Question 1: [1:44] – “Stefan did a talk recently were he said something to the effect of: ‘Anytime there is a threat where someone is trying to edge lord over him the friendship is over.’ It seems to me all they have done is revealed ‘Their Contract' or what they need. How can you distinguish this type of behavior between the natural law of ‘if you conform to my contract I will continue to be your friend. If you deviate from this contract I will not.’ How are they different? He terminates the friendship because they have not fulfilled his contract and they terminate the friendship because he has not fulfilled there’s. Am I missing something?” Question 2: [32:14] – "What is the reason or evidence which convinces you of the existence of 'free will', and, if you were to trace a single human (just for example) decision back to its origins neurologically, what exactly *is* the thing which generates an 'axis of freedom' orthogonal-in-cause from all other known (or even unknown, but of which you'd admit to be classically constrained) types of causal interaction, and where exactly does it enter into the chain of otherwise-constrained events which we would call "deterministic"? This, I believe, and if I've modeled your worldview correctly, must be the fundamental crux of your purported difference between human cognition and the mere "data processing", with which you hand-wave away modern and future advancements in 'artificial' intelligence. If you cannot answer these simple questions with the same standard of rationality and evidence that you otherwise demand, then what is the difference between your belief in 'free will' and any other mystical belief? Lastly, if you were to entertain that 'free will' is a bogus concept, then all organic cognitive apparatus would be reduced to very sophisticated computers and removed from the unconstrained will, rather than AI being an attempt to do the opposite; In that case, how would you believe your models of awareness, meaning, and morality, would have to change to accommodate this fundamental fact?" Question 3: [1:45:55] – “I was raised in a conservative Christian home, but as an adult have rejected the faith of my parents. I have noticed that these recent years have seen many Christians embrace leftist ideals such as letting in more refugees while battling non-existent racism. Other Christians have gotten tired and disengaged from politics altogether with a ‘Lord Jesus come soon’ attitude. White Christian America is under attack, and I am angry to see it, but has Christianity not made the West vulnerable to exploitation but pushing a gospel of grace and forgiveness instead of loyalty to kin and country? As white people everywhere are asked to give more of their money and more space in their countries to second and third world immigrants and refugees, does Christianity really provide the backbone to protect ourselves from this invasion, or does it ask for too much grace to be extended to outside people groups?” Question 4: [2:33:29] – “I posit that holding on to traumas perpetrated on us is the logical consequence to the inability/unwillingness to forgive ... the need to exact reparations, revenge, perceived justice (which really cannot ever be actually or satisfactorily realized in the case of these terrible abuses) and to somehow ‘right’ the wrong will never leave us as long as we (to milk the analogy) withhold the forgiveness of the debt. It has at least been my experience that until we stop expecting to be "reimbursed" and move on, our own personal happiness (and functionality) is mightily impacted. I think it would be really interesting to work through the philosophy of forgiveness. What is your stance on forgiveness?” Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Listen to the Podcast
Men and Women Are Different | Janusz Korwin-Mikke and Stefan Molyneux Watch the video