Freedomain Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 On the second call, how come Stefan takes offense when the caller implies "magical thinking" on Stefan's part but then later on proceeds to dismiss the caller mid-argument calling it a "word-salad"? Furthermore, what's the point in interrupting the caller, going on a diatribe about bears, then asking the caller to rephrase his argument because he didn't understand it even though the caller didn't have a chance to finish it on his first try? I got really annoyed during this call as you can see. Each time I was trying to listen to what the guy had to say he was interrupted and mocked. Are the "funny voices" meant to be entertaining or annoying because if it's the latter good work. Then the caller also got called out for not being able to talk to the public Socrates style, which is very informative because I had no idea Socrates was never able to go through a line of reasoning without being cut off right before he was about to clarify his point. But no, I'm sure the caller's real problem was him using the word "orthogonal". I have read Art of The Argument and I don't remember there being a chapter called "So what you're saying is...". Maybe it will be available in future editions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Hi @Wuzzums Please don’t take it as an offence when I say from my perspective the way you described your annoyance in a passive aggressive way is hilarious and entertaining. Almost to the point of good comedy-mockery, you've got a witty delivery for sure. I can see your points being in the debate, on the overall however I disagree. (maybe those things didn't bother you as much. They did crank me up more, regardless the debate being taxing at times but reeeeally instructive for insights into hard-core determinism.) Is it true that Stefan Molyneux praised the caller quite a few times too? (more specifically where 'caloric investment - brain...') Did the caller act in the debate, throughout, with intellectual integrity, honesty? Would you say that the caller updated his principles when a superior argument was presented? Would you say that the caller was trying to understand and follow Stefan Molyneux's argumentation just as much (or close to it) as he did with the caller's? Respectfully, Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 @barn Well that was the thing. I don't know what the conversation was about. Stefan had his usual arguments but I can't say I understood the caller's perspective. I rewinded several times but his arguments still seemed disjointed because he would change his train of thought after each interruption. Nonetheless I suspect his determinist stance was the same as Sam Harris' which is iron clad. There are no counterarguments to this brand of determinism because it redefines free-will as essentially being omnipotence. Basically because we have limits on the choices we can make, like the laws of physics, we are limited therefore we can predict with 100% accuracy what we can't do. This is why Stefan was so confused when the caller said determinism includes choice. We can't choose the thoughts we don't have because being able to choose them implies having them... therefore determinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, Wuzzums said: @barn Well that was the thing. I don't know what the conversation was about. Stefan had his usual arguments but I can't say I understood the caller's perspective. I rewinded several times but his arguments still seemed disjointed because he would change his train of thought after each interruption. (1) Nonetheless I suspect his determinist stance was the same as Sam Harris' which is iron clad. There are no counterarguments to this brand of determinism because it redefines free-will as essentially being omnipotence. Basically because we have limits on the choices we can make, like the laws of physics, we are limited therefore we can predict with 100% accuracy what we can't do. This is why Stefan was so confused when the caller said determinism includes choice. (2) We can't choose the thoughts we don't have because being able to choose them implies having them... therefore determinism. True. Adamantium level iron-clad. (1) I suppose, one can't reasonably believe an immovable object could be dislocated, only if it was pushed from the right angle... anxiety. Especially if (the second caller) any grip you might try to hold onto, realigns itself to prevent your each and every attempt. Mortified to be revealed, must be a pitiful existence. It's dangerous to be around such people. (2) Sort of like The Library of Babel,with Immanuel Kant locked up inside somewhere... hehe. I even created a thread, here. Care to take a gander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmen Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Question 4: [2:33:29] This part is not available to me, question 3 start over again at this stamp, whats wrong? https://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/4008/the-dangers-of-false-forgiveness-call-in-show-february-14th-2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 A 'white-cat' glitch in the matrix... Yes, the same intro is repeated but afterwards the new caller is continued with, going forward. (4th caller - forgiveness) Just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts