Comments by "Luke Thompson" (@WhiteStoneName) on "PowerfulJRE" channel.

I'd really like Joe to break down for the difference between angels and aliens in his mind, besides labels and/or using scientific vs philosophical language.
1
@markgarcia6887 I think that’s likely true. Scientists are beginning to talk of logos a bunch, or so I’ve heard. Whatever. Invent new words without baggage. There’s nothing new under the Sun.
1
Joe, try talking to an actual religious practitioner or scholar of early Christianity. Speak to a solid Orthodox or Catholic or Coptic priest or bishop. Bishop Barron or John Behr would be good examples.
1
14:02 what makes you think it would be easy for AI to create its own language? Tolkien “created” some. Rearranged. But CREATE? Idk. See below on Wittgenstein’s tiger language. Brave AI: Tigers' Unspoken Values The concept that if a tiger could speak, we might not understand it because we lack knowledge of its desires and values was explored by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein famously stated, "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him," suggesting that the world and experiences of a lion are so different from ours that communication would be ineffective. This idea is further elaborated upon in discussions about the necessity of shared cultural and experiential contexts for meaningful communication. Without these shared contexts, the meanings conveyed by words are lost, as illustrated by the example of surgeons and nurses using familiar terms in different settings. Moreover, the notion extends beyond philosophical musings to practical observations, such as the inability to comprehend conversations about unfamiliar topics, like detailed discussions about video games or specific professional jargon.
1
Joe should have Firas Zahabi back on to talk about Science again. He's still not getting it.
1
@nierlindin1006 idk. I would push on define "exist". And then explain to me how existence works. I start with ontology, not epistemology. Like with 1) how does this supernatural entity *exist*. That's a complicated discussion. John Vervaeke (who recently spoke to Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau and Bishop Barron) actually talks about the difference btw atheism and nontheism, which is rooted in a lot of premodern philosophy/theology. 2) That just presupposes the existence of both matter and consciousness, which is hard dualism. 3) I agree. We are all agnostic in that sense in a post-Enlightenment, post-modern frame. But just because you can't know something with pure objectivity, does not mean that we cannot know it truly. 4) I like some aspects of Rand, but that is nominalism. And I'm not a fan. How does abstraction exist?
1
Nob for sure.
1
10:25 "How do you make that leap?" Why is that the leap? You're assuming that you are starting without presuppositions. Where are you starting from? Base reality? You don't have a perspective or context or filters? Salience!! Listen to more Jordan Peterson. Particularly his last two youtube drops. Or better yet, have him back on to talk about science and consciousness.
1
The anti-Cuties crowd is well-intentioned, but way off base, imo. They misapply their logic. What about child actors in horror films? In films with violence or physical abuse or (fill in the blank)? No. It’s representative of our culture! What about all the girls who are having that experience daily? I watched the film, and it’s good.
1
That's not how the appeal to authority fallacy works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
1
1:26:50 Christ the Eternal Tao The identity of identity and non-identity. But not abstractly. The Divine Human Being: the person. The Conscious Unity of Multiplicity.
1
Who is down voting this? Good grief. How is this a bad conversation, even if you disagree with the points being made? Seems to me that only ideologues would dislike this. Or people that don't like open dialogue.
1
1:44:30 Meaning or utility? How are those related?
1
Replicants. Ideologues. Identitarians. Not people. Agreed.
1