It will definitely be an interesting one.

quick debate it is not

some of jung's work isnt a bad idea either

I mean if we were to treat the issue as a chess match you could say that sort of reasoning is a check mate

ybut nothing much is accomplished at that point

bronco is hyped

i actually think discussing JP is rather interesting

i think the only reason people tend to take a strong stance on the issue of his theism is because theres a lot to dissect

sure.

thats interesting. it seems like you have your mind really settled on the matter.

hmm, i see what youre saying.

lol

it can be a pretty circular conversation, i mean thats pretty evident by the discussion he had with dillahunt and harris

but i honestly dont think its an empty vessel

I'd second the question

no idea lol

so derranged for short

elaborate.

not everyone wants to live in a small village, and people who would like to do that are welcome to do it.

done talking about peterson? the show today is going to be about it..

Here. we. go.

👍

I share the importance to highlight definitions.

I think for example that one of the main obstacles in the JP and sam harris discussion was the definition of god

i really think even once you get past the definition theres still a bigger issue at hand

which is whats the need for one. and why do you need to believe in one.

if you say god is the ultimate ideal you strive to meet, then the word god just becomes a label.

ah huh.

that is interesting.

mhm

To be frank I dont have any background on that reference.

I just read up a little.

very interesting

"the "seeds of Christianity" (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ's incarnation. This notion allows him to claim many historical Greek philosophers (including Socrates and Plato), in whose works he was well studied, as unknowing Christians."

It doesn't take much for people to fool themselves (confirmation bias). in this instance im pretty sure that figure 10 from god knows which article, paper, or study is more than enough evidence to show that racism is systemically rampant.

the source is quoted, but a google search brings back nothing related to the bar graph.

even assuming that the data has been collected and represented carefully, doesn't really imply that there is a systemic racist prevalency. Theres no causal link, its only numbers. it just might be the case that there is a higher number of black people who possess marijuana on them.

“We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,”

"Although subjects are free to choose when and which button to press, the experimental set-up restricts them to only these actions and nothing more"

I dont think there's any strong evidence to support either biological determinism or free will. and then again you have to contend with the definition of free will.

we just dont have a profound understanding of brain function to make a valid assumption even.

you could, but it doesnt mean it has to be rooted in reality.

no, its based in psychology. which marketing and advertisement exploits.

cheers!

well the two decisions were based on two different lines of thinking. both of them have been considered by your mind at many points in the past. it would depend on which world view you subscribe to, for example "im going to treat myself yolo" or "too much sugar, i shouldnt."

I do understand that its not really speaking relative to the study structure. but in essence there's a lot more complexity that the decision is ultimately built upon.

there's no consideration to the effect of the subconscious on decisions you make and free will. No consideration to basal levels of brain activity, or basal levels of neurotransmitters, or possible gateway effects for amplification or neuronal signaling.

of*

theres a lot more research needed to answer a lot simpler questions, before we ever have what it takes to tackle free will

well, I wouldn't say its futile, but I don't think it will lead to a distinct result, it will have the benefit of it being an argumentative exercise i suppose

I just think that to lean on the side of biological determinism is to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making a choice. philosophically speaking I dont think its beneficial

I haven't looked into it or read

is there a link?

hmm, i wouldnt like to say what i think unless i know more about what he hypothesizes

because from what you said, one could easily make the counter-argument that people make choices that lead to miserable dead ends all the time.

again, I dont know the specifics of his hypothesis, but if its just as simple as you laid it out, then certainly that would be an argument.

yeah, you can even see peterson react to it interest and excitement. I think its fascinating way of looking at it. a lot can be said and exctracted from it.

No, they both are not athiest, i dont think so.

i dont know in what context it was said

einstein said god doesnt play dice with the universe, he didnt believe in god.

I dont know if they had defined god a certain way or if he was talking about a literal jesus as god

I think he acknowledges an importance that is laced with a concept of god, maybe a metaphorical one.

i dont think he denies its existence or importance.

you require god, because logic is in a lot of instances is just not enough. You can't use logic to extract wisdom.

wisdom comes from stories and myths

they are distillations of thousands of years of knowledge that logic can't extract or unpack for each specific situation of being.