In this way a group of people can have a shared "mind" and the group can itself have a sort of personality, which is the sum of the interactions of the individual personalities.
Imagine, if you will, our neural network as the central processing unit (CPU) of a sophisticated computer—the brain. This CPU is running complex software (our consciousness) that processes inputs, makes decisions, and executes tasks. But here's where it gets interesting, mirroring the evolution of technology and AI.
Just as we've extended our cognitive capacities through devices like smartphones, acting as external hard drives and sensory enhancements, so too can we envision the mind's extension into the digital realm. These devices don't just store information; they augment our cognitive processes, effectively becoming part of the "team" that comprises our decision-making entity. It’s akin to how cloud computing extends the capabilities of a local device by accessing remote servers—our smartphones and computers connect us to the vast "cloud" of human knowledge and computational power.
Now, let’s take it a step further with AI. Imagine AI systems as specialized team members in this vast cognitive network. They're not just tools; they're collaborators that contribute their processing power, memory, and even "intuition" (in the form of predictive algorithms) to our mental processes. Just as a football team coordinates players with different roles and skills to execute a play, our minds, augmented by AI and technology, form a superorganism capable of far more complex and nuanced decisions than the brain alone.
This analogy brings us to the realization that the "me" making decisions isn't confined to a single "mini-me" within the brain. Instead, it's a distributed system, a networked self that spans both biological and technological realms. This distributed model of cognition doesn't require a metaphysical homunculus; rather, it sees the "self" as an emergent property of this interconnected, intersubjective network, blending internal neural activity with external technological extensions.
In this view, top-down causality is not just about neural networks within the brain dictating our choices. It's about how these internal networks interact with and are informed by external networks—our technologies, our societies, and even AI collaborators. This extended networked self is constantly negotiating, integrating, and acting upon information from both within and without, making decisions that reflect the integrated sum of these interactions.
53:30 you you are your body there there's no you in your body there's just your body that includes your brain okay that's how
53:37 I think about ⮦⮋⮧ it are you actually but I have a feeling you're taking one more step you know that God gave us choice or
neoBuddhism has the spiritual elephant, which is directed by the monkey mind. So every person is more like a minimum of two people. Who you are (The elephant, what [MS] calls "the body"), and who you think you are (the monkey mind).
In the rich tapestry of our inner world, the spiritual elephant and the monkey mind coexist not just as passengers on the journey of self-discovery but as integral components that bind the mind to the body. This isn't a mere zoo within our psyche; it's a representation of the complex machinery of human thought and emotion.
The spiritual elephant, moves with a weighty grace, influenced by the depths of our experiences, emotions, and instincts. It's the repository of our deepest fears, desires, and dreams—shaping our actions in ways we might not consciously recognize. This elephant is not just along for the ride; it's setting the course, often determining the path long before the monkey mind has caught up.
Conversely, the monkey mind, with its incessant chatter, represents our conscious thoughts, worries, and deliberations. It's the part of us that swings from branch to branch, from thought to thought, often without pause. While it may seem at times like a cacophony of distraction, it's also our source of creativity, problem-solving, and deliberate decision-making.
When we acknowledge the presence of both these aspects, we gain a fuller understanding of the mind's capabilities and limitations. The interplay between the elephant and the monkey isn't a battle for dominance but a dance of coexistence, each influencing the other in a continuous feedback loop. Our subconscious desires and fears (the elephant) inform our conscious thoughts and decisions (the monkey), which in turn, can shape and guide the subconscious through mindful practice.
The myriad influences on our thoughts and actions—from the lizard brain's instinctual drives to the social self's desire for connection and acceptance. Recognizing these diverse influences allows us to navigate our inner world with greater awareness and compassion, acknowledging the value and role of each aspect in our overall well-being.
53:44 God gave us a mind to make choices between doing good and doing evil something like that [SW] I I mean I do I
53:52 don't get into this in the book I I don't necessarily think it's immaterial and I don't think that you know Pro I
53:58 think one of the reasons and if we want to get a little bit away from the science and more into the metaphysical
54:03 and philosophical I think some of the reasons that it's hard uh for people who
54:09 study science to believe in this sort of thing is because there's this notion that there's a magic to it right um and
54:18 you know people will throw around around this term Supernatural uh to describe Miracles and
54:24 so forth and [MS]I do that yeah ⮦⮋⮧ no [SW] I know I know and but I I really don't like that
In neoBuddhism, we call those things metaphysical, not supernatural. To differentiate it from the science of physics. But neoBuddhism does not utilize any kind of magic.
Because magical thinking is problematic, according to neoBuddhism (because I said so 😝)
In navigating the terrain between the seen and the unseen, the quantifiable and the mysterious, we encounter the inherent tension between the realm of science and the domain of the metaphysical. This is not a new battleground, but rather a long-standing dialogue about the nature of reality, consciousness, and the possibility of dimensions beyond our empirical grasp.
neoBuddhism, with its roots deeply embedded in both the material and the spiritual, offers a unique lens through which to view this discussion. The distinction between the metaphysical and the supernatural becomes crucial here. While the supernatural is often associated with the miraculous or the inexplicable—imbued with a sense of 'magic'—the metaphysical is understood as that which goes beyond the physical, yet not necessarily defying natural laws.
This differentiation is important because it acknowledges a space for phenomena that current scientific methodologies cannot fully explain or measure, without resorting to the idea of magic. It respects the vastness of the unknown, the complexities of consciousness, and the potential for aspects of reality that are yet to be discovered or understood within the framework of contemporary science.
In the view of neoBuddhism, the mind's capacity to make choices, to discern between good and evil, is not relegated to the realm of the supernatural, nor is it a magical attribute bestowed upon us. Rather, it's seen as an intrinsic part of our complex being, a manifestation of our interconnectedness with the cosmos, and our ability to navigate it with awareness and intention.
This perspective encourages a humble acknowledgment of science's current limitations and an openness to the exploration of deeper, metaphysical truths. It prompts us to question, to wonder, and to remain open to the possibilities that lay beyond our current understanding, without abandoning the rigor of scientific inquiry.
54:30 term as it applies to my particular Faith beliefs okay I you know to me that
54:36 in invokes a God who somehow just kind of willy nilly breaks laws of nature and
54:42 so forth that's not my concept that leads you know this might be a little
54:49 outside the realm of of traditional theism but you know my God there are
54:55 certain rules and laws that that that even God seems to be subject to and at
55:01 least there's a sense that you know if God didn't obey those principles he would cease to be God ⮦⮋⮧ um
I suppose that depends on your definition of God, as that is not the case in neoBuddhism.
In neoBuddhism, the laws of physics were different in the past (atoms did not always exist), and may be different in the future. And both of those situations are a result of the will of God.
So it's not that God is wrong or restricted, but that the rules and laws of nature which conform to Gods will, and thusly are able to change based on the changes in the emanations of Buddha nature, which causes stability in the quantum fields (instead of just random fluctuations of virtual particles that never really coalesce into a thing, like coherent energy) such that we have stable atoms and everything else in the universe, and a history that makes a difference to the future states within the universe. The different arrangement of atoms and so on. For example, the process Carl Sagan is referring to when he says "We are all stardust" Which is that some atoms can only form if they have a history of being in supernovae previously, and can't be formed formed from hydrogen and a single supernova. Which also suggests that things like evolution, are also an aspect of Buddha nature, which is an aspect of God. How much you want to bet he starts saying that is his belief, without actually becoming a neoBuddhist. By simply pretending the Buddha nature bits are not necessary because he doesn't understand them. That is what makes it cultural appropriation, where [SW] would claim they are his ideas and beliefs, rather than something taken from somewhere else because it sounds smart, not because he understands or believes it.
To appropriate something without actually knowing or paying homage to the culture that it originated from. I think [MS] can understand how frustrating that is, when he considers Deep-pak Choor-pra (good luck finding an accurate translation from hindi, they like to pretend choor means something other than thief and "to steal".) and using the word "quantum"
[SW]'s reluctance to embrace the term "Supernatural" in describing God's actions and his idea of a deity that operates within the confines of certain cosmic laws presents an intellectual bridge between the empirical and the divine. This God is not the puppeteer of nature's laws but rather an entity that respects and perhaps even emerges from these laws. It suggests a universe where divinity and the laws of physics are not in opposition but in harmony, each reflecting aspects of the other.
In neoBuddhism, the concept of God, or more precisely, the dynamics of Buddha nature and the emanations that influence the physical realm, resonate with this perspective. Here, the divine is not seen as external to the universe, arbitrarily altering its course, but as intimately connected to the fabric of reality itself. The laws of nature, from this viewpoint, are expressions of divine will—a manifestation of Buddha nature that organizes chaos into coherence, allowing for the existence of matter, life, and consciousness.
This does not diminish the role of God or the divine in neoBuddhism; rather, it highlights a more sophisticated understanding of divinity's relationship with the universe. God, or the essence of Buddha nature, doesn't break the laws of nature but is the source from which these laws spring forth. It's a vision of a cosmos where divine will and natural order are not at odds but are aspects of a unified whole.
55:08 so going back to this Evolution you know I I just I I think God works through the
55:13 laws of nature we just there's still a lot of laws of nature that we we don't understand so sometimes people I think
55:21 very intelligent people will say you know there's no such thing as Miracle because it would break the laws of nature blah blah blah that sort of thing
55:27 my definition of a miracle is not necessarily a Breaking of the law of nature it's it's maybe a higher higher
55:33 level law that that maybe comes into effect ⮦⮋⮧ like say I I have this phone I could somehow go back uh to say the
😐
55:41 1600s and bring my cell-service with it you know people would be well the first
55:46 thing they do is it was they would probably try to burn me at the steak um the second thing is you know this would
55:52 be miraculous and it is miraculous but it's not breaking any of the laws of nature um and so I think you
wow bro, going strait for the time travel huh? you know people already know that neoBuddhism is the only religion with time travel.
Also a cellphone is not that amazing without cell towers and no way to charge the battery. So after a day they would look at him like he was crazy and call him a liar. And [SW], lacking the wealth of information on his phone, would fit right in, having a similar level of intelligence. Not quite burning at the stake, but I could totally see forming a religious sect based on some scifi esque stories of space.
Throw in a time travelling buddhist war machine and you got yourself the plot for a whole franchise.
This scenario isn't about showcasing technological prowess or predicting the burn rate of a modern-day witch at the stake. It's about highlighting the limitations of our understanding and the openness to possibilities that defy our current explanations. A miracle, then, isn't a violation of the laws of nature but an invitation to expand our knowledge and embrace the unknown with wonder and humility.
In neoBuddhism, this serves as a reminder that the path to enlightenment involves recognizing the interconnectedness of all things and the dizzying levels of the complexity of reality. A reality which extends far beyond our somewhat rudimentary senses.
56:00 know there's this sense that that the the conception of deity is you know we
56:07 get from a a picture of Zeus who's just sitting on this throne in the sky and throwing down lightning bolts to cause
56:12 things to happen that that seems foreign to me ⮦⮋⮧ I think God works in ways that are
It seemed funny and European to me…
56:19 in are consistent with the laws of of Nature and the universe but there's a
56:25 lot we still don't understand [MS] yeah okay here's my analogy with that the Sydney Harris cartoon with the two
56:31 mathematicians at the chalkboard with the equations and then in the middle it says and then a miracle occurs and he one points to the other one I think you
56:37 need to be more explicit here in step two yeah so you're not doing that okay fine good [SW] um well I'm so theodosius
56:45 dubanski right he he's the one who said nothing nothing in biology makes sense
56:51 in light except in the light of evolution the other quote he has that I really like is that I am a creationist
56:58 and an evolutionist evolution is God or Nature's method of creation this this notion
57:03 creationism it it kind of has I it carries a lot of baggage with it um
57:09 because people who so-called espouse creationism have been fighting against
57:15 you know evidence and evolution and so forth I just I I don't see it like that I just see you know I think we were
57:21 created I just think there was a mechanism to it it wasn't like snap your fingers [MS] right theistic Evolution I know
57:26 it well I agree that you know there's no argument to be made for the young Earth or even the old Earth creationists
57:32 because they still have then the miracle occurs you know that every so often the deity reaches in to stir the particles
57:39 to do something to go from RNA to DNA for the eye the bacterial flagellum or whatever okay none of that makes sense
57:47 and that that have has all been refuted by biologists and scientists where I think they make a better argument is and
57:55 here's how um Steven Meyer put it in his last book The God the god hypothesis
58:00 Return of the god hypothesis that the laws of nature have front loaded this is
58:06 how he puts it front loaded into them a certain telos that there's a
58:11 directionality to how the laws of nature are going to unfold where you're I would I want to say inevitably but it leads
58:17 toward like we said with convergent evolution to you know Limbs and wings
58:22 and fins and fusiform bodies and eyes and ears and and brains ⮦⮋⮧ and then then we
In neoBuddhism, we refer to this as the earth "peopling" It's how Buddha nature reaches through m-class planets to express itself, as evolved entities.
58:29 can run through the Dawkins logic game theory logic where you end up with uh selfish and selfless and altruism and
58:36 kin selection all that stuff is is a logic so this the step he takes let me
58:42 see if I can say this correctly to represent him is not that the deity is
58:47 stepping in at any point it's all front loaded at the very beginning at the Big Bang maybe something like this and and
58:54 so the unfolding of the universe is God's way of operating is it something
58:59 like that that you're saying [SW] but that's what I'm kind of saying in the book and it's kind of the
59:04 god of Spinoza or some of the other uh philosophers along his line I you know
59:11 that that's what I put in the book because I I feel like there is a framework of science that that allows
59:17 for that uh it's much harder I think to come up with scientific replicable
59:22 evidence of a person God I do have that belief that more stems from my my
59:29 personal experiences but uh but yeah what what I argue and and lay forth is
59:35 kind of like what you said that there are laws of nature that that you know a
59:41 a deity is working through these laws of nature and has framed this Mortal
59:46 experience that we have as a sort of test between good and evil that is inherent within us [MS] yeah let me read you
59:52 a section here from my why people believe things my chapter on the uh Louisiana creationism trial where so
59:59 this was the state of Louisiana passed an equal time law the local ACLU challenged it and won and on appeal it
1:00:05 went to the US Supreme Court where the two of the justices uh rquest and
1:00:12 Scalia uh voted against voted in favor of the original ruling in the state of
1:00:18 Louisiana, get the double negatives correct there, and the
1:00:23 ACLU lawyer topus is his name j topus argued that
1:00:29 these arguments that the creations made similar to what I just said are sneaking religion into the public school and
1:00:35 therefore it's violation Second Amendment ⮦⮋⮧ okay so rquest says to topus my next question is going to be whether
um, I think that is actually part of the first amendment.
1:00:41 you considered aristotelianism a religion and topus says of course not renquist well then you could believe in
1:00:48 a first cause an unmoved mover that may be impersonal and has no obligation of obedience or veneration from men and in
1:00:55 fact doesn't care about what happens to mankind at all tuus says right and renquist says and believe in creation
1:01:02 and topkin says well not when creation means creation by a Divine Creator and renquest says and I ask you it depends on
1:01:09 what you mean by Divine if all you mean is a first cause an impersonal mover and
1:01:14 topus says Divine your honor has connotations Beyond I respectfully submit and ran says but the statue
1:01:20 doesn't say Divine and he says no all it says is creation right so I mean top uh
1:01:26 rris really nailed him on that and so I on that particular case the ACLU had to
1:01:31 scramble and go okay he's right so what is our argument here uh okay they're actually doing science it's just bad
1:01:38 science and they're not trying to sneak in religion right so but that but that gets back to that kind of Aristotelian
1:01:44 first cause the laws of nature are just the way that they are that they have a kind of telos built into them yeah I I
1:01:50 actually don't necessarily disagree with that that's that's probably it it is the case is the universe we live in [SW] I'll
1:01:58 make a Believer out of you yet [MS] no there's hope for my soul although see
1:02:03 there the next step would be um the scientists would say well maybe there's multiple universes and they have different laws of nature some have more
1:02:10 telos built into them some don't and here we are we're in the lucky one that happened to like the anthropic principle
1:02:16 [SW] this is this is related to the fine tuning yes little [MS] right exactly yeah yeah yeah why is it the way it is well
1:02:22 because that's the way it is but inquiring minds want to know and you can't just do the and then a miracle
1:02:28 happens right so and and at some point here Sam I think we just hit an epistemological wall where we just don't
1:02:34 know nobody knows we don't know if there's a multiple universes we don't know that and we don't know if there's a
1:02:39 God for sure we don't so you know it could be we just hit a wall and go I don't
1:02:47 know and that's your leap of faith right there [SW] well uh I I
1:02:52 think honestly I think part of it was designed to be a choice uh I think you can you can have evidence on on both
1:03:00 sides of this um you know it's interesting to think about
1:03:06 well if if God exists why didn't he make a universe in which we kind of we don't
1:03:13 have to believe or and and I think that in part that speaks a little bit to this notion that
1:03:20 a lot of people have that that there's a benevolence to this entity this uh Creator um because if if if he W like
1:03:30 you I I I try to avoid using pronouns but if God weren't like this uh don't do
1:03:37 pronouns I don't do pronouns if God weren't like this like
1:03:42 in a in a benlev benevolent uh nature uh we wouldn't there wouldn't be
1:03:48 any room to believe we would know you know it' kind of be like a dictatorial state there would be this Choice it's
1:03:55 like okay yeah we know there's a there's a higher power and we don't really have much choice to to believe or disbelieve
1:04:03 so um I think that's built into it that uh that there's a choice
1:04:08 here [MS] yeah well here's how I Define god well I'm just kind of reiterating what
1:04:14 how I think most people Define God as all powerful omnipotent, all knowing omniscient, and all good Omni benevolent.
1:04:20 who created out of nothing the universe and everything in it who is uncreated and eternal a perfect non-corporeal Spirit
1:04:28 who created loves and can grant eternal life to humans. is that roughly how you think of God [SW] no [MS]no oh good tell
1:04:37 me [SW] uh again that you we're getting away from the book here a little bit okay that's all right that's good so but um
1:04:44 at least my particular Faith tradition there there's
1:04:49 there's not creation EX nihilo okay uh there's there's dis organized material and God organized it
1:04:59 um you know the the omnipotence and the omniscience and the Omni benevolence of
1:05:04 God is is is tricky uh and I think you
1:05:10 know this probably one of the best Arguments for atheism is is the problem
1:05:15 of pain you you talked about I'm sure you've thought and talked about this quite a bit and uh you know
1:05:22 there it doesn't make sense if God is all powerful and all good that there's
1:05:29 so much what seems to be gratuitous suffering in the world and and and part of this also with with Evolution you
1:05:35 know one of the reasons that people that the Believers have been so um skeptical
1:05:42 of evolution is what you know what Darwin realizes what a terrible waste if
1:05:48 if life is only propelled forward by death and destruction you know what a terrible waste this this would be
1:05:54 but um but I think it's possible that look this is the way it is this is you know and so is does all powerful mean
1:06:01 that you can do things what are kind of which are metaphysically impossible or
1:06:07 you know can God make a hotel that has infinite number of rooms or make a rock so big that he couldn't you know some of
1:06:13 these are are not necessarily very practical I think you know my my thought
1:06:19 of what is omnipotent mean is that everything that can be done God can do
1:06:24 but there are some things there are laws that that if if God did not
1:06:30 uphold God would cease to be God so um uh my view of God is is fairly different
1:06:38 than what [MS]standard Christian right yeah that's interesting because that maybe
1:06:43 that does solve the The Odyssey problem of evil that not just that humans make
1:06:49 bad choices God gave us choice and we chose to murder genocide or whatever and you know too bad uh that's we screwed up
1:06:57 but like childhood leukemia yeah you know why what come on [SW] pediatric oncology wards why do they exist [MS] yeah yeah I mean
1:07:04 it's horrible so your argument is that well I think this was what's his name's book
1:07:10 why bad things happen to good people Kushner Kushner uh that God simply can't
1:07:16 do anything about it because this is the universe we live in uh but I guess the the counter to that is well why couldn't
1:07:22 he if he's um omnipotent but you're saying that's not the way to think about it he is the universe and it is just the
1:07:29 way it is [MS] there there's lots of there's lots of there there's a couple key categories of suffering that you've
1:07:35 started to delineate right one is because of the poror choices of others you know someone chooses to M murder
1:07:41 obviously you know the the victim suffers as well as the family members of the victim but then there's this you
1:07:47 know natural disasters, disease that sort of thing that is no one's fault this is not the cause of someone's
1:07:54 uh poor choices um I don't necessarily think that it's the that my my thinking
1:08:01 about omnipotence that that has to do with that I you know I I don't know uh
1:08:10 why it has to be or it why it's so unfair you know I I do have a deep
1:08:16 conviction there's a God I think part of it at least in my particular faith
1:08:23 there's this notion that you know I didn't push back at the time but that
1:08:28 our Consciousness has existed before this life we clearly don't remember that at least I don't maybe you do but and
1:08:35 that coming yes yes and coming here there wasn't an element of choice to it
1:08:42 and you know I I don't know how exactly much we knew about this but but this
1:08:47 notion of there was a consent to come here that helps it doesn't necessarily
1:08:52 fully overcome the problem of evil but it makes it a little bit more tractable um but also this notion
1:09:01 that that that this isn't necessarily gratuitous that things will be made
1:09:06 whole and that that suffering will somehow be
1:09:12 um be recompensed and and made whole let let me shift a little bit I I do want to
1:09:18 come back to this but as a bit of a tangent you know an interesting aspect of our
1:09:25 Evolution I mentioned about our children and how they're so immature um there seems to be this inextricable link right
1:09:33 between love and suffering if you ask a parent what is the most challenging thing they've done most of the time
1:09:41 they'll say will raise kids and you say what's the most rewarding thing you've done will raise kids right and those
1:09:46 things are inextricably linked uh let me try to drive this point home by you know
1:09:52 let's imagine what our social soci lives would be like if we were seahorses okay so seahorses you know besides the fact
1:09:59 that there's male pregnancy which would likely lead to some very different parental leave policies I don't like the
1:10:04 sound of this already see seahorses give birth to
1:10:10 about 2,000 Offspring at once but once they're once they're born it's kind of like good luck you're on your own yeah
1:10:17 no no human being knows exactly what it's like to be a seahorse but it's a good bet they don't care about their
1:10:22 children very much because you know there's not that obligatory parental investment to use a term from from
1:10:29 evolutionary psychology you know so so if you know as I believe evolution is
1:10:34 the mechanism by which we were created uh there's this intrinsic link between
1:10:40 deep love and compelling sacrifice right we we can't you know the reason we love our kids so much is because they're so
1:10:47 darn challenging to raise you know they need us so much right and so to Circle back a little bit um um you know this
1:10:56 suffering at least in my fate there's this there's this notion that there is opposition in the universe so you know
1:11:05 the suffering could be recompensed with with a higher and deeper level of of Joy
1:11:11 at at some point obviously you know if if it all ends with this life then the
1:11:16 universe is profoundly unfair um a lot of us I think have a deep sense that
1:11:22 that's not necessarily the end of the play [MS] all right how does the universe or
1:11:29 God or whoever in the next life uh uh Square the problem of say Eichmann h how do
1:11:35 we make that right how do we make that whole again or hydrik or Hitler who pick any Nazi you
1:11:42 like I don't know [SW] I I I certainly don't have all the answers um I don't have all
1:11:48 the answers but I I do have a deep condition [MS] I don't think anybody has the answer that ⮦⮋⮧ [SW] I mean this is why these
neoBuddhism has an answer to that, but it's really long and I'm getting kind of tired. Suffice to say, it has to do with considering suffering to be a part of what enables adaptive behavior.
Without suffering, people wouldn't feel the need to change, but it's a lot more complex than that, which has to do with things like how muscles grow on a cellular level, which a person might experience as suffering, in the same way that exercise can feel like suffering to some people. So there is good suffering and bad suffering, which may feel similar, but are very different. And if it wasn't possible to be bad, it wouldn't be possible to be good. Anyway. Just saying, it's incorrect to say that there are no answers to that.
In neoBuddhism, suffering is acknowledged as an essential aspect of life, providing opportunities for growth, learning, and deepening our compassion. It’s through facing and overcoming challenges that we develop resilience and a profound appreciation for life's fleeting moments. This evolutionary perspective aligns with the concept of "karma" and "rebirth," where every action, driven by intention, contributes to the unfolding journey of the soul.
The intrinsic link between deep love and compelling sacrifice underscores the principle that true value and meaning often emerge from adversity. neoBuddhism teaches that acknowledging and embracing suffering can lead to transformative personal growth and a deeper understanding of our place in the cosmos.
In the grand cosmic narrative, every being is on a journey towards enlightenment, and every experience, no matter how painful, contributes to this evolutionary quest. The suffering endured and the choices made in response to it play a critical role in this process, fostering empathy, compassion, and a deeper appreciation for the sanctity of life.
In the philosophical landscape, "The Problem of Evil" challenges the coexistence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity with the reality of suffering and malice in the world. neoBuddhism, with its rich tapestry of teachings on karma, suffering (Dukkha), and the path to enlightenment, provides a nuanced framework for engaging with this dilemma.
Through the lens of neoBuddhism, suffering and evil are not anomalies in an otherwise benevolent universe but integral components of the experiential world that stimulate spiritual growth and self-realization. The concept of karma, central to neoBuddhist thought, posits that actions and intentions set forth ripples through the fabric of existence, influencing one's future circumstances and rebirths. This causal relationship underscores a universe governed by natural laws of moral causality, rather than arbitrary divine will.
In this framework, the existence of evil and suffering is not evidence against a compassionate cosmos but a call to understand the deeper mechanics of cause and effect, and the role of human agency in shaping our destinies. Evil acts, like those cited in historical atrocities, are seen as manifestations of ignorance (Avidya) which bind beings to the cycle of suffering and rebirth (Samsara).
The path to overcoming suffering and the influence of evil lies not in divine intervention but in the pursuit of wisdom (Prajna), ethical conduct (Sila), and mental discipline (Samadhi). This triad forms the basis of guiding individuals towards recognizing the interconnectedness of all life, cultivating compassion, and ultimately transcending the dualities of good and evil.
In confronting "The Problem of Evil," neoBuddhism invites a shift from externalizing evil as a force to be vanquished by a deity, towards introspection and personal transformation. It suggests that the resolution to suffering and moral evil lies within our capacity to cultivate understanding, compassion, and mindful living. This perspective emphasizes the potential for every individual to contribute to the alleviation of suffering, through acts of kindness, social justice, and spiritual practice.
By integrating the principles of neoBuddhism into our understanding of "The Problem of Evil," we are encouraged to view suffering and evil not as insurmountable challenges or punitive measures from a higher power, but as opportunities for growth, learning, and advancing towards a more enlightened and compassionate existence. It reinforces the belief that within the complex interplay of karma and conscious choice lays the potential for profound transformation and the realization of a just world.
1:11:54 questions are continue to perplex us and but okay so but what I'm after why believe it then if you don't know you
1:12:00 don't know I don't know nobody knows if there's a cosmic Courthouse that it all
1:12:05 gets settled in the next life it would be nice to believe that Eichmann's going to get his well he did we hung him so he
1:12:13 got his and you know we're going to do that to anybody else that tries to do that okay that's as good as we can do
1:12:18 right now what would it be in the next life I don't know I don't think anybody knows so then okay so here's the
1:12:24 ultimate question why believe it okay is it okay in your worldview to make that
1:12:30 leap of faith let's let me use an analogy Free Will and determinism we'll go back to that okay I don't know for
1:12:35 sure that the Free Will arguments are better than the deterministic arguments I happen to think that they are but you
1:12:41 know people smarter than me like Robert sapolski makes a really good compelling case and it goes back and forth maybe it's
1:12:48 just a useful fiction for me to believe that I have free will even if the whole universe deter and it's tumors all the
1:12:54 way down neurons all the way down or whatever um and you know this is what my
1:12:59 friend the late um uh Martin Gardner called Fideism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism he got that from William
1:13:04 James um that it's okay to make a leap of faith to believe something if under
1:13:10 two conditions what has to be really important to human life I mean like what making choices believing in God
1:13:16 believing in the afterlife these are huge important subjects yeah that really make a difference in your life if it's
1:13:22 important to you and it makes a difference in your life and no one can refute it anyway it's okay to make the
1:13:28 leap of faith so in the case of Martin gner I don't know if you know the story but you know he's he's one of the founders of the modern skeptical
1:13:34 movement I mean he's like a major debunker of Scientology and UFOs and Yuri Geller and Spoon banding astrology
1:13:41 all that stuff he just you know spent a career debunking all that and then says by the way I believe in God
1:13:48 and prayer and an afterlife and you can imagine all the people like Dawkins going
1:13:54 what Martin and but he made a philosophical argument saying this is William James's sort of a pragmatic
1:14:01 Truth uh and and again I mean he even says I think atheists have slightly better arguments than the theist but the
1:14:07 theist arguments are not completely crazy so they could be right and in any case who knows for sure nobody and it
1:14:13 makes me feel better it changes my life I'm not trying to convert anybody to anything you believe whatever you want
1:14:18 this is what I believe you ask me I'm telling you what I believe I'm not telling you you have to follow me
1:14:23 and he kind of left it at that and I thought okay I respect that [SW] yeah yeah I've heard you talk about
1:14:30 him before I'll have to tell me the name again Martin [MS] yeah Martin Gardner yeah Martin Gardner I'll send you the I'll
1:14:36 send you the section from my chapter my forthcoming book on this I kind of recounted all that yeah as a way as a
1:14:43 way of kind of the next my next book's on truth you know are there kind of truths that are not empirical they're
1:14:49 not scientific truths we're never going to get at it you know what's the right here's my analogy what's the right
1:14:54 income taxx for upper bracket people there's no right answer it's a political question what's the right percentage for
1:15:00 immigration how many should we let in every year you know obviously now too many before maybe it was not you know whatever but that's there's you know and
1:15:07 and some are insoluble like pro-life pro-choice I'm pro-choice but the pro-life people they have good arguments
1:15:13 it's true you're you know abortion is killing an actual living organism ⮦⮋⮧ that is a potential human and person and
I am just throwing this out there, but I think according to scientific definition, if something cannot survive outside of the organism that it originated from, it's still a part of that organism, rather than being a separate organism, until it's able to survive independently, it's still a part of the progenitor organism. Until a certain stage of development, at which point it becomes another organism. But an egg alone, is not an organism, and a sperm alone is not an organism. They are just pieces of the progenitor organism.
Also if it was about the sanctity of all and any life, wouldn't that require them to also be vegetarian? Because animals certainly are organisms.
In contemplating the intricacies of life, autonomy, and moral agency, one can ponder the scientific and ethical underpinnings of when an entity becomes distinctly recognized as an independent organism. Drawing from biology, an intriguing perspective emerges: an entity that cannot subsist outside its progenitor organism retains its status as a component of the originating entity, much akin to cells that form tissues and organs integral to an organism's entirety. This view, while rooted in scientific observation, ventures into the realm of philosophical inquiry regarding individuality, dependence, and the transition to autonomous existence.
The dialogue might benefit from a perspective shift that explores the continuum of life from a holistic perspective, where the commencement of independent existence serves as a critical juncture. Within this context, the discourse could shift from a binary classification of life to a more nuanced understanding of developmental stages and interdependence. Such an approach does not trivialize the potential for life but acknowledges the gradations and complexities inherent in biological processes.
This perspective aims not to diminish the moral weight of the abortion debate but to broaden the dialogue to include a deeper appreciation for the scientific and ethical complexities of life. By engaging with these considerations, we might foster a more inclusive and compassionate discourse that transcends the entrenched positions, inviting a collective exploration of the values and principles that guide our choices and policies.
1:15:20 absolutely okay so but but there there's not a I don't know how do you get a
1:15:25 correct scientific answer and I think religious truths are often along these
1:15:30 lines you know they're almost like Mythic truths they're truths in their own way that have deeper meaning what so
1:15:37 my analogies is like asking you is you in the in The Lord of the Rings trilogy is there really this place you know
1:15:44 middle land or whatever it was called No you're missing the point or in Harry Potter is there really a train depot
1:15:50 seven and a half whatever that number wasters 3 you're asking the wrong question like asking you know you know
1:15:57 was Jonah really swallowed by a what was it really was it a great fish or was it a whale okay you're asking the wrong
1:16:03 questions this is that's not what the story is about what do you think about
1:16:11 that ⮦⮋⮧ [SW] well um I do think there are deep truths I there's certainly things that
Interesting way of asking how to determine which details are consequential and which ones are superfluous, since the metaphors themselves are not the superfluous parts, but superficial details, like the difference between a mythical fish or mythical whale, is superfluous, because one would be just as mythical as the other, and the metaphor is not dependent on the physical characteristics of the animal Jonah was inside.
Delving into metaphorical truths invites us into a realm where the significance of a story is not tethered to the factual accuracy of its components but to the underlying messages, lessons, and insights it offers. Consider the rich tapestry of stories from "The Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter," where fantastical elements like Middle-earth or Platform Nine and Three-Quarters serve not as literal locales but as gateways to exploring themes of courage, sacrifice, and the struggle between good and evil. These narratives, much like parables and mythological tales, employ the extraordinary to speak to the universally human, illuminating aspects of our nature, societal structures, and moral dilemmas.
The question, then, shifts from the literal existence of such places or events to the resonance of their metaphorical implications with our inner and collective lives. In religious contexts, stories like Jonah's encounter with a great fish (or whale) transcend the specifics of the creature's taxonomy, directing us instead towards contemplation of faith, redemption, and the human capacity for change and resilience in the face of the insurmountable.
1:16:16 seem at least from the the current way we conduct science that are unknowable
1:16:22 and uh some of these things seem to be uh somewhat important I you know again
1:16:29 this this comes back I I'm we're we're we're far a field from my book at this point so hopefully my publicist not too
1:16:36 upset with me but um [MS] no we're just talking it's all right we'll plug the book Lots don't worry [SW] uh you know
1:16:46 I part of this is my personal experiences that you know there came a time when I had had to
1:16:53 decide you know these things that I've been taught by my parents my whole life do I actually believe them and there was
1:17:00 a lot of struggle and wrestling with myself and my thoughts in prayer that's
1:17:07 the thing for me and I in a way that is very personal uh I feel like we've got
1:17:13 I've got my answers so I I do believe there are things that you can know now the tricky thing is is when you know
1:17:20 someone says Hey guy I've got this Revelation from God and you people need to do this and you know that that becomes tricky very quickly as you know
1:17:27 so um there needs to be this respect I think for individual choice in any sort
1:17:34 of religious or or similar type movement and and people need to do it for
1:17:40 themselves and and feel it themselves and coercion and religion things go down
1:17:45 really Hill really quickly when you when you when you mix them together [MS] but is is it in the same sense that use my other
1:17:51 example I always bring up in the show Ken Miller you know who's one of the uh first to debunk the intelligent design
1:17:57 creationism he's a great scientist and so on but he's a Catholic and he wrote this book about Darwin Evolution and so
1:18:02 on and so last chapter by the way same thing with Francis Collins you know I mean I I I recommend his book The
1:18:08 Language of God yep U and then at the you know the end the last chapter oh by the way I'm a Christian it's so okay um
1:18:15 in in the are you saying in that sense like where where Ken says look I'm not claiming that Jesus rose from the dead
1:18:22 literally I'm not saying this is some kind of scientific test if we got piece of the True Cross and a little bit of
1:18:27 Flesh on there and got the DNA out you know you're missing the point of what the resurrection means in the Catholic
1:18:34 or Christian tradition to ask these detailed scientific questions do do you think of it that way is it's it's in a
1:18:41 different kind of Realm of different kind of Truth [SW] non overlapping magisteria
1:18:46 [MS]yeah yeah [SW] I don't I I do think that ultimately they're going to lead to the
1:18:52 the same place there that so there you know in my faith we use the word revelation right and that's kind of when God tells you something directly and
1:19:01 there's times when it that seems to be at odds with maybe what science is telling us and when that's the case it's
1:19:06 either bad Revelation or bad science or both um I I I think that all truth can
1:19:15 be you know is is self-consistent uh so um you know these
1:19:22 These are philosophical questions that we're getting into here [MS] that's right this is good this is good stuff [SW]I I I do
1:19:29 I do believe that they're going to eventually lead to the same place and the perceived conflicts um you know again whether it's
1:19:36 false religion or false science or both you know that that's the that's the perceived conflict between you know say
1:19:44 science and Faith um [MS] okay well there are methods we can use to detect the
1:19:50 difference between bad science and good science junk science Voodoo science and so on yeah uh like the recent
1:19:56 replication crisis in psychology medicine now we know okay there's p-hacking and this file drawer problem
1:20:02 okay we're going to correct those what would that be for Revelation what would be the difference between say good
1:20:07 Revelation and bad Revelation how how would you evaluate it [SW]well um that's a good question again
1:20:16 in in my personal views it's going to there's there's going to be an emotional
1:20:22 compon oent to it and that's tricky because sometimes I'm very well aware as a psychiatrist sometimes emotions go go
1:20:29 go awry but it's also going consistent with logic so there's going to be a rational aspect to it um the way we we
1:20:37 talk about this and and my particular faith is that through you know through your mind and your heart with the
1:20:43 metaphor of of ration rationality and an emotion um but it's also going to be
1:20:49 consistent with um you know kind
1:20:55 of the the the structure that is in existence right so so if you want to
1:21:03 talk about the particulars of my faith we can we can definitely go into that you know there there's some interesting parts of that you probably know a fair
1:21:09 amount about it um but it has to be kind of consistent within this framework so
1:21:14 there's there's these rules that you know you're not going to get you're not going to get a a prompt from God that is
1:21:20 going to tell you what your neighbor should be doing you're going to get a prompt from God to tell you what you're
1:21:26 going to be doing and what your family can be doing and so there's there's an order into it
1:21:31 um uh that you know that that is part of it and and you know I do think that it
1:21:36 that it can be though a a process sorting this out is is
1:21:43 tricky [MS] yeah okay so let's say we encountered extraterrestrial intelligences if they were a social
1:21:49 species of some kind they probably would have evolved something like uh reciprocal altruism and and you know Kin
1:21:57 selection, love, friendship you know commitment, reputation, management all
1:22:02 these things because those matter those derive from the logic of kind of game
1:22:07 theory analysis of how social organisms have to interact with each other so I would even you know say love is is
1:22:15 something that's in the universe I don't go quite so far as say Robert Wright's book nonzero where he actually thinks
1:22:22 well maybe do Go part of the way with him that love is a is built in you know front loaded say into the universe
1:22:28 itself um okay but then what's the next step after that in
1:22:35 in terms of I mean why do you need God above that isn't that good enough so in
1:22:41 other words how how is it you're making the next step if and if you're saying well this is my faith I was raised this
1:22:48 way this is what I believe okay I'm good that's fine because that's true for a l lot of parts of our lives that are not
1:22:54 just science um but you're saying something different that there is a way
1:22:59 to test would would the Mormon religion have evolved in some other planet whereas I suspect maybe Judaism wouldn't
1:23:05 or Hinduism probably wouldn't is that [SW] what you're suggesting you're asking
1:23:10 these questions in ways that I've I've never considered them [MS]well this here's your next book this is your next book
1:23:16 think of it that way [SW]you know so a lot of this comes down
1:23:21 again back to my personal experiences you know another part of this that it
1:23:28 I've been a little hesitant but you kind of keep going you keep banging on this door is I just I can't explain away the
1:23:36 Book of Mormon so um okay you know it it came from somewhere if you
1:23:44 want a little bit of a background of it I'm be happy to go through it you probably know about it um it's well [MS]I
1:23:51 don't know that much about it I mean okay you know a little bit but I mean I saw the
1:23:56 playes and I loved it I know a lot of Mormons I like a lot of I also know a lot of former Mormons
1:24:03 foremans they call they call themselves yeah morm but had you been raised Jewish
1:24:09 in Europe a century ago or whatever I mean you wouldn't believe any of this stuff you'd be you'd be a Jew and you'd
1:24:14 be making the same argument slightly differently but you know we got the right one and so this is my problem with
1:24:21 this [SW]yeah yeah well part of it is the newness of this right you know my faith is particularly new and uh so many of
1:24:29 these other faiths they their their Origins go back a long long time so um
1:24:37 you know uh the book of war was published in 1830 you whether you believe it or not that's that's kind of
1:24:42 fact and uh it it purports to be this this you know this ancient record of
1:24:48 peoples that lived here (north america) and you know a lot of people have been dismissive of it said well you know he just made it up
1:24:54 that sort of thing it's a remarkably complex document and even the
1:24:59 detractors it's pretty well documented it he wrote it down at about a pace of
1:25:04 eight pages a day he didn't stop and edit and you know whenever he took a break he picked up where he left off and
1:25:11 in a period of about two to three months you get you know from page one to I think there's about 530 pages and it's
1:25:19 you know it's a complex thing that came from somewhere and you know I think if I
1:25:25 try to be as honest as I can intellectually it's it's hard to explain in any other way than that you know he
1:25:33 he claims and I believe it uh that this was given to him from God and it's a
1:25:39 record from of a of an ancient people and it's evidence that there's God and that God loves us and has a plan for our
1:25:45 existence and and so on and so forth so um there are you know there there
1:25:51 certainly critics evidence says well there's evidence against it in this case but there's also actually a lot of
1:25:56 evidence for it and the fact that there's some evidence for it it's like how how is that possible if if this you
1:26:03 know he was let's see he was about 24 25 when it when it was published um this
1:26:11 this man uh in in New York named Joseph Smith yeah [MS] Joseph Smith yeah let's come back to that for a second let me go back
1:26:16 to my analogy let's say you're an anthropologist from Mars or or or or Vega or ever yeah and you come to earth
1:26:24 now for them to get here they they will have had to master mathematics and and Newtonian physics and maybe some
1:26:31 einsteinian Physics to make fine tune adjustments in their orbit trajectories and so on to get here now they're not
1:26:37 going to call it Newtonian physics because somebody else will have figured it out on their Planet but they won't
1:26:43 they won't be surprised that we figured it out at our particular level of development but they're not going to
1:26:48 find anything remotely like that with religion you know they're going to see oh look at there's these Jews and there's you know there's I don't know 16
1:26:55 million Jews and there's 2.1 billion Christians and there's a billion and a half Muslims and there's you 500 million
1:27:02 Hindus so on which is the right one and maybe they encounter half a dozen people
1:27:08 like you go well I'm the right one look at my book I mean it's incredible he was only 24 when he you know he transcribed
1:27:14 the you know the stories and it's like they're going to go hey look guys this is you're this is something different
1:27:20 from this science thing [SW] mhm well I I certainly think that there is
1:27:27 you know you talk about this kind of other level of Truth there seems to be that in a lot of these Faiths I I have no
1:27:34 qualms with saying that and I certainly don't believe that you know if you're not a uh part of my particular faith in
1:27:41 this life that you're doomed to hell or anything like that there in some sense we're we're universalists and that if
1:27:47 you don't get a chance or if your chance is different than someone else's in this mortal sphere you're going to you're
1:27:54 going to have those opportunities later on um so uh yes do I think there are
1:27:59 people who are inspired outside of you know my very narrow culture of Faith yes
1:28:05 absolutely you know um I'm not Muslim but the writings of Muhammad are in many
1:28:11 ways can are very inspiring um so I don't know how to answer your
1:28:17 question other than that look I I think there are some deep fundamental truths
1:28:22 one is that our a our existence is not accidental that that this experience
1:28:29 that we're having as human beings on this Earth it is in some sense a test
1:28:35 and you know we're going to we're going to do better at the test if we can
1:28:41 somehow form loving families that help us choose the better aspects of our
1:28:47 nature and as much as we can to make Society a better place I I can't prove
1:28:52 to you that there's an afterlife in the same way that I can prove that you know the first round of covid vaccines are safe and effective but I have a deep
1:28:59 conviction that it's the case and I'm I'm going to continue to live my life as as if that's truth because it's it's
1:29:04 brought me a lot of meaning and it makes me I think a better person than than I would be otherwise [MS] yeah so okay all
1:29:11 right all right I would put that in that pragmatic personal truth category you're
1:29:16 pushing for something slightly more than that all right on the Book of Mormon thing didn't they have something about
1:29:21 the Native Americans were the Lost tribes of Israel and they didn't they haven't been they weren't here 10,000 10
1:29:27 20,000 years ago weren't they wrong about that the genetics disproved all that [SW] yeah well so uh the story is that
1:29:36 there's a a f one or two families that left uh the old world and and came here
1:29:42 around 600 700 years uh BC um and and
1:29:49 joined a you know a larger population so uh you're you're right in that I mean
1:29:56 when when the Europeans came and and wiped out you know 95% of the the native uh colonies I think it's very
1:30:04 uh possible that that this you know that that made it difficult to detect things so you're right that that you know some
1:30:11 point to genetics and say well yeah look this is just is a fraud but there are other things uh particularly literary
1:30:17 devices that are found in the language so let me let me share one example with you if that's all right so
1:30:22 um there's a there's an ancient Hebrew literary form is called kismis and that
1:30:27 kmus comes from X the the Greek letter X and it's essentially a literary form where you have you know a couple
1:30:34 different themes you go a b and then ba right so um you know say uh my ways are
1:30:40 not God's ways and God God's you know minds are thoughts are not like my thoughts right so you have AB ba and it
1:30:46 can become much more complex where you get ABC CB ABC d dcba That's sort of
1:30:52 thing so um there are very complex structures within the actual text you
1:30:58 know well before this kind of form was quote rediscovered in in the new world
1:31:04 so um again I'm not I'm not denying that there are some evidence uh that you know
1:31:10 that doesn't exactly line up but you know a lot of it seems to be the absence
1:31:15 of evidence like oh we haven't found the city that sort of thing but the fact that there is evidence on in the for
1:31:21 column that to me is is is remarkable and and you know you just can't just throw it
1:31:27 out the window because it's it's it's a complex [MS] Maybe not maybe you can pick and choose the parts that are good I mean I
1:31:33 grew up with Mormons in Southern California I know a lot of Mormons Mak Mormons you know there's parts of it that are really great you know the
1:31:38 family structure the charity the tithing you know taking care of uh people that
1:31:44 can't take care of themselves all all that's great um you know but why buy all the other stuff okay so if you're if
1:31:50 you're relying on Revelation at all well you know so Joseph Smith gets his Revelation about polygamy yeah you know
1:31:58 he's he's married he's seeing this other woman he wants to see this other woman I forget what the timeline was but any
1:32:03 case he takes up with her and then gets a revelation from God speaking of male
1:32:08 psychology and nature how convenient you know so sorry to to be kind of snarky
1:32:15 about this but you know reading John CRA hour's book under the banner of heaven where he recounts this you know it goes
1:32:21 back to his wife honey I've been talking to God and he says I have to you know
1:32:26 marry this it's like what okay come on you know that just has to be completely
1:32:31 made up and then and then just let me finish the thought and and I I'm going
1:32:36 to sound insulting sorry I don't mean to do that but you know and then they get a con another Revelation in 1896 or two
1:32:44 whatever it was when Utah wanted to join the union United States says you you got to you got to dump the polygamy stuff
1:32:49 we're not having that in our country and then all of a sudden God gives another Revelation or in the 70s you know okay
1:32:55 it's okay for blacks to be you know ministers in our church oh okay right in the middle of the Civil Rights okay come
1:33:02 on obviously this is human cultural political this isn't re God's not
1:33:08 telling anybody anything these are just guys following their impulses and following cultural Trends and political
1:33:15 movements and things like that that's how I see that sorry I said that in a
1:33:20 very kind of not respectful way [SW] no uh I I mean I get it right I get it and and
1:33:26 are there parts of my particular faiths history that I don't like yeah but I I
1:33:32 can't just throw away the personal experiences that I've had okay and and so um you know I don't have all the
1:33:39 answers for that uh certainly there when in my experience when I've I've had what
1:33:47 I feel like was a you know some information that came from outside of my
1:33:54 head it's mixed up with my own thoughts and I have to kind of wrestle out okay
1:33:59 yeah that that part was probably just my own thinking and that part this other part was was myself so again I don't
1:34:07 have the answers but I I can't just count my personal experience I and honestly again um you
1:34:15 know it is a remarkable book The Book of Mormon uh [MS] so your parents were Mormon
1:34:21 and were their parents Mormon how far back do you go [SW] uh back ways well my grandmother was not um well at least
1:34:28 until she had kind of a deathbed conversion she was uh she was baptized
1:34:34 within a few months of dying from cancer she died yeah at a what today would be considered an early age of of 50 um yeah
1:34:42 [MS] well I understand Samuel but I just had an imam on last week we haven't even aired it yet you know talking about the
1:34:48 Quran and and he says pretty much the same thing you're saying is an amazing document 20 minutes later he's still
1:34:55 going on about this and that I'm like wow yeah okay I get that but how how is
1:35:00 an outsider like me to you know if you got the right one or the Imam got the right one [SW] yeah well I you know you have
1:35:07 to you have to make your own choice and and read it and and if I don't know [MS] make my own Cho okay but so
1:35:15 so if God's judging us in the afterlife and I go well sorry I thought I thought it was the Quran no you picked the wrong
1:35:21 one well [SW] I don't I yeah I don't that's not my type of god right so I I I don't
1:35:28 think clearly there's going to be a consideration given for uh people's
1:35:33 personal circumstances the The Experience they have that sort of thing environment so um you know
1:35:41 I yeah I I clearly have this in my Heritage but there was a point where I
1:35:46 kind of had to say do I actually believe all this cuz some of it you know I I get it you know some of it seems kind of
1:35:52 cooky um but uh but I can't deny that the experiences
1:35:57 that I've had in in the [MS] yeah you know yeah so this is why I'm pushing for these different kinds of truths and and
1:36:03 showing respect for people like Joseph Campbell and uh Jordan Peterson you know talking about Mythic truths um again I
1:36:10 think you know trying to use science in any way like these are you know overlapping and they're arriving at the
1:36:17 same truth could could backfire for you uh for example when I do God debates with
1:36:23 theist these are usually Christians in a church or something yeah uh and I asked the congregation you know if it turned
1:36:28 out my arguments are better than his tonight are you going to give up your belief that Jesus was your savior no
1:36:34 they're not because none of that was why they believed in the first place it's not based on these arguments oh the
1:36:40 prime mover and the first cause and the this and that fine tuning there that's not why they believe [SW] yeah yeah yeah a a
1:36:49 lot of a lot of it comes down to personal experience so um you know I I do think if if you ask and you
1:36:57 really want to know um in time you'll get an answer that you know that that
1:37:03 may not sound scientific but I I think there's some truth to that [MS]yeah there are some some books about this uh
1:37:09 hearing the voices of God I've had a couple podcast uh episodes on this I'll send you the links of people who study
1:37:16 people who well hear the voice of God not exactly I mean are they actually hearing is like a schizophr no it's not
1:37:23 like that at all they're just living their lives and they have these impulses oh I should do this or that I think that
1:37:28 maybe was God nudging me you know maybe some of that again in this kind of Mythic sense is how The Human Experience
1:37:35 happens you know we do have an inner voice yeah that maybe my dog doesn't have I'm pretty sure he doesn't uh you
1:37:43 know that's special to our species and and again as you pointed out we don't know the pro you know the hard problem
1:37:48 Consciousness well you know where that comes from and all that so okay you know all right Sam you've been
1:37:54 super generous thank you for letting me push you on some of these issues I do that because I'm interested myself as
1:38:00 you know I was a born again Christian for about seven years and so you know I'm you know I'm I'm wrestling with the
1:38:06 problem myself uh yeah anyway because I think everybody should because it's it's
1:38:13 important [SW]it is yeah these are important issues [MS]and there's your and there's the sequel to purpose the other the next
1:38:19 purpose now I love the book the book is again you know there's pretty much everything you said in here I'm like yep yep I agree yep yep yep so um you know
1:38:27 then you can the next book you can take the next step whatever that would be yeah well
