Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Douglas Murray and Jonathan Pageau | EP 290" video.

  1. "The fact that we see [a glass] as one is a total mystery to scientists" Human beings see the edges of things. If you ask a child to draw objects, they will draw edges. It's not that hard to perceive edges (parallax helps a lot, as does trying to pick stuff up and move it around) but it's not easy to teach a computer about edges, weirdly enough.
    2
  2. "I have only Jonathan's word that that is a drinking glass" Douglas, I'm afraid you have to give him more credit than that, these days. At least the sense-data you are viewing (unless you don't have video of them?) is consistent with Jonathan holding a drinking glass. There are people who will make claims contrary to observable evidence, these days, and they'll expect you to believe them, like they think they can impose the Asch Conformity Experiment on you.
    1
  3. "You can see that you can't have the civilization you want without Christianity, so why don't you just believe?" One does not follow from the other. A better question would be, "Could you support the church for your own reasons, and encourage (or at least get out of the way of) those who DO believe and are trying to spread belief?" Even that would help, if what you want is your civilization to flourish. Keep an ear open for God as well, as you go. =)
    1
  4. "We can go 99% but not that last 1%" We're not claiming that supernatural things happen all the time (although they could be extremely subtle). In fact, their rarity is the point, they are "signs and wonders" to get our attention. The miracles of the Resurrection and such are like the angels announcing Jesus' birth to the shepherds. They are landmarks saying "GOD IS HERE".
    1
  5. "Only love can make up for suffering, and that may be a universal instinct instead of being something learned from Judeo-Christian religion" When we check the teachings of those unexposed to Judeo-Christian religion (and there are very, very few in history) we find that that instinct is not very prevalent at all. Look in the Americas, look in ancient cultures, look in pre-Christian cultures, look in post-Christian cultures -- it's nowhere near so common as you think. Also worth considering, as Peterson points out with the Oedipal Mother, not all forms of "love" count.
    1
  6. "The thing that breaks nature is the thing that revivifies" Well, it'll get you out of that rut.
    1
  7. @Charm Ming It took an AI-controlled robotic arm a decade or two, to be able to pick up a champagne glass because of the edge problem. The fact that some solutions have been found, does not make it trivial. An object is not "a bunch of edges", an object is "that which is contained within its edges". Discovering where those edges are may be "reductive", but it's the sort of reduction that makes rational thought possible. My point is that seeing edges comes to humans -- even children -- very naturally, and it's vital to our understanding of the world. We can discuss the shortcomings of Enlightenment rational thought, I suppose; there's more to be said for Catholic sensory overload than public conversations often recognize. The fact that convolutional neural nets are basically artificial intuition, will be more and more recognized as people understand what "AI" really means.
    1