I like this new trend on youtube where people who don't agree on something (in this case a religious person and an atheist) still have cordial and meaningful discussion around the subject they disagree on. So refreshing.
Imagine, just two years ago, each of these two likely didn't even know of the other let alone would they have had a conversation. It's nice to see an increasing amount of people along the opinion and idea spectrum talking to each other.
Just caught up with all the interviews and now new material. My heart is pounding. People say you can have too much of a good thing but so far I say "keep it coming".
You should watch this then: /watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ It's an in depth analysis of that debate by JP himself with an actually great interviewer this time plus a lot of other cool topics, you can really feel the difference between ideologically possessed individual and someone that is free from it.
Well lobsters are virtually immortal so we got that but theyre also very delicious so we gotta contend with that too. Be delicious and dont get into traps is a good motto. I think Peterson does a very good job demonstrating how to avoid traps, especially on tv Interviews.
Randy Kalff - Yeah... no. Was up to 5am reading some rule book, written by a lobster I think. i7fan, there's two things in this world I hate: people who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch.
+Sean Carlin If it constantly stops abruptly, it was indeed written by a lobster. The amount of pencils and pens they go through is insane with that grip. Also, I feel like I've stumbled into the wrong neighborhood. Much like an infidel in a Muslim no go zone.
These conversations you have, Dr. Peterson, with people such as Michael Shermer and Jonathan Haidt are, to me, even more interesting than the lectures you give (and I'm a huge fan of your lectures) because in them we see you trying to build bridges, revising your concepts and considering new information, rather than just restating your beliefs, which, for someone like me, who have watched pretty much all your lectures, may lead to fanaticism or close-mindedness. Congratulations on the initiative and thank you for sharing such inspiring content.
I click, and listen to the whole hour plus I hope to ... although I need to get back and finish his lecture V in the "Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories. PS-- why does he always say 'anyways' .... can we date him back a few decades to see if this has always been the case?
Wow, Shermer and Peterson in the same video -- no moderator, no studio audience, just two of my favorite guys talking about _something_ , and wasting not a single word in doing it. Today is a good day.
Jordan Peterson would inevitably become a flat earther, quit slaying dragons, and the world would devolve into chaos. But his rubber guard would be on point
Nice to see 2 very smart and honest individuals discuss topics and not be threatened by entertaining radically different-from-science perspectives like theology or new-age mumbo jumbo, and not be at eachothers throats, and not be arguing over semantics. This was a great discussion and really captures the power of the information age, imagine in years past all the bright people having conversations like this in private with limited or no ability to share the wisdom to others.
What Shermer describes at 15:20 (different levels / reference frames) is a concept formally addressed within certain Buddhist traditions as the Doctrine of Two Truths. Briefly, the notion is that there are Ultimate / Absolute truths (which pertain to the fundamental nature of sensate reality), and Provisional / Relative truths (which pertain to the mundane conditions of daily life). Peterson juxtaposes these two perspectives within the broader context of postmodernism at 56:44, stating: "I think the problem with the post-modernists [ ... ] is that they got their initial criticism right, which is that there's an infinite number of ways of interpreting a finite set of phenomena." True from an absolute perspective. "But," he continues, "there isn't an infinite number of VALID ways of interpreting a finite set of phenomena." True also, but this time from a relative perspective. It seems to me that the Two Truths Doctrine relates rather closely to Hume's Is / Ought problem. Absolute truths are invariably formulated in terms of Is, while relative truths invariably pertain to Ought. To my mind, this explains why efforts to take descriptions of absolute truth and project them whole cloth onto mundane experience (Harris' Buddhist-derived takes on agency and the self come to mind) are intellectual curiosities at best, and outright dysfunctional at worst. At any rate, thought-provoking material as always. Thanks to all involved.
To add to this, listen at 17:00 where Shermer relates Level in time, also. Alve's Error is in getting the correct time reference point, too. February Scientific American, Skeptic's Corner writes more about this! Perspective includes time frame, level, and perspective of language/culture.
No you silly goose! He's a dead god and we need to breathe bubbles into his quantum holes to revive Osiris and resorb the foetus of the old world into the here and now that we might attain revelation and achieve redemption! Will you shut the heck up and help us find these damn quantum holes!
This is the reason I’m shocked when I hear someone say I’M BORED. If I got a hold of a conversation like this on a cassette tape back in 80’s and I knew I could go listen to it while I relaxed in bed I would’ve been so happy. And then came a tablet and high speed internet. Well...no need to get into it. It’s just so god damn terrific. Thank you free time.
Anyone else super stoked for JBP and his future? He has overwhelming support in most areas (just look at the comments and the like/dislike ratio of the C4 interview), amazing success with his book, incredible financial support, and products like this video with other interesting public figures. There is no substitute for *genuine* long form conversation. Mainstream media is crumbling and it's no surprise. People are growing tired of being told what and how to think. The strongest views and convictions come as a result of listening to people "battle it out" and letting the best ideas win. I cannot begin to express how much Jordan has influenced me and changed my mental attitude. Every day I strive to become more articulate and gain the courage to speak my truth, even in the face of a mountain of misinformation and misinformed people.
I was raised in my religious tradition and left it. Listening to this and other Jordan Peterson interviews in particular, has called my mind back to things I was taught as a kid and given me the social/temporal context that has unlocked their relevance in time and space for me. I considered scriptures I read as a kid a little disturbing in their specific political-spiritual themes, because I was born in 86 and went to public school. But as I listened to this the words of Alma 30:17-18. I didn't even know I remembered that scripture. So I just looked up and read the chapter at work; I'll be re-reading that book! After all the education I've been receiving from JP as to the history I've never learned in school, I am starting to realize the literal, temporal and transcendent relevance of what I was taught growing up. In sure it would have seemed more vital to me if I had any understanding of the relevant events of my own century. Thank you, Sir.
I am very disappointed Peterson likes Shermer. Randal Carlson is right about catastrophic climate change, Shermer is a "skeptic" that protects the mainstream view by being skeptical of advancement.
exactly the internet is our generations TV. Its just a matter of people supporting quality content on social media and stuff, bringing it to the surface
@@LilleyAdam He takes the Bible "literally, but not literalistically". In other words, he sees that there is truth in the Bible, but does not see it as an authority beyond the truth it presents.
I love how Dr. Michael Shermer smiles when Dr. Peterson gives the Thumbnail-Analogy at 14:11 . I love it when 2 clever individuals give each other new perspectives and they enjoy it, this is so good. thank you for that
...the dragon steps on the lobsters tail, making him scree in pain and hunch over in despair... The lobster turns to the rat and asks, "what are you giggling at!" And the rat replies, "what makes you think im giggling"?
Shermer you sound so much more intelligent and tolerable to listen to when you’re discussing these ideas at a deeper level rather than trashing the oppositions’ during a Rubin interview. Should do another one of these with Peterson sometime
Jordan, I saw you being critical of yourself over the channel 4 interview. None of us are perfect and you are always erring on the side of caution and showing restraint as you should. Refining your manner and striving towards a more effective approach in all public discourse. That is of course, excellent. However you also need no shame. Your level of integrity and character are very much intact and have impressed a great number of people. At least I'd like you to have that as encouragement while you continue to be as tough on yourself as you see fit.
JBP’s interruptions bugged me in this discussion. Shermer is often derailed by JBP before he finishes his thoughts. Still love Dr. Peterson of course. He’s said himself in a video that he has a tendency to talk too much in some of his discussions.
They both kind of take up more time than the other would like. They like to hear themselves talk...they’re professors. But really, they seem to only interrupt each other when they find some exception or perspective that needs to be unpacked.
We are all describing the same thing; nature. nature is a fixed set of dynamic relationships where nothing happens without cause. We can surround that and together call out what we see; from each angle we see it; and together find exactly how tall the building is from it's shadow.
I have been following Dr. Shermer for a decade now; himself, Dawkins and Hitchens have been responsible for introducing me to critical thinking. Dr. Peterson is a recent addition to my knowledge base, and my room could not have been cleaner. Watching them together first time was a dream come true. Hope to see more of them together.
Side Note #2: No one person has awaken me more than you JBP. Thank you for what you do, specifically, thank you for opening my eyes to taking on responsibility and showing me that it is directly linked to meaning.... Thank you, Bucko.
Christian Atheist here. Grew up Lutheran, rejected it many years later. Now I enjoy hearing you recite Biblical passages and how they can improve my life without needing to believe in a god.
I don't understand how neither distinguish intellects are so off the mark on Christian theology. Christianity is never properly been about exclusively the afterlife as a destination to the exclusion of your, or anyone else's quality of life. It very clearly emphasizes, through Christ's earthly ministry, the individual connection to the divine by aligning your consciousness to the creator through the concept of the Holy Spirit in order to mitigate suffering and maximize good in the present. The Christianity discussed here is clearly a straw man. Equally frustrating is Mr. Shermer's continued inclusion of Islam in the discussion of Judaism and Christianity. Zoroastrianism has more in common Judeo-Christian religious tradition. The first Christians were essentially messianic Jews. Islam is superficial similar and fundamentally different, not the other way around. Enjoyed the discussion though.
My experience with Christianity was that it was almost entirely about the afterlife. Could've been my own warped view (I just wanted a way to escape death), but I saw that reflected in the behavior of my Christian peers (acting like this life really didn't matter much, focusing on materialism). Also, our church taught that you were saved no matter what as long as you "believed". I guess I found it hard to understand the point of mitigating suffering / maximizing good if I was already saved, and what I was taught wasn't really doing me any favors in getting over that. (Not that I still think that.)
βασιλέως Φίλιππος I'm no theologian but aren't t the "kingdom of hevean" and the "kingdom of earth" different. I mean I remember a passage that talks about a new heaven and a new earth. Also in the Bible I'm pretty sure it was stated that god was in heaven(New Testament iirc). And Jesus ascending to heaven. I'm fairly certain that the "kingdom of heaven" was an actual name in the New Testament unless it was just a translation error.
It is so refreshing to hear two remarkably intelligent people have a deep and respectful discussion on very profound issues. Unlike the profanity-riddled tripe that passes for talk on 99.99% of the internet.
This conversation reminded me a lot of Sam Harris waking up podcast - and that's a really good thing. An in depth discussion on an interesting topic of expertise by two deeply interested and interesting people. Real interesting fodder for thought.
Shermer and the Prof do a very good job of conversing. I am one of the approx Trillion of the Profs' fans, and have seen him convo'ing with a few. It would be good to see more with these two.
Of all the New Atheists, Shermer is the one of which I have the most respect intellectually. Dawkins is the Jerry Falwell of Atheism. Hitchens was probably the greatest wordsmith of the late 20th century. Harris is the most honest of the bunch (honestly, who would have the fortitude to forthrightly declare the logical conclusions of his worldview in denying that free will exists due to determinism) But Shermer works through philosophy well, even if I have profound disagreements with him.
Please give one example of where Harris has been intellectually dishonest. Harris has been the only one in a debate with Peterson that has made Peterson look foolish. Don't believe me then watch their first debate go off the rails when trying to tackle what truth is. Peterson admitted in a followup video that he felt he failed to properly articulate what he meant by truth.
Question: Is innocence desirable and if so at wag at age does it become undesirable / a disadvantage, and how do you teach children to be less naive without making them too cynical?
JBP has said that there's no virtue in being harmless. it seems to me that the more you mature, the greater the burdens you are capable of taking on. you don't wanna take on too much too soon or you move too far into the realm of chaos so you probably have to calibrate or tailor it to the individual. still, there are some societal benchmarks so that you can say "by this age, a child should be capable of dealing with x, y, and z".
Innocence is ALWAYS desirable. Harmlessness is never desirable. They are not a one-to-one correspondence. Don't let a court case be the thing that teaches you that.
He cut out carbs from his diet and lost a lot of weight, mentioned it in an A&M. Also said he follows a pretty similar diet to his daughter, you can Bing for her blog.
Every time I log in to watch, I see that my notifications bell is turned off. I know 100% I had it on. This has happened a few times over the past week.
I do appreciate the consideration of religion in psychological terms, especially from Dr. Peterson who specializes in this field. It's certainly necessary from a purely functional approach that we pull back from the brink. But I think the attempt to divorce these concepts from an underlying metaphysic is a game for intellectuals. That isn't how most people live, and it won't ever be. The solution for the West, if it will ever gain widespread acceptance, has to be the mass adoption of a consistent metaphysic that incorporates all this. And it just so happens we have one. The one that founded the West, which I also wholeheartedly believe is true. These truths need to be recognized, but as objective truths, not merely as psychological tools. Dr Petersons pragmatism gives him widespread appeal, but it also limits the applicability of the solutions.
How do you know that his statements are only opinions? Do you assume that since you've yet to discover the objectivity of his statements that such an objectivity doesn't exist?
This is the kind of conversation I've been trying to have with people in bars for years....so satisfying to see others begin to get at that itch..and at the same time maddening. Where do I go to find people capable of articulating complex social and Philosoraptor ideas!!!!
Wow..."Deepak and I have become friends..." and "I've learned a lot from him," says Shermer. Fascinating to see how Peterson has been able to inject a little actual humility into the intellectual atmosphere, such that even the likes of Shermer have breathed it in a bit... ;-)
I'm a quarter of the way thru. Great discussion so far. Found it pretty interesting that Shermer went to a Christian evangelical school. Can't help but think that plays a role in his worldview today. Bit of opposites
And he continuous demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the Bible means, how to read it, and other such issues. His religion is scientism, and he uses his past as some kind of validation or position of authority when criticizing Christianity, yet demonstrates abject lack of scholarly understanding on anything related to Christianity. It is very obvious in all of his debates. Sam Harris is very similar in this regard, but Shermer makes the point of being a former evangelical Christian, which is doubly irksome.
Logos Truth Well put. Was thinking the same thing as I skimmed his interview with joe rogan earlier today. Some of the stuff he says makes me think he might be aware of his biases. Makes me wonder what drives him to do what he does
I forget exactly how he put it, but he said something like ... "concerning the timescale of the universe, either creation or not-creation is correct, but not both." And my Node of Perversity immediately piped up with "Not if time is circular, or looped..."
Jordan - How do you reconcile your claim that power is not the sole or primary factor in determining the shapes of our hierarchies and your admiration for Nietzsche who constantly refers to the will to power as the fundamental force that drives all life?
Rich0292 - I don’t see how that follows. Plenty of leaders have commanded respect without being “fair” and “just”. But even still you haven’t defined what fair and just mean so we’re no better off now than before your comment.
I'll answer with an analogy. Humans drink water every day. Of course, the thirst after going a day without water is incredibly uncomfortable. How do you reconcile the fact that water is not the sole or most valuable resource on Earth and the fact that water drives all life? Jordan sometimes talks about different hierarchies for different human qualities. For sure some hierarchies are determined by power. By coming from power I mean happening as a result of social or economical power. For example, by running a powerful company, you are up in the hierarchy of people who run companies - let's say, your company is up on the Forbes 2000 list. But if you become a tennis player, then no matter how much effort you put in, no matter how many championships you win, you will never appear in Forbes 2000. Further, your tennis skill is determined by the experience you got at the court. +Rich0292 No, a leader is fair if that leader has competence towards leading people, so to speak. Same with commanding respect. Why did you mention competence and power as if they were, basically, similar qualities? You haven't explained what you mean by competence in your opinion.
Piotr Czarnecki - You haven’t really addressed my question. Nietzsche’s point is that everything that involves the striving of life can in some sense be reduced to the will to power or will to life. Things that are not powerful cannot live and the ones that become the most powerful tend to be the most successful at living and propagating their genes, and so on. Even slave morality is characterized by this will to power even though it is obscured by a veneer of righteousness, justice, and equality; just like a wealthy businessman or pro tennis player, they are fundamentally motivated by will to power or what in analytic psychology might be called libido.
D Fiala - I’m familiar with most of Peterson’s work and I’m asking this question because it’s something that he has not addressed, and this example doesn’t address either. The chimps that take on a strategy of benevolence are still fundamentally motivated by the same forces as the tyrant: power. This may not be at a level of self awareness in chimps so let’s talk about humans. A sociopath with high intelligence who wants to amass wealth and sexual options, for instance, might take on a persona of benevolence if he decides that this is his best bet for achieving his aims. I think that Peterson doesn’t like biting this bullet because the postmodernists reduce everything to power and he wants to avoid taking on any of their views due to his negative disposition to the ideology as a whole.
Lucas Fabisiak -- I have answered your question, you are simply confused. On a couple points (not the least of which your conflation of the Will to Life and the Will to Power, two things Nietzsche distinguished at great length). Peterson disagrees with Neitzche's reduction of human motivation to the Will to Power. He does so in relationship to hierarchy in the way I mentioned above, and on Jungian and Piagettien grounds more generally. JP views Nietzsche as a brilliant critic, he doesn't worship him. They disagree on plenty of things. After your second post I added this: JP goes on at great length about these ideas in Maps of Meaning and Personality and it's Transformations. I do not believe your assertion of familiarity with his work.
I watched your interview with Cathy Whatever yesterday then dreamed you, on a flying sleigh, rescued me from a vicious three-headed snake. You, JBP, can save the world. God bless.
When you asked Shermer about his detachment from his once religious self, he avoids and circuits reasons he previously gave in other interviews. He once told of a paramour who was gravely injured and realized that a loving and protecting God would not have suffered such a thing on such an otherwise fine person and therefore does not exist as he once believed. It was classic disillusionment that befalls many. He basically left the girl behind(at least not speaking of her further) and threw himself into other pursuits. He is a thinker for sure.
People die and suffer so God cant exist right? It baffles me how these so called “intellectuals” have such flawed and childish logic. Who do they think they’re fooling with that argument?
Re listening to this and JP mentions a warping of time and space if a person was in a 'transcendental state', there is research on the converse concept looking at people in pain states (CRPS) and changes in peripersonal space/movement in space perception that shows an in co-ordination. So body state in high stress/pain perceive material reality differently to those in quiescent states at a basic physical level (objects feel heavier, surfaces rougher, distances are off when reaching without vision ... so visual/exteroceptive and body/proprioceptive maps are not aligned or consistently proportional). As this is based using 'nonstress' as the arbitrated normalized yardstick it would mean that if stress (suffering) was arbitrated as the normalized yardstick then 'nonstress/transcendental' states would be perceived as materially different. Visual perception is proportioned, proportion can be expressed as a ratio, so it is also rationalized relative to bodily states. Not necessarily just kinesthetic/proprioceptive but also potentially interoceptive/metabolic?
When it comes to understanding the underlying nature of reality, I really do believe the ancient yogis and mystics get the closest to it. Its a shame that now a days people often conflate it with obscenity or superficial concepts of their idea of"mysticism" or just plain banality. Ultimately we see the world not as it is but as it is perceived to our minds. This is the ultimate goal of the human condition, to improve the "resolution" as JP would say, to become closer to a reality that is deeper and truer not just for us but those alike us, because we are inevitable apart of the same thing. This is an endeavor that cannot be understood purely intellectually, it has to be experienced , bone through bone- in this plane. And it all starts inevitably within yourself.The meaning of it all isn't an intellectual question, science has given us a lot, but it'll give us no more in this area. The mystics would say that the objective world and subjective appears different, and it is, for all purposes different, but that's only at a surface level. Most of western civilization dwells on the "Surface level" of things. Ultimately, as cliché as this sounds, which is I believe( although i could be mistaken) mostly the unfortunate making of western society; Everything is one. All is one and the one is all. The origins of life on this planet from single organisms to the creation of the universe and beyond are different sides of the same coin. The separation of, and the organization of the ego and of identity is necessary in this plane, *tendencies* as the yogi would say, an almost infinite number of expressions of being understood subjectively. The analogy to a bubble that has been blown, but when it bursts it simply goes to were it was before it existed, the air rejoins the atmosphere and the small drops of water and soap fall down to the grass, in both cases nothing is lost or gained because it was all one from the start. Creativity and expansion. Chaos into order, non being into being, unconscious to conscious. The cycle of birth and death, the alpha and the omega. God and the Devil. Understood through the lenses of the ego, but the hierarchy unfolds infinitely.
Eric Weinstein was on to more than I thought with his intellectual dark web idea.... I almost feel silly saying that, but it’s got me somewhat hopeful for the future, for once at least!
ThorosOfMyr Pretty sure he basically saying that people will use the web for intellectual discussions and expansion of ideas since it isnt going on openly in the societies. I could be wrong so hopefully someone elaborates.
Love is Dope I think you have it right. Can’t remember where he first coined the phrase. May have been on Sam Harris podcast. Would love to hear Eric and Jordan have a discussion. Eric is crazy intelligent and interestingly charismatic for a mathematician
Micah Mueller Yeah, that was a great talk regardless of what anyone here might think of Harris. Dr Peterson and Harris will actually have a third conversation together in June, fyi.
Wft?!?! ... "You think you don't believe, but I think you do ... but we have different definitions of what the word "believe" means" ???? What on earth are people supposed to do what that kind of nonsense? Let's start by ensuring that we are talking about the same thing... THEN we can discuss whether you are right in disagreeing with me.
Because, you ACT what you believe. Action, comes before belief. You can SAY you believe anything you want. You can lie about what you believe, to others or yourself. But actions are real time and on the fly. You dont think about how to act before you act. At that point you are running the program. So you can assess the truth about what a person believes, including yourself, by how you act. So when peterson says, but you live your life as if god exists, is to say, it doesnt matter if you SAY you dont believe in god, because you live your life as if you do. Usually refuting an athiests claim that judeo/christian morality is NOT resposible for our western code of ethics.
One issue of skeptic magazine changed my life. I grew up in rural Appalachia and ALL the people in my life that raised me were religious and superstitious, I never truly believed, no matter how hard I tried and had a lot of fear the hell always preached. The reasoning skills I gained from one issue freed me of all the bullshit. Got to love James Randi.
I actually love that ballistic movement thing Dr. Peterson mentions. When I was learning physiology - we learned about the golgi tendon of the body - which is the receptor that allows that ballistic movement to happen. It's basically before you even drop your arm - you already set the end point and the receptor feedback creates a reflex that stops your arm where you planned to. Playing games with this is very interesting. Like try to drop your Right fist below your left hand - but then try to stop it. You're going to overshoot, and you'll feel tight contractions in your triceps/shoulders. Super fun biological concept.
itsjustaride12 no.... That's so authoritarian... Don't get me wrong i love jbp, but u cult followers need to think long and hard about how you see this guy... He's not a god, he's not a prophet, he's a smart guy with some great ideas.
The terrifying fact of our live, our human condition is the we have almost no opportunity to make mistakes, to make wrong choices. The possibility to correct live deciding choices are slim to non existent. The window of opportunies are to small. Longevity will give human beings more, freedom, more chances to correct our mistakes, our bad choices.
12:20 to 13:50 I think they're both wrong. The idea that our "iconic" view of the world corresponds 1-1 to something "real" is just an assumption. If you see a shark in a dream, the image of a shark that you see does not correspond to a real, physical shark, even though you can see, hear, and feel the shark in your dream. You could say the dream shark corresponds to a psychological phenomenon in the subconscious or a grouping of neurons in the brain, but it doesn't correspond to an actual shark. Dreams are proof that experience doesn't necessarily correspond to an objective reality 1-1. To say that it does in the waking state is an unwarranted assumption. All you ever have is your subjective experience, and it may not correspond to reality at all. You could be dreaming right now!
Zach Fishman Well yes that‘s what Peterson means with our tool-like, low resolution and subjective perception of the things around us. It doesn‘t represent reality 1 -1 but it does correspond because we can use a chair. So the abstraction due to our perception is true enough in the manner that we can use it. So you can‘t say it doesn‘t correspond at all , it does, insufficient for a 1-1 icon but sufficient enough for us to perceive it and act/react so it works! -> our subjective conscious does correlate with the objective reality. And I don‘t think a unconscious dream proves the absence of a correspondence of the objective reality and our consciousness. The „we might live in a dream“ thing is just a question wether our world is real or if we live in a matrix or sth , not a question that can be answered and the world is real enough for me so that‘s ok. Have a wonderful day ! :)
Bunte Welt: Peterson makes a distinction between our perceptions as "functional icons, but also low resolution representations of the things that are actually there" (13:04) and computer icons as "just functional icons." He says that when you see a shark, your perception of the shark corresponds to the actual shark, which he claims is different from a trashcan on a computer desktop because on a computer screen the icon doesn't correspond to an actual, physical trashcan, only the function of a trashcan. All I'm saying is that this is an unfounded distinction. When we see a shark, it could be merely a functional icon. There may be no shark, even though you have a perceptual icon of it in your conscious experience, as is the case in a dream.
nick Weintraub is there evidence for that statement, or is the idea of evidence off limits for someone who doesn't believe in knowledge? If you don't believe in knowledge, why bother to share your comment?
Robert Cubley yes exactly. As far as I know Descartes wanted to know what is undeniably real and he came up with the conclusion that only subjective experience can be said to be self evidently real. "I think therefore I am," meaning that even if I am in a dream or a computer simulation and nothing that I experience corresponds to any sort of objective reality, one can not deny the existence of his own experience. The fact that you are perceiving something means that perception exists, even if the objects of your perception are merely hallucinations.
The phenomenon that Shermer talks about at the 43 minute mark; scanning the brain and uploading the data to a computer while the original human is intact, I've actually seen that exact idea before in science fiction. Specifically, Reki Kawahara explores this in his book series Sword Art Online, in volume 10 if I'm not mistaken. The way it happens in the book, is when they turn the computer on, once the AI copy realizes they're not the original they immediately have an intense existential crisis, and it's like their brain just deletes itself. Even when they tried this with soldiers that had intense coaching before the copying about how to cope with the idea of waking up inside a computer, even those went haywire and just kind of expired on the spot. It was portrayed as a deeply cruel and horrific death, such that the lead researcher couldn't stand listening to the death wails of the AI copies. It's like something deeply important about the nature of being was missing in the AI, like any semblance of humanity they had was completely violated simply by existing. I don't have some profound point to make about this. I just wanted to say that if this kind of topic interests you, Sword Art Online is a very fun read and I highly recommend it.
You might be a little disappointed with how tame it is. In a nutshell, people say that Reki Kawahara's books are creepy because about half the male villains are rapists totally given over to nihilism and hedonism and the other half are sociopaths with no regard for human life. Sword Art Online was adapted from Kawahara's books into an anime, and the first season of said anime contains a reasonably graphic almost-rape scene. Most anime fans tend to be overly sensitive towards anything sexual, so something like that tends to trigger people to the moon. Never mind the fact that more horrific things tend to happen to men in these books, (pretty much everyone either dies or experiences intense suffering at some point) and the female villains tend to be personifications of the Campbellian Tyrant, which is more creepy than a rapist. None of that matters to the average anime fans though because just the word sex gives them a conniption.
The christian concept of Heaven is incredibly transcendent. Your idea that their is a modern idea brought about by American cults in the 19th century i.e the Jehovah's witness.'
Mitchell Rutherford Are you responding to me? If so, then you don't know what you are talking about. Christianity lost its way and adopted pagan ideas of a disembodied eternal existence post death. You should really read NT Wright. Even the creeds used by Christian refer to the resurrection of the body. The idea of a separate non bodily existence after death is both pagan and heretical. Just because JWS happen to believe in a bastardized version of that means nothing.
The idea of bodily resurrection is connected to Jesus own bodily resurrection (which Jehovah's witness do not believe). And is rooted in first century judeo-christian world view. Do your research before you speak on matters in which you are ignorant.
