You, Peterson, Shapiro, the Weinstein bros, David Frum, Anne Applebaum, Juliette Kayyem, Jill Taylor, and Jocko should move into a large beach front home captured by a camera crew Jersey Shore style. Sneak some deep philosophical debates into American life.pic.twitter.com/AwQHvhruVy
-
-
-
Tonight on, “Occam’s Shore” Jocko confession cam, “I don’t care if Sam has free will, or not, he’s cleaning the kitchen. Hitting club Karma with Jordan is always a GOOD time.”pic.twitter.com/Pv6MTPe8kP
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
So you’re saying lobsters have more free will than women?
-
@a75donethis Ha! I lost it. I am surprised more people have not caught on to this. 3 Jokes in one. Nice.
-
I wanna know the joke
Explain? -
That was an awesome interview. Do you like that guy? Never heard of him till now
-
Yes Jordan Peterson is an interesting thinker and smart guy. He sparred with Sam Harris on a podcast and it went bad for Jordan. They were discussing truth and he tried to fit evolutionary fitness into truth and it went awry for JBP. They redid a podcast but Sam sounded reluctant
-
The first podcast was really a lengthy discussion on epistemology. There was so much interesting ground to cover but they couldn’t even get past “What is true?” so it was 2 hours of not getting much farther than arguing about what is true.
-
The 2nd one still felt, awkward. Because in Sam’s voice it was detectable that he wasn’t all that enthused to be doing a 2nd podcast with him, given how bad the first one went.
-
But as of recently, Sam says there’s often 90% of agreement between them. So he seems hopeful that the third time’s a charm and they’ll have a much better discussion. JBP seems to have great discussions everywhere else. So it was so odd that it went bad on Sam’s podcast
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
On the one hand it is before and so in theory it can be stopped but at the same time in a deterministic world it is inevitable.The question to me is since consciousness is ill defined in a QMical universe how do we know either way.Both positions are equaly valid logically.
-
So how do you wager?
-
I dwell on the concept of consciousness. It's relationship with QM is strange. Part of me thinks that we only see a slice of reality but i see no evidence that we dont choose the slice.
-
But the randomness of QM wouldn't make sense for free will, either.
-
We cant say that. There could be some bizarre mechanism allowing some choice of wavefunction collaps-age. Not saying I think that just saying how do we rule it out. Some versions of reality i have conceived we all choose our own outcome. This becomes strange but still fits.
-
It seems clear that at some fundamental level consciousness and reality differ by a degree of freedom. I think this is at the centre of why QM seems to provide such strange results.
-
It makes me laugh how physicists seem to struggle with this. The scientific method is based on the primacy of observations however if reality is dependent on the observer it is clear that a more thoughtful approach is required. The xwife Philosophy might need to help a little.
-
I suspect someone might be constipated with Deepak Chopra. You Said "if". So You need to first establish that reality does dependent on the observer in the QM context you're proposing, as that's not what the Observer Effect means in QM
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Harris casually dismissing Peterson is a beautiful and underrated moment in history.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.