- 11 minutes ago
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux shreds a physicist-theologian exchange on brain-bound consciousness, energy-life illusions and empirical-divine fusions to forge conviction steel against faith's existential voids.
Note: EKG should be EEG
0:00:00 Thoughts on Consciousness
0:01:24 The Limits of Engineering and Theology
0:06:55 Understanding Consciousness through Empirical Evidence
0:09:16 The Divine and the Human Experience
0:11:39 Measuring the Divine
0:16:09 Energy, Consciousness, and Existence
0:19:35 The Fallacy of Certainty in Philosophy
0:29:04 The Illusion of Intellectual Humility
0:31:20 Defining Existence and Non-Existence
0:40:27 Closing Remarks and Call to Action
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Note: EKG should be EEG
0:00:00 Thoughts on Consciousness
0:01:24 The Limits of Engineering and Theology
0:06:55 Understanding Consciousness through Empirical Evidence
0:09:16 The Divine and the Human Experience
0:11:39 Measuring the Divine
0:16:09 Energy, Consciousness, and Existence
0:19:35 The Fallacy of Certainty in Philosophy
0:29:04 The Illusion of Intellectual Humility
0:31:20 Defining Existence and Non-Existence
0:40:27 Closing Remarks and Call to Action
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
00:02This is Van Molyneux from Freedomain, freedomain.com,
00:05slash donate to help out the show, please, please.
00:09And two interesting arguments floated across my feed this morning.
00:13The first was, of course, the genial, grinning Christian fellow
00:18who was mildly Irish.
00:21She was giving a talk to 500 physicists,
00:25and we had a chat with one,
00:28and the physicist asked him, a very smart fellow, you know.
00:31The physicist asked him,
00:33how can it be that God becomes human?
00:37And I said, well, let me give you a quid pro quo.
00:41Let me ask you, what is consciousness?
00:45And the physicist says, I don't know.
00:47And then I asked him, what is energy?
00:51I'll give you a simpler one.
00:53What is energy?
00:54And he said, I don't know.
00:56And I said, well, these are easier questions.
00:58How do I know how God became a man?
01:02I don't know.
01:03And we had a wonderful chat.
01:04And, you know, this sort of, well, bad Irish accent.
01:07And also, I don't know what that was.
01:12But it's always, oh, we had a great chat,
01:14and we really had begun to understand each other and all that.
01:18And so, I can't believe I didn't make it.
01:24So, these sort of convenient stories are interesting.
01:29And, unfortunately, the idea that a physicist is stumped by a theologian
01:35is interesting, but not particularly relevant.
01:39If an engineer stumps a theologian with engineering questions,
01:45that's kind of understandable and not really a fair fight.
01:48He should be talking to a rational philosopher,
01:52an empirical materialistic philosopher, right,
01:54to get these kinds of answers.
01:57Now, the answer, of course, is relatively simple,
02:01which is we have direct experience of consciousness,
02:05and we know what consciousness is.
02:07We can measure it empirically, directly.
02:09When the brain is dead, there is no consciousness,
02:12and that's when we know somebody is no longer with us,
02:14and so on.
02:15Even if we can keep the body alive, like a friend of mine,
02:17whose mother had a terrible stroke,
02:19and in the hospital they said she's kind of brain dead,
02:22and he had to take her off the life support.
02:26Not the most, well, it was a terrible evening, of course.
02:29But that's, we can measure consciousness.
02:31We know when it's there.
02:32We know when it's not.
02:34But if, I remember seeing a love boat,
02:38it was a cheesy show from back in the day about a cruise line,
02:42and there was a guy who liked a girl,
02:44and she only spoke French, and he only spoke English.
02:47And it was all these complications and messes,
02:50and that's interesting.
02:51So even though we can identify consciousness,
02:53if we can't communicate with the other consciousness,
02:55then there's no real possibility of a relationship, obviously, right?
02:59So we can identify consciousness.
03:02We know when we can communicate with consciousness.
03:05And we know when we are dealing with an external consciousness versus an internal consciousness.
03:11Of course, there's the old joke about the woman who's mad at her husband
03:16because he cheated on her in her dreams.
03:19Like in her, she had a dream, he cheated on her,
03:21and so she's mad at him.
03:23And of course, that's funny because he didn't cheat on her.
03:26She just, I mean, maybe she's getting an unconscious communication,
03:28that's a different matter, but he didn't cheat on her in a confirmed way
03:32because she only dreamt it.
03:33So, you know, that's considered funny.
03:35And it is mildly funny because it is not real.
03:40That's not a real consciousness.
03:41He did not cheat on her.
03:42She had a dream about it, and therefore, it's not proven.
03:47But she's acting emotionally as if it's proven,
03:49which is a sort of a whole different matter.
03:52So, with regards to energy and consciousness,
03:55one of the ways we know someone is dead
03:57is they are not using energy, right?
04:02The heart has stopped.
04:04The heart has stopped.
04:05And that means that the heart is not using energy.
04:09The heart is not beating.
04:10The lungs have stopped.
04:12The lungs are not using energy.
04:14If the eyes are unable to translate light waves
04:18into electrical or neural impulses
04:20that go to the visual centers of the brain,
04:22someone is blind because the energy
04:24is not being transmitted and processed
04:26from the outside to the inside.
04:29So, consciousness is energy.
04:31The senses are energy.
04:33And we know this as well,
04:35because if somebody does not take in energy
04:37in the form of food,
04:38then they will sooner or later die
04:41because the body uses energy
04:42and energy is used everywhere in the body
04:46at all times.
04:48And we know that somebody is dead
04:50when their body is no longer using energy,
04:52when they are inert.
04:53We know when consciousness is gone,
04:56when we cannot record any brain activity
05:00and so on, right?
05:00So, all of these things are clear and understood.
05:04And it's true of all the animals with senses
05:06that all the animals with senses,
05:08the senses use energy
05:09and they use their energy,
05:11that energy of the senses
05:12to gain energy from other creatures
05:15by hunting them and eating them
05:17or from plants and so on.
05:20So, energy is life.
05:23And we are alive
05:25and we know what consciousness is
05:27in terms of interacting with it.
05:30I mean, this theologian
05:33didn't interact with the podium
05:34or a light switch or a chair.
05:37He interacted only with a human consciousness.
05:39He did not speak to the guy's knee or elbow.
05:42And if the mouth replied,
05:43said, no, no, no,
05:43I'm waiting to hear from the elbow, right?
05:45So, he knew enough to send energy
05:48to the man's consciousness.
05:52So, we have direct empirical proof
05:57of both consciousness and energy
06:00and therefore energy and consciousness exist.
06:07They are valid concepts
06:10that we all experience
06:12every single moment
06:15of waking consciousness
06:18plus REM sleep.
06:19I mean, there are sort of dead spots
06:20in the night
06:23where we are not really processing consciousness.
06:27if you've ever been awake
06:29the whole night
06:30it's like, wow, okay.
06:32So, this is what being awake
06:33the whole night is like.
06:35There's a lot of the night
06:36where we're not awake
06:38and that's one of the reasons
06:40why nights
06:41when you're not awake
06:43pass quickly
06:44and nights when you are awake
06:45pass slowly.
06:46We realize just how much
06:47time is erased
06:48by being unconscious
06:49or not thinking
06:51or processing
06:52or receiving
06:52anything
06:53during that time.
06:55So, the entire conversation
06:58between the Heurish priest
06:59and the physicist
07:01well
07:02that is predicated on
07:04energy and consciousness.
07:06And so, there is
07:08an entire category switch here
07:10because
07:11the priest is saying
07:13you cannot tell me
07:14exactly
07:15what consciousness
07:16is.
07:18Well, that's
07:19an interesting question, right?
07:21In that
07:22we know what consciousness is
07:23because we don't talk
07:24to trucks
07:25or trees
07:26or road signs
07:27or anything like that, right?
07:28We talk only to people
07:29who have consciousness
07:31and are able to reply
07:33and speak our language
07:34or at least
07:34we can only continue
07:35conversations with those people.
07:37So, do we know
07:38what consciousness is?
07:39Absolutely.
07:40And the priest knows
07:41exactly what consciousness is
07:42because he talks
07:43to the physicist
07:44rather than
07:45the carpet.
07:47And he talks
07:47to the physicist's brain
07:48and looks him in the eyes
07:49and expects the responses
07:50to come from his mouth
07:51which represent
07:52the actions of a consciousness
07:53and he's trying
07:54to change his mind.
07:55So, the priest,
07:57the theologian
07:58knows exactly
07:58what consciousness is
08:00and how to identify it
08:01and he knows exactly
08:02what energy is
08:03and how to utilize it.
08:04He wouldn't speak
08:05to a dead person
08:06he needs a live person
08:07therefore he's able
08:08to recognize the energy
08:09that is embedded
08:10in being alive.
08:11And he generates energy
08:13in the form of his voice
08:15and speaking
08:15and transmitting sound waves
08:17which then impact
08:18upon the auditory canals
08:19and so on.
08:20All that kind of stuff.
08:21So, he knows exactly
08:23what consciousness is,
08:24he knows exactly
08:25what energy is
08:25and he is requiring both
08:27in order to communicate
08:28and so the direct
08:30empirical evidence
08:31and understanding
08:32and processing
08:33and utilization
08:34and all of that
08:36that is all
08:38provable
08:39and we can prove
08:40of course consciousness
08:41brain activity
08:42and conversation
08:43and we can prove consciousness
08:44we can prove energy
08:46we utilize energy
08:47in order to be able
08:48to prove energy
08:49all that sort of stuff.
08:51So, we are constantly
08:51interacting with consciousness
08:53and energy
08:53in a rational
08:54empirical
08:55objective fashion
08:57in that we use
08:58the objective medium
08:58of the senses
08:59in order to communicate
09:00with other consciousnesses.
09:02We cannot do it
09:03through some Vulcan mind melt.
09:06So, we do know
09:08exactly what energy
09:09and consciousness is.
09:10Now, can we explain
09:12every characteristic
09:13of the aforementioned
09:15energy and consciousness?
09:16Nope.
09:17Nope.
09:18So, when the physicist says
09:21how is it possible
09:22for God
09:23to be
09:25a man
09:26the theologian
09:28replies
09:28well, you must then
09:30be able to explain
09:30everything
09:31about energy
09:33and consciousness
09:34and that is
09:35a category switch.
09:36And
09:37what I mean by
09:38a category error
09:39is
09:40this idea
09:42that
09:43the human
09:44enters the divine
09:45which is
09:46the sort of
09:47three in one
09:48father, son
09:48and holy ghost
09:50and so on.
09:51So, the idea
09:52that
09:54the human
09:54enters the divine
09:56is something
09:57which has never
09:57been observed.
09:59It's talked about
10:01it's
10:02tales are told of it
10:03but it's never
10:05been observed.
10:06Nobody has ever
10:06seen the human
10:07enter the
10:08or the human
10:10merge with the divine
10:11the divine merge
10:11with the human
10:12and so on, right?
10:13Or how there is
10:15something eternal
10:17like the soul
10:19which
10:20enters the body
10:21upon birth
10:22well, it's not
10:23really eternal
10:23because it doesn't
10:24seem to exist
10:25before the body
10:26so it is created
10:27and enters the body
10:27upon birth
10:28and then lives on it
10:29lives within the body
10:30and lives beyond
10:31the end of the body
10:32that is
10:33never been observed.
10:35It's never been measured
10:36and it's not something
10:37that we directly
10:38experience
10:39every day.
10:40So, the equivalent
10:42would be something
10:43like this
10:44if you want the equivalent
10:45to energy
10:46and consciousness
10:46it would be
10:48that we ourselves
10:50regularly experience
10:52some aspect of
10:54the divine
10:55and the eternal
10:56in other words
10:57we have a question
10:59and the answer
11:01we cannot possibly know
11:02but the answer
11:02comes to us
11:03through divine revelation
11:05on a fairly
11:06continual basis.
11:07You know,
11:08ultimate
11:09infinite
11:10chat GPT
11:11in our brains
11:12available
11:13on a whim
11:14and sometimes
11:15imposes itself
11:16upon us
11:17even when we
11:18don't ask a question.
11:19That would be
11:20the equivalent
11:20that we ourselves
11:21directly experience
11:22the divine
11:23and see
11:24the divine
11:25and can measure
11:26the divine
11:26and can see
11:27the energy
11:27of the divine
11:28and can see
11:29the empirical
11:30footprint
11:30of the divine
11:32on both
11:33our minds
11:34and in the world
11:35on a continual
11:36basis
11:37that would be
11:38the equivalent
11:38of energy
11:39and consciousness.
11:40Energy and consciousness
11:41we experience
11:43it imprints itself
11:44upon the universe
11:45it's measurable
11:47it's empirical
11:47it's predictable
11:48it's stable
11:49I mean energy
11:50for sure
11:50consciousness
11:51a little less so
11:53so we're continually
11:54experiencing it
11:55and measuring it
11:55and of course
11:57the equivalent
11:59for a god
12:00would be
12:01that we are
12:01continually
12:02experiencing
12:03measuring
12:04and predicting
12:05god
12:06right
12:07because energy
12:08we can
12:08we experience it
12:10energy is consciousness
12:11energy out there
12:12in the world
12:12you know
12:13sunlight
12:13stronger
12:13weak atomic forces
12:14gravity
12:15heat
12:16light
12:16all of these
12:17sorts of things
12:18electricity
12:19and so on
12:20the nuclear power
12:21weapons
12:22bombs
12:22we are continually
12:23experiencing
12:24and measuring
12:25the objective
12:26empirical
12:27aspects
12:27of energy
12:28in the world
12:29we ourselves
12:30are composed of energy
12:30and consciousness
12:31is a form of energy
12:32we experience consciousness
12:33and can identify it
12:35and tell when it's gone
12:36right
12:36we don't
12:38measure every tree
12:39before we cut it down
12:40to see if it is conscious
12:41but we can measure
12:42when consciousness
12:42ends in the human
12:44brain
12:44because you get a
12:46flatline
12:46EKG
12:47so the equivalent
12:49with the divine
12:50would be
12:50we are constantly
12:52experiencing
12:53the divine
12:54we are constantly
12:55measuring the objective
12:56properties of the divine
12:58and we ourselves
13:00are composed of the divine
13:01and can understand
13:03the divine
13:03we can also measure
13:05when the divine
13:05leaves
13:06the body
13:08and enters
13:09the body
13:09right
13:10so for instance
13:11when you watch
13:13a medical drama
13:13what happens
13:14well
13:15there's this constant
13:16people are flatlining
13:17code blue
13:18right
13:18they're flatlining
13:19their heart is stopped
13:20and so on
13:22and we can see
13:23death
13:24entering the body
13:25through the absence
13:26of energy
13:27within the body
13:28we can measure
13:29the end of consciousness
13:31if somebody's hooked up
13:32to a brain
13:33monitoring device
13:34I think it's an EKG
13:35or something like that
13:36when someone's hooked up
13:37to a brain monitoring device
13:40and they're not getting
13:41oxygen to the brain
13:42then they can see
13:43the brain go dark
13:44they can see the energy
13:45of consciousness
13:47ceasing within the brain
13:49so it's all measurable
13:50empirical
13:51there's no
13:53contradictory information
13:54that is possible
13:56in other words
13:56there's nobody
13:57with no brain activity
13:59who is able to sit up
14:01chat
14:01think
14:02reason
14:02write
14:02and talk
14:03never happens
14:04in the same way
14:05that there is no
14:07human being
14:08or mammal
14:09who can live
14:11unaided
14:11without a heartbeat
14:13I mean can you imagine
14:14going to the doctor
14:15and the doctor
14:15you know what they do
14:17they listen to your heart
14:17I don't know why
14:18listen to your lungs
14:19breathe in breathe out
14:19I mean the heart
14:21yes
14:21the lungs
14:21I don't quite get
14:22what they get out
14:22of the stethoscope
14:23but I assume it's important
14:24so
14:25you go to the doctor
14:27and
14:27you're
14:29fine
14:29you're
14:29you know
14:30you're moving around
14:31you exercise
14:32and so on
14:33you go to the doctor
14:33and what happens
14:35well
14:36what happens
14:37is the doctor
14:38does not find a heartbeat
14:39you have no heartbeat
14:41yet
14:41you know
14:42blood is flowing
14:43to your fingers
14:43to your brain
14:44but there's no heartbeat
14:45well
14:46that's not possible
14:47it is impossible
14:48to live without a heartbeat
14:49so we know
14:50when the heartbeat ends
14:51life is threatened
14:52if the heartbeat ends
14:53long enough
14:54death is unrecoverable
14:56and you can't recover
14:57from the death
14:57so again
14:58it is
14:59not the same
15:01at all
15:02one is
15:04measuring
15:04energy and consciousness
15:05which we experience
15:06on a regular basis
15:08continuously
15:09with almost no interruptions
15:10except for a few dark spots
15:11when we're
15:12dreamlessly sleeping
15:14so we experience
15:15all of that
15:15all the time
15:16every day
15:17no matter what
15:18until we die
15:20and we
15:21also
15:22in a sense
15:23understand
15:25what it is like
15:26to not be conscious
15:27both from the dark spots
15:28when we're sleeping
15:29and if we are
15:30unconscious
15:31for an operation
15:32or something like that
15:33but also
15:34we understand
15:35what it is like
15:37to not exist
15:39although we cannot
15:40directly experience it
15:41that would be a contradiction
15:43because consciousness
15:44is about experiencing things
15:46and we say unconscious
15:47when our consciousness
15:48is not experiencing things
15:49but we know
15:50what it's like
15:51to some degree
15:52to not
15:53exist
15:54because
15:55we can think about
15:57how the world
15:58and the universe
15:58existed before we were born
16:00but we did not experience
16:00any of it
16:01because we weren't
16:02there
16:03the energy that
16:04powered our consciousness
16:05had not been gathered
16:06into our
16:06brain and manifested
16:08as mind
16:10so
16:10comparing
16:11the divine
16:14with
16:15energy and consciousness
16:16when we directly
16:17experience
16:17energy and consciousness
16:19we can measure
16:21both
16:21energy out in the world
16:23is not wildly variable
16:25I mean the sun varies
16:26and so on
16:27a little bit
16:27in sort of heat and cold
16:29but
16:30you know
16:31the speed of light
16:31is constant
16:32and there are certain
16:33measurements of energy
16:34e equals mc squared
16:35right
16:35energy equals mass
16:36times the speed of light
16:37squared
16:37these are all constant
16:39gravity
16:40is
16:40a constant
16:41and again
16:42of course it varies
16:43a tiny little bit
16:44stuff escapes
16:44from the earth
16:46to the air
16:46out into space
16:47perhaps
16:47a little
16:48I don't know
16:48whatever right
16:49a little
16:50meteor has hit the ground
16:51thus increasing gravity
16:52a tiny
16:52right
16:53but gravity
16:54as a
16:55force
16:56upon us
16:57varies in a
16:58tiny tiny way
16:59but
17:00gravity as a force
17:02is constant
17:02it doesn't
17:03appear one day
17:04and disappear the next
17:05and
17:06the
17:06factor of gravity
17:08does not change
17:10I mean
17:11if it did
17:11we couldn't have
17:12a stable orbit
17:13we couldn't have life
17:14and so on
17:14so
17:16comparing
17:16God
17:17entering the flesh
17:19which is a
17:20reported phenomenon
17:22from
17:23over 2,000
17:24years ago
17:25for which there
17:26is no
17:27empirical evidence
17:28no
17:29direct
17:30experience
17:31right
17:31because
17:31I mean
17:32there's things
17:32that
17:33you hear about
17:34that make no sense
17:35like ghosts
17:35and so on
17:36there are things
17:36you hear about
17:37that make sense
17:38like
17:39there's a monsoon
17:40in India
17:40though I've never
17:41been to India
17:41I understand
17:42that there's rain
17:43and I've seen videos
17:44but I've not
17:44directly experienced
17:45it myself
17:45that's fine
17:46and then there's
17:47things which we
17:47ourselves
17:48directly experience
17:49and then there are
17:49things that we
17:50ourselves
17:50directly experience
17:51only occasionally
17:53and then there are
17:53things which we
17:55ourselves experience
17:56continuously
17:57right
17:58I saw the northern
17:59lights when I
17:59worked up north
18:00I've never seen
18:01them since
18:01but I experience
18:02consciousness
18:03on a near
18:04continuous basis
18:05and I
18:07experience energy
18:08on a near
18:09continuous
18:10basis
18:11I mean in
18:12particular the
18:12energy of gravity
18:13is a constant
18:14force which I
18:15have to navigate
18:16and negotiate
18:16every single
18:17moment of
18:19my waking
18:20life
18:21in fact
18:21I have
18:22muscles
18:23because I
18:23lift weights
18:24and lifting
18:25weights
18:25is effective
18:27because there
18:27is gravity
18:28lifting weights
18:29in a space
18:29station
18:30I guess
18:30there'd be
18:31some momentum
18:31but it
18:31really wouldn't
18:32be quite the
18:32same
18:33so saying
18:34that
18:34the merger
18:36of the divine
18:37and the human
18:38which nobody
18:40has experienced
18:41that is around
18:43of which there
18:44is no evidence
18:44which itself
18:45is self
18:45contradictory
18:46which is a
18:47mere reported
18:48thing that occurs
18:49in a lot of
18:50different places
18:51and when we
18:51know as a
18:52basic reality
18:53of the world
18:54and of life
18:56that people
18:57hallucinate
18:57they have
18:58psychotic
18:59episodes
19:00there was no
19:01real conception
19:02of our modern
19:04understanding of
19:05mental illness
19:06and psychosis
19:06and schizophrenia
19:07and visions
19:09and hallucinations
19:10we had no real
19:11understanding or
19:12processing of that
19:13in the past
19:15and so we know
19:16all of these things
19:17and so comparing
19:18something like
19:20God merging
19:21with man
19:22with our direct
19:24empirical measurable
19:24objective experiences
19:26of consciousness
19:28and energy
19:29is a completely
19:30false equivalency
19:32and it's really
19:33kind of embarrassing
19:34to see
19:34and also
19:36wanted to mention
19:36something
19:37that was written
19:38on a post
19:41I made
19:42on X
19:43related to this
19:44and somebody wrote
19:45have you ever
19:47oh I have to do
19:47the right voice
19:48have you ever
19:49considered
19:50the possibility
19:51that the recent
19:52things which seem
19:52so obvious
19:54and clear to you
19:55are mysterious
19:56to others
19:56because
19:57there's an aspect
19:58of the matter
19:59you simply can't
20:00or even refuse
20:02to understand
20:03who am I kidding
20:04of course
20:05you haven't
20:09absolute
20:10top tier
20:12blue-blooded
20:13brain-dead
20:15intellectual
20:16nonsense
20:17and debauchery
20:18yes
20:18this is
20:19is it possible
20:22that
20:22other people
20:23understand
20:24things that you
20:25don't
20:25and maybe
20:26that has
20:26something to do
20:27oh god
20:31oh
20:32the staggering
20:34mind-boggling
20:37truly wild
20:38levels of pomposity
20:39that is
20:40that is something else
20:42that is something to
20:42truly
20:44I tell you
20:48we call my daughter
20:50and I
20:50call this character
20:52smuggins
20:52oh smuggins
20:54oh yes
20:55and it's a funny
20:56so it's an appeal
20:57to sort of
20:58insecurity
21:00incomprehensibility
21:01and all of this
21:02sort of stuff
21:03and
21:04it's
21:05it's really
21:06pathetic
21:07I know this is just
21:07a bunch of insults
21:09let me sort of get to
21:09the point of
21:11what I'm saying
21:12so
21:14this is
21:16an
21:17a fallacy
21:18this interesting
21:19fallacy
21:20and the fallacy
21:20is
21:21is it possible
21:23there are things
21:24you haven't
21:25taken into
21:26consideration
21:27this is
21:28it's a trick
21:29it's an intellectual
21:30trick
21:31is it possible
21:32there are things
21:32you haven't
21:33taken into
21:33consideration
21:34now
21:35the reason
21:35why it's a trick
21:36is that
21:37if you say
21:38no
21:39it's not
21:40possible
21:41there are things
21:41I haven't
21:42taken into
21:42consideration
21:43then you sound
21:45arrogant
21:45right
21:46and if you say
21:47well yes
21:47it's possible
21:49that
21:50there are things
21:51I haven't
21:52taken into
21:52consideration
21:52then
21:53you can't
21:54be certain
21:55right
21:56there was a
21:57rather enraging
21:58friends episode
21:59where
22:00phoebe
22:01who's
22:01a bit
22:02of a
22:03doofus
22:03mystic
22:04asks
22:04ross
22:05who's
22:05like a
22:06paleontologist
22:07i think
22:07scientist
22:08isn't there
22:09the tiniest
22:10possibility
22:10are you so
22:11arrogant as to
22:12believe that
22:12there's not
22:12even the
22:13tiniest
22:13possibility
22:14that your
22:14world view
22:14could be
22:15wrong
22:15and of
22:16course
22:16if he
22:16says
22:18no
22:18it's not
22:19possible
22:19that my
22:20world view
22:20could be
22:20wrong
22:21then he
22:21sounds
22:22arrogant
22:22and
22:23bigoted
22:24and dogmatic
22:25and all
22:26sorts of
22:26nonsense
22:26and if
22:27he says
22:27well it
22:27is
22:28possible
22:29that
22:30my
22:31world view
22:32could be
22:32wrong
22:32then he
22:33can't be
22:34certain
22:34so you're
22:35either arrogant
22:36and close
22:37minded
22:37or
22:38you admit
22:40the potential
22:41for fault
22:41or error
22:43in which case
22:44you are more
22:44open minded
22:45but then
22:46you cannot
22:47be certain
22:48my friend
22:48certainty
22:49is arrogance
22:50blah blah blah
22:51blah
22:51and
22:53it's all
22:54manipulative
22:55girly
22:56nonsense
22:56actually it's
22:57kind of
22:57an insult
22:58to girls
22:58who don't
22:59even do
22:59this kind
22:59of nonsense
22:59but yeah
23:00it's all
23:00very sad
23:02very silly
23:03so why
23:04is it
23:04a fallacy
23:07well
23:09it depends
23:10what you mean
23:11by your
23:11world view
23:12so it kind
23:13of depends
23:13what people
23:14are talking
23:14about
23:14with regards
23:15to my
23:16world view
23:17so
23:18if we look
23:19at this
23:19post
23:19from
23:20was it
23:21Dr
23:23Dr
23:23Ransom
23:24have you
23:25ever
23:25considered
23:26the possibility
23:26that the
23:27recent things
23:27which seem
23:28so obvious
23:28and clear
23:28to you
23:29are mysterious
23:29to others
23:29because there's
23:30an aspect
23:30of the matter
23:31you simply
23:31can't
23:31or even
23:32refuse
23:32to understand
23:33have you
23:34ever
23:34considered
23:35the possibility
23:36and then he
23:37says who am I
23:37kidding
23:37of course you
23:38haven't
23:39right
23:39and somebody
23:40asked
23:41more details
23:41he said
23:42I'll be
23:42perfectly
23:43honest
23:43with you
23:43I don't
23:43have the
23:44time or
23:44the patience
23:45to type
23:45out my
23:45entire
23:46philosophy
23:46on these
23:46matters
23:47on X
23:47on a
23:47random
23:47Thursday
23:48morning
23:48I
23:48typed
23:49what I
23:51with Molyneux's
23:52philosophical
23:53shallowness
23:54not as an
23:54attempt
23:55to persuade
23:56it's your
23:56choice
23:57whether or
23:57not you
23:57want to
23:57act a
23:58commitment
23:58and call
23:58that a
23:59dodge
23:59right
24:01so
24:02are you
24:03certain
24:03you can't
24:04be certain
24:04if you're
24:05certain
24:05you're
24:05dogmatic
24:06and if
24:06you're
24:06not
24:07certain
24:07you have
24:07to
24:07entertain
24:08the
24:08possibility
24:08that
24:09everything
24:09is
24:09true
24:10everything
24:11even
24:11including
24:12things
24:12as a
24:12complete
24:12opposite
24:13of your
24:13philosophy
24:14right
24:15that's
24:16that's
24:16that's
24:17the trap
24:17that's
24:18the trap
24:18so
24:19why is it
24:20a fallacy
24:21well
24:22there is
24:23a standard
24:24which says
24:25all certainty
24:26is arrogance
24:27right
24:28that's the
24:29implicit
24:30statement
24:30which is
24:31if you
24:32say
24:32Steph
24:33if you
24:33say
24:33that your
24:34worldview
24:34is 100%
24:35true
24:35then you're
24:36arrogant
24:36and close
24:36minded
24:37and not
24:37giving
24:38any respect
24:39to contrary
24:40or even
24:41counter
24:41opinions
24:42right
24:42so that
24:43is
24:43the standard
24:45that
24:45if
24:46you don't
24:47admit
24:47for the
24:48possibility
24:49of being
24:49at fault
24:50then you
24:51are arrogant
24:51and if
24:51you do
24:52admit
24:52at the
24:52possibility
24:53of being
24:54at fault
24:54then
24:55you cannot
24:56assert
24:56certainty
24:57and of
24:58course
24:58I'm sure
24:59you understand
25:00philosophy
25:01enough to
25:01know
25:01that the
25:02reason
25:03that that
25:04is a
25:04fallacy
25:04is because
25:05that is a
25:06standard
25:06that is
25:07considered
25:07to be
25:07absolutely
25:08certain
25:10you see
25:11you see
25:13somebody
25:14says
25:14Steph
25:15have
25:16have
25:16you
25:16even
25:16considered
25:17that
25:18there
25:18are
25:18things
25:18that
25:18you
25:19don't
25:19understand
25:20therefore
25:21you
25:21can't
25:21be
25:21certain
25:21of
25:22anything
25:24if
25:24you
25:24say
25:24no
25:25I've
25:25never
25:26admitted
25:26the
25:26possibility
25:27that
25:27there
25:27could
25:27be
25:27things
25:28I
25:28don't
25:28understand
25:29then
25:29you're
25:29arrogant
25:30and
25:30if
25:30you
25:30do
25:30admit
25:31it
25:31then
25:31you
25:31have
25:31to
25:32accept
25:32any
25:33or
25:33contrary
25:34positions
25:34it's
25:35like
25:35okay
25:35so that
25:36is a
25:36standard
25:37and I
25:38would
25:38say
25:38to
25:38someone
25:39so
25:41is it
25:42100%
25:43certain
25:43that
25:44anyone
25:45who
25:45says
25:45they're
25:45100%
25:46certain
25:46is
25:47arrogant
25:48this
25:49is
25:49the
25:49judo
25:49move
25:50that
25:51is
25:51common
25:51in
25:52the
25:52realm
25:52of
25:53philosophy
25:53as
25:54it
25:55should
25:55be
25:55practiced
25:55and
25:55certainly
25:56as
25:56I
25:56advocate
25:57which
25:58is
25:58you
25:58say
25:58to
25:59the
25:59person
25:59let's
26:00apply
26:00the
26:01standard
26:02you're
26:02applying
26:02to
26:02me
26:02to
26:03what
26:03you're
26:04saying
26:04as
26:05I
26:05said
26:05probably
26:06a
26:06decade
26:06decade
26:07and a
26:07half
26:07ago
26:07one
26:08of my
26:08biggest
26:08contributions
26:09in the
26:09realm
26:09of
26:09philosophy
26:10is
26:11to
26:11examine
26:12the
26:12form
26:12of
26:12the
26:12argument
26:12before
26:13engaging
26:14with
26:14its
26:14content
26:15so
26:16if
26:17someone
26:17says
26:17to
26:17me
26:18if
26:19you're
26:19100%
26:20certain
26:20of
26:21your
26:21methodology
26:22then
26:22you are
26:23by
26:23definition
26:24arrogant
26:25I
26:26would
26:26say
26:26well
26:27are
26:28you
26:28100%
26:29certain
26:29of
26:29that
26:29are
26:30you
26:30100%
26:31certain
26:31that
26:32anyone
26:32who
26:32asserts
26:33100%
26:34certainty
26:34is
26:34arrogant
26:35or
26:36not
26:36taking
26:36into
26:37account
26:37contrary
26:38perspectives
26:38or
26:39whatever
26:39whatever
26:40whatever
26:40right
26:40are you
26:41100%
26:41sure
26:42of
26:42that
26:42now
26:43if
26:43they
26:43say
26:44well
26:44I'm
26:45not
26:45100%
26:46sure
26:47of
26:47that
26:47I'd
26:48say
26:48okay
26:48then
26:49why
26:49did
26:49you put
26:50it
26:50forward
26:50forward
26:50as
26:50100%
26:51certainty
26:51because
26:52you
26:53didn't
26:53put
26:53any
26:53caveats
26:54in
26:54in
26:55the
26:55statement
26:55that
26:56you
26:56gave
26:57to
26:57me
26:57you
26:57did
26:58not
26:58insert
26:58any
26:58caveats
26:59into
27:00that
27:00you
27:00put
27:00it
27:00forward
27:01as
27:02100%
27:03certain
27:04and
27:05it's
27:05not
27:05now
27:07what
27:07percentage
27:09uncertainty
27:10do you
27:10have
27:11in
27:12the
27:12statement
27:13that
27:13everyone
27:13who
27:14asserts
27:14100%
27:15certainty
27:15is
27:16being
27:16arrogant
27:17so
27:18you
27:18can't
27:18be
27:18100%
27:19certain
27:19of
27:19that
27:19statement
27:20obviously
27:21so
27:23what
27:23percent
27:23are
27:24you
27:24unsure
27:25of
27:25that
27:25statement
27:26and
27:27of
27:28course
27:28they
27:28haven't
27:28thought
27:28about
27:28any
27:29of
27:29this
27:29they've
27:29just
27:29used
27:29this
27:30as
27:30an
27:30emotional
27:30tool
27:31to
27:32oppose
27:33any
27:33kind
27:33of
27:33certainty
27:34see
27:35people
27:35hate
27:36certainty
27:36in
27:37the
27:37philosophical
27:37and
27:38moral
27:38realm
27:38for
27:39fairly
27:40obvious
27:41reasons
27:41of
27:41course
27:42people
27:42hate
27:42certainty
27:42in
27:43the
27:43philosophical
27:44and
27:44moral
27:44realm
27:45because
27:45then
27:45once
27:46they're
27:46certain
27:46they
27:47actually
27:47have
27:47to
27:47get
27:48off
27:48their
27:48asses
27:48and
27:49do
27:50something
27:51to
27:51oppose
27:51evil
27:52in
27:52the
27:52world
27:53and
27:54it's
27:54kind
27:55of
27:55a
27:55corrosive
27:56appeal
27:56to
27:57insecurity
27:57saying
27:58if
27:59you're
27:59certain
27:59you're
28:00arrogant
28:00and
28:01therefore
28:01you
28:02don't
28:02want
28:02to
28:02be
28:02arrogant
28:02therefore
28:04you
28:05have
28:05to
28:05be
28:05uncertain
28:06and
28:06if
28:07you're
28:07uncertain
28:07then
28:08you
28:08cannot
28:08robustly
28:09oppose
28:09any
28:10contrary
28:10alternative
28:11or
28:12opposing
28:12viewpoint
28:13if
28:14you
28:14assert
28:14truth
28:15100%
28:16you're
28:16arrogant
28:16and
28:18what
28:19they're
28:19doing
28:20is
28:20they're
28:21saying
28:21that
28:22their
28:22shitbird
28:23cowardice
28:24is
28:25a virtue
28:26called
28:27not being
28:27arrogant
28:28being
28:28humble
28:29I'm
28:30humble
28:31I don't
28:32know
28:32if
28:33things are
28:34good or
28:34bad right
28:34or wrong
28:35with 100%
28:35certainty
28:36so
28:37I
28:37want
28:37assert
28:38good and
28:38evil
28:39right
28:39and wrong
28:39with 100%
28:40certainty
28:40because that
28:41would be
28:42arrogant
28:43I don't
28:43want to
28:43be
28:43arrogant
28:44I want
28:44to be
28:45open
28:45minded
28:45I want
28:46to
28:46hear
28:47what
28:47other
28:47people
28:47have
28:47to say
28:48I want
28:48to
28:48not
28:49tell
28:49them
28:49they're
28:49wrong
28:50because
28:50I
28:51can't
28:51be
28:51certain
28:51if
28:51they
28:52huh
28:52right
28:53this is
28:53the
28:54argument
28:54by
28:55annoying
28:55voice
28:57hey
28:57I've
28:58earned
28:58it
28:58I've
28:58been
28:58hearing
28:59this
28:59crap
28:59for
28:59almost
29:00half
29:00a
29:00century
29:01can't
29:01be
29:02certain
29:02can't
29:03be
29:03certain
29:03shouldn't
29:03be
29:03certain
29:04won't
29:04be
29:04certain
29:04certainty
29:05is
29:05bad
29:05wrong
29:06blah
29:06blah
29:06blah
29:06blah
29:07okay
29:07are
29:08you
29:08certain
29:09of
29:09that
29:10and
29:10if
29:10you're
29:11not
29:11certain
29:11so
29:11if
29:11you're
29:12certain
29:12that
29:13certainty
29:13is
29:13arrogance
29:14then
29:14you're
29:14arrogant
29:15by
29:15definition
29:15right
29:16all
29:16certainty
29:16is
29:17arrogance
29:18are
29:18you
29:18certain
29:18of
29:18that
29:19if
29:20you
29:20say
29:20yes
29:20I'm
29:21certain
29:21that
29:22all
29:22certainty
29:22is
29:22arrogance
29:23then
29:23you're
29:23arrogant
29:23that's
29:24bad
29:25and
29:25if
29:25you
29:32say that certainty could be truth without arrogance. I mean, if we say the world is a
29:38sphere, we are certain it is true, it is valid, it is empirical, it is tested, it is witnessed,
29:44it is mathematically correct and in line with all theories of physics. To say that the world
29:50is a sphere rather than say banana-shaped is not arrogant. Well, it could be banana-shaped.
29:56Have you ever considered the possibility that it could be banana-shaped? Blah, blah, blah.
29:59So, you can be certain and correct without arrogance. It is arrogant to say it is impossible
30:08to be certain as well as being self-contradictory. If you say it is impossible to be certain,
30:13that is a statement of certainty, you know, it's the old boring, there's no such thing as the truth,
30:18is that a true statement, blah, blah, blah. No, it is a cowardly disintegration of other people's
30:25certainty and a sort of arch-lip-curling superiority to say that anybody who's certain is a fool or
30:34arrogant or has just failed to take other things into consideration. Have you taken absolutely
30:39everything into consideration? I mean, that, of course, is an impossible standard. I don't know
30:45what it means to take everything into consideration. I strongly suspect and strongly believe it doesn't
30:52actually mean anything other than, for God's sakes, don't be certain of anything, because if you're
30:56certain of stuff, then, heaven forbid, I'm going to have to start making conclusions and fighting
31:04evildoers. And if I fight evildoers, then those evildoers, oh, they might, they'll fight back and
31:11it'll be bad and wrong and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? So, that is the basic reality of the
31:20situation. It's sort of similar to the people who say, well, you know, we kind of live in flatland
31:25like a two-dimensional space and God, you see, is vertical or he's up from flatland and the people
31:34who are in flatland can't see up, can't conceive of up and so on, right? But you cannot claim that
31:43something cannot be perceived and then call it God. You can't say that something is impossible
31:51for the human mind to process, but it has the characteristics of omniscience, all-powerful,
31:57all-good, interferes with human relationships, responds to prayer, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
32:03right? Cares about humanity, loves you very much, like, nope. If you're going to create a dimension
32:10called X, which is inaccessible to reason and the senses to any kind of empirical testing,
32:17any kind of rational analysis, if you're going to create a dimension called X that is the opposite
32:24of everything that we know, then you can't say anything about it, because you have, of course,
32:31defined X and its contents as completely inaccessible to human reasoning and the human senses. In other
32:41words, you've created a realm wherein nothing can be known. It is the opposite of human knowledge.
32:49Or, to put it another way, you've created a realm where the opposite of reason and evidence is the
32:57truth. So, all you've done is defined non-existence as potential existence and you defined anti-rational
33:05as potentially consistent. You have simply created an imaginary world of opposites. Something can exist
33:15despite the complete absence of empirical evidence. Something can exist despite being
33:21self-contradictory, violating a number of Aristotle's basic laws of physics. So, if you're going to make
33:29up a schizophrenic, insane world, people who believe the opposite of the truth are insane, right? People
33:37who think that there are things there when they're not there are hallucinating. They are mentally ill.
33:42They are schizophrenics. They are psychotics. Or having some kind of psychotic break, people who hear
33:47voices, when there isn't anyone talking, have a derangement. They have a mental illness. They have
33:54a brain problem. In the same way that people who experience pain have a medical issue, for the most
34:03part, right? My back is killing me. Okay, well, something's not working right with your back. So,
34:09people who have just created a world that doesn't exist, where the opposite of truth is truth.
34:18And it is a realm wherein we put things that are false, anti-rational, self-contradictory,
34:26and against reason, and against evidence. And it basically is saying, well, what if the
34:31opposite of truth was truth? Well, the opposite of truth is falsehood. What if the opposite of
34:37empirical evidence was existence? Well, the opposite of empirical evidence is non-existence, right?
34:46If I open the door and walk through the doorway, the reason I open the door is I can't walk
34:50through
34:50the door. The door is not present in the doorway after I've opened it, so I can walk through the
34:53doorway. It's like, well, what if there was a realm where you could walk through the doorway?
35:00You could walk through the door, but not through the doorway. In other words, the door would be open,
35:05and you wouldn't be able to walk through. But then when you close the door, you would be able to
35:09walk
35:10through. Okay? So, you've just created an idea that is the opposite of truth, reason, and evidence.
35:20You've created an imaginary alternate dimension where the opposite of truth is truth, the opposite
35:25of existence is existence. I mean, you've created an insane asylum and called it epistemology. Well,
35:33metaphysics, really, the nature of reality. Imagine a realm where everything was opposite.
35:40Things that didn't exist existed, and things that did exist didn't exist, and things that were
35:44self-contradictory existed, and things that were not self-contradictory didn't exist. I mean,
35:51honestly, people pull this stuff and try and spread and share this stuff, and they are courting and
35:59spreading craziness, mental illness, mental dysfunction. I guess you could make an imaginary realm
36:07where the opposite of the truth was the truth, and you could make an imaginary realm where the
36:13opposite of existence was existence. Yeah, I mean, we can't really conceive of that. So, you're creating
36:19a realm of opposites. Okay? But you can't say anything about that realm, and there's no evidence that that
36:25realm exists so we can access it, or has any reality whatsoever. It's like trying to base physics
36:33on your nightly dreams. You can't do it. And so, when people say God exists beyond space and time,
36:41they're saying that there's something that is not existence outside of existence. There is something
36:49that is not existence that is existence. Everything is subject to time, and what people are saying is
36:57there are things outside of time that exist. Everything that exists is subject to time.
37:04That's one of the characteristics of existence. If you could imagine something that appeared and
37:10disappeared in the same instance, that would be pretty much the same as non-existence.
37:14I could say that there are tiny things materializing and vanishing in front of me as I
37:19walk and talk. It would be the same as them not existing at all. Everything that exists has to be
37:26measured, which means it exists throughout a period of time. And so, existence is consistency,
37:35logical consistency. It's not a thing and it's opposite at the same time. Existence is logical
37:39consistency. Existence is empirical observation, the capacity to be detected by empirical observation.
37:48Even if you can't see the thing itself directly, like a gravity, you can see the effects of the
37:56thing, which is mass attracting mass. So, everything that exists is logically consistent. Everything that
38:03exists is empirically observable in some manner, or the effects thereof. You can't see a black hole,
38:10you can see the effects. And everything that exists is subject to time. So, it basically is just a
38:18exercise in mental derangement and self-flagellation to say, yes, but maybe that which exists is self-contradictory,
38:26not subject to time, and not subject to empirical observation, and not subject to time. Or you've
38:35just taken the definition of non-existence and say, well, what if that which doesn't exist, exists?
38:41And that's mental illness. I mean, it's mental illness. I view people as mentally ill, like,
38:46and not only mentally ill, but coughing and spraying their mental illness upon others,
38:52because they're spreading this brain-eating virus. What if the opposite of truth was truth?
38:59Well, you can't say that. What if the opposite of going north was going north? It's like, by
39:06definition, that's just not what it is. You're proposing something self-contradictory in its very
39:11essence and definition. Don't do that. Don't do that. Don't have and spread mental illness.
39:18Don't have and spread craziness, corruption. You are hamstringing the human mind. You are
39:26a brain virus attacking the rational consistency of life and thought. It's wretched. And the reason
39:34why you don't want to define evil and corruption is because in the harm that you're doing, you are
39:40malevolent and corrupt. So the reason why people don't want to define good and evil and truth and
39:45falsehood is that they are corrupt liars. And any more than people who make their money from
39:51counterfeiting are going to work very hard to build and develop a counterfeit detection machine,
39:56people who lie and hurt and corrupt others. This is a form of philosophical or intellectual sadism.
40:02Of course you have it. You know this. It is a form of intellectual, moral, and philosophical
40:08sadism. And the sadist doesn't want people to avoid his cruelty. So he will define the truth
40:19as being uncertain. There's no such thing as certainty. He would be perfectly certain about
40:24that. And then like all corrupt people, he wants to create a rule and immediately exempt himself.
40:28So I hope that makes sense. Freedemand.com slash donate to help out to the show. Shop.freedemand.com
40:33for your tasty merch. Freedemand.com slash books and peacefulparenting.com. Thanks everyone. Bye.
Comments