@@Paul-A01 you mean like smoke signals, writing on sand or message boards, we have a trust in the medium. That is all you are saying, or you dazzled by the tech lords hype and PR?
The mistake is to even begin to think that the theory of evolution can tell us something exhaustive about who we are. Scientists pretending to be philosophers but being embedded in a specific world view which the philosophers spend a lifetime trying to escape from and understand. This is related to consciousness. Something Jonathan discussed in his conversation with his brother on the main channel.
The materialist says, "truth" and they refer to "that which can be known." The person of faith says, "Truth," and they refer to "that which is beyond what we (can) know."
Im following what Jonathan is saying here, and while listening it sounds “right” or “true” haha. But I can’t help myself from being dragged back into wanting scientific facts to ground me in reality, especially in the state of the world right now where people believe they can make “their own truth” and go against what is scientific fact. How does one stand up for truth, when it seems like this concept of truth or reality Jonathan is speaking about seems subjective without the notion of God. And with a misunderstanding of God or even the absence of God, this will inevitably lead to chaos and disorder. It’s late, I hope that made sense…any response would be appreciated. Just trying to work this out in my head lol.
It’s not about the artificial conditions of the lab. It’s about not being able to even start to think about it without the whole edifice of consciousness and hierarchy that they take for granted and indeed can’t even see, as they don’t see the air that we all breathe.
“Whatever research you want to do, make sure you connect it to climate change or you won’t get funding.” Wisdom bestowed to me by the Ecology PhD students while getting my degree. In science, ‘truth’ is what gets funded.
I think you nailed it but I'll add, the scientific method usually followed is to try to isolate the phenomenon under investigation, to isolate and isolate such that we can determine exact cause and effect, eliminate all unkowns. This is distorting reality and calling it fact.
Yes, however, It is impossible to eliminate all unknowns. For example, when the passage of time results in undetected changes in previously unknown variables, incorrect conclusions about causation frequently arise.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 Because you've put the object of study in a vacuum. In reality, everything interacts with everything else and so if something has been separated from this reality, you are no longer studying reality.
@@MarcInTbilisi No, it's been separated from stimuli. "Everything interacts with everything else" That is not true. How does a Bumble Bee interact with a Whale? There maybe a connection, as them both being life forms, without interaction. Would the Moon orbit the Earth if you didn't exist?
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 a bee can interact with a whale, the question is, to what degree? For the whale it is 'in the noise' but maybe not for the bee. If I didn't exist the moon would orbit differently but of course we can't measure the difference.
I think the word “agreement” is key here. The truth that people have agreed upon has always been something …fluid. Thinking that the world will fly apart without “facts” we can all agree on is a very modern phenomenon, and it shrinks actual truth to something that does not allow people to live really well. I’m just waiting for one of these guys (like Bret or Harris) to fully define “better”. It can’t be done without diving into the metaphors they claim to live without. Sigh….
I didn't really know what this series is about and reading the comments is hard woik. This truth - personal/universal /contextual - can be experienced practically - without all the religious/scientific/technical jargon (bordering on dogma). If one - reclaims the human heart - as one's spiritual centre ...... this same wonderful heart - can be worthily used and relied upon - to answer - truthfully - all the questions - minute and mighty. The heart - has to cleaned up and loved - for what it really is - the Divine core - within humans. It is a matter of practical experience, of course. It is the truth - lived - closest to oneself. (Hint from meditation aspirant) Fare thee well.
I think a good metaphor is the difference between analogue and digital information in computer science, the first is nature as is and the second is an approximation. Scientific truth is the safe range where we can be sure -- Though it's not the god of the gaps argument, just pointing out an aspect --
The laboratory is the most artificial conceivable environment. Most of experimental design is about figuring out how to shoehorn reality into the lab. We don't live in the laboratory, where scientists do backwards handstands trying to isolate a specific variable. The idea that the lab is a higher order of truth than human experience is untenable.
The problem was noted by Piaget. To realize that truth is based on trust you must compart two formal operational concepts. Truth and trust are abstractions, so abstract must be compared to abstract. The scientist will attempt to operationalize the abstract into physical procedures that can be measured. They think in terms of concept plus something physical (concrete operations). If you remove the physical part they are completely lost. Weinstein is a scientist and cannot make the transition. To be fair the super-genius scientist Hawking made the same mistake in one of his final books. When he talked about something coming from nothing in the creation of the universe, he was never able to conceive of the philosopher's definition of nothing, e.g., that of which rocks dream. He always defaulted to a quantum vacuum, something that philosophers would say is much more than nothing.
This reminds me a lot of the logical positivism movement of philosophy. Part of its structure was the verification principle: everything that is cognitively meaningful can be verified through a scientific experiment. This was used to attack universal statements. The problem was that the verification principle is ITSELF a universal statement. How do you prove that everything true is provable? Godels theorems show that's quite unlikely. As A. J. Ayers said: "The greatest defect of positivism was that nearly all of it was false."
And if you dont trust your instruments and reason, you go insanely doubting everyting in Cartesian steps led by the prideful luciferian intellect that wants to base existence upon itself and trusts no one and nothing. Sadly satan is so opossing that he doesnt trust even himself. Ending in the self consuming loop of death.
"He shall fall down into a pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason." "Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise." -Liber Al vel Legis II:27 and 32.
"There is exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere "becoming", leaving no place for the changeless and permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this same "becoming", denying by implication true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, by which we mean the transcendent and universal principles." - Rene Guenon "The Vedantic and Buddhist distinction of empirical knowledge (valid for practical purposes, and prob-able) from the intellectually valid and axiomatic truth of first principles is the same as that of "opinion" from "truth" in Greek philosophy; opinion corresponding to "becoming", and truth to "Being"; opinion having to do with "that which begins and perishes" and truth with "that which ever is, and does not begin". - Ananda Coomaraswamy, Time and Eternity
The thing with athiest type is they tend to have some what superior conplex like theyre so sure they're right from the get go. Bret Weistein is one of the few that doesnt seem like so. And with that they're pretty much close off from ever expanding their comtemporary understanding beyond physical/ material reality. It'd rather dull to live in that world honestly.
"The thing with atheist type is they tend to have a (somewhat) superior(ity) complex" I find the exact same attitude in those that are NOT atheist. No we are NOT closed off to anything. We can experience many levels of Transcendence and experience the Luminous and beauty in life. It seems you don't really know anyone who is Atheist, you're just checking off boxes of what you think we're supposed to be like. No, we're not sure of many things, so we continue to search and learn. Unlike many NON atheists, who, without so much as analysing what they "believe" and why they believe it, think they know it all and condemn those who don't think the same way. PS: I corrected your spelling, grammar and syntax in quoting you.
Your reply has been openly and fairly expressed. Learnt something. This reply from a Raja Yogi meditator.. Fare thee well (PS There are 2 full stops)@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164
"Factual truth is the overarching truth (aka other forms of truth are nested inside it)" Could you not make a case for this actually because symbolism and spiritual language and so on are emergent from the physical world, the technical description of which is what people mean by the phrase "factual truth"? If I were explaining it I would choose a metaphor that represents it below as more of a foundation (like the bottom layer of a pyramid) rather than an arch but it's the same idea in the end.
I’m really not trying to start an argument, but to provide food for thought… “ and so on are emergent from the physical world” . What did the physical world emerge from? How do you know? What is a “force” like gravity or electro-magnetism (or strong\weak atomic) and how is it physical? No. What Johnathan is talking about is far deeper than you are understanding, I think. It is not anarchy to let go of materialism - it’s just difficult and something most people aren’t used to. :) ✌🏼
@@Obilio222 I don't suppose it emerged from anything, that's why I would put it as the bottom. Does that make me a materialist? I don't think non-physical things are "not real" like some people but they must have some ground in the physical (even if we don't understand it).
@@GITAHxgCoo , I guess (for me) that would depend on your definition of “physical “. We all trust something, that is our true common ground. Like I said, I’m not looking for an argument. Thanks for the answer. : )
@@GITAHxgCooI hope you realize that once you start talking about "emergent qualities'', you can as well start talking about fairies. With the exception that the existence of the fairies is actually documented.
@@_VISION. "Hamlet" is truth, but it is not fact. "I ate corn flakes for breakfast at 8:14 AM" is a fact, but it is not truth, meaning that it carries no philosophical power. It's just something that happened.
@@_VISION. Wow. You've never before heard the difference between "truth" and "fact"? You just think the two words are interchangeable? Damn. You need better books to read.
The purpose of truth is to give you an evolutionary advantage? And people have a tendency to believe in the truth because it provided their ancestors with an evolutionary advantage? Are you out your mind, man? You can't explain everything with this silly evolutionary paradigm that you so love. Complex realities require profound explanations. You can't just say that people believe in truth because it offers them an advantage over those who don't. How about nietzsche's critique that a Will to Truth isn't even a primary motivation in people? There are so many powerful questions about these things and you can't just explain it away in terms of evolution. For eg "A psychopath manipulated naive innocent people to commit atrocities that they otherwise wouldn't have" can explain the manson family murders but not nazi germany
The will to truth seems like it inevitably becomes The primary motivation in the people who do have even an inkling of it, and almost totally absent in everyone else. Neitzsche was right in terms that most people only have a will to truth insofar as they can maintain their place in a mainstream moral narrative + maintain that narrative itself, but obviously Neitzsche himself wasn't like that, and let his desire to understand everything pretty much destroy his own life.
@@G-Rockman Destroy his own life? As opposed to all the people who don't? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what you think the aim for a human being is. It's an open question
@@neversurrender6112 I like nietzsche's writing but he didn't seem like a happy dude. I always got the impression that his whole dionysian ideal was just kind of the way he wished he could be irl, but thats just my personal take.
@@G-Rockman Nietzsche would've probably laughed had he still been alive and read that comment. Life is not about being "a happy dude". A happy dude would be the last man. His life was intense and inspiring to a degree that almost nobody can even begin to imagine. He was well aware that he would "destroy his own life" if that means that he would never settle down but keep on going into chaos. But that was the point. To face reality. To make way for even greater things to come. He has written pretty explicitly about these things. He didn't care about what ordinary people called 'to be sick'.
@@SymbolicallyMemeing Ok forget happy but self-satisfied. He doesn't seem like he was really able to manifest the stuff he wrote about in his own life, more like he was writing it for someone else. I don't think that invalidates his ideas though.
All you gotta do with scientist is approach them from an epistemological angle. They truly believe they understand knowledge but really they only understand scientific knowledge.
If the highest form of truth is found in a laboratory, then why would that truth even matter, because none of us actually spend time in a laboratory.
What a strange thing to say on a computer that requires advanced technology and manufacturing techniques that were developed in laboratories.
@@Paul-A01
That doesn't really remove anything from his point.
it's like a new form of gnosticism
@@Paul-A01 Hypothesis does not emerge from lab, lab work is to test the hypothesis.
@@Paul-A01 you mean like smoke signals, writing on sand or message boards, we have a trust in the medium. That is all you are saying, or you dazzled by the tech lords hype and PR?
The mistake is to even begin to think that the theory of evolution can tell us something exhaustive about who we are. Scientists pretending to be philosophers but being embedded in a specific world view which the philosophers spend a lifetime trying to escape from and understand. This is related to consciousness. Something Jonathan discussed in his conversation with his brother on the main channel.
The materialist says, "truth" and they refer to "that which can be known." The person of faith says, "Truth," and they refer to "that which is beyond what we (can) know."
Well said!
How can one know, without faith?
Im following what Jonathan is saying here, and while listening it sounds “right” or “true” haha. But I can’t help myself from being dragged back into wanting scientific facts to ground me in reality, especially in the state of the world right now where people believe they can make “their own truth” and go against what is scientific fact. How does one stand up for truth, when it seems like this concept of truth or reality Jonathan is speaking about seems subjective without the notion of God. And with a misunderstanding of God or even the absence of God, this will inevitably lead to chaos and disorder.
It’s late, I hope that made sense…any response would be appreciated. Just trying to work this out in my head lol.
Yes, although a materialist doesn’t even have the means to know…
It’s not about the artificial conditions of the lab. It’s about not being able to even start to think about it without the whole edifice of consciousness and hierarchy that they take for granted and indeed can’t even see, as they don’t see the air that we all breathe.
Je t’aime Jonathan. Continue ton excellent travail !
Argument #3 is like the sound of post-modernism exploding.
“Whatever research you want to do, make sure you connect it to climate change or you won’t get funding.” Wisdom bestowed to me by the Ecology PhD students while getting my degree. In science, ‘truth’ is what gets funded.
I think you nailed it but I'll add, the scientific method usually followed is to try to isolate the phenomenon under investigation, to isolate and isolate such that we can determine exact cause and effect, eliminate all unkowns. This is distorting reality and calling it fact.
Yes, however, It is impossible to eliminate all unknowns. For example, when the passage of time results in undetected changes in previously unknown variables, incorrect conclusions about causation frequently arise.
How is that distorting reality?
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 Because you've put the object of study in a vacuum. In reality, everything interacts with everything else and so if something has been separated from this reality, you are no longer studying reality.
@@MarcInTbilisi No, it's been separated from stimuli. "Everything interacts with everything else" That is not true. How does a Bumble Bee interact with a Whale? There maybe a connection, as them both being life forms, without interaction. Would the Moon orbit the Earth if you didn't exist?
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 a bee can interact with a whale, the question is, to what degree? For the whale it is 'in the noise' but maybe not for the bee. If I didn't exist the moon would orbit differently but of course we can't measure the difference.
I think the word “agreement” is key here. The truth that people have agreed upon has always been something …fluid. Thinking that the world will fly apart without “facts” we can all agree on is a very modern phenomenon, and it shrinks actual truth to something that does not allow people to live really well. I’m just waiting for one of these guys (like Bret or Harris) to fully define “better”. It can’t be done without diving into the metaphors they claim to live without. Sigh….
You're on to it Jonathon. Keep fighting the Good Fight!
2:16 Bret just conceded to Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism lol
I didn't really know what this series is about and reading the comments is hard woik.
This truth - personal/universal /contextual - can be experienced practically - without all the religious/scientific/technical jargon (bordering on dogma).
If one - reclaims the human heart - as one's spiritual centre ...... this same wonderful heart - can be worthily used and relied upon - to answer - truthfully - all the questions - minute and mighty.
The heart - has to cleaned up and loved - for what it really is - the Divine core - within humans.
It is a matter of practical experience, of course. It is the truth - lived - closest to oneself.
(Hint from meditation aspirant) Fare thee well.
Wow you philosophy of science is divine. May the lord bless you, you are truely holy person
I think a good metaphor is the difference between analogue and digital information in computer science, the first is nature as is and the second is an approximation. Scientific truth is the safe range where we can be sure -- Though it's not the god of the gaps argument, just pointing out an aspect --
There is an analogue computer science? I have never heard of that.
The laboratory is the most artificial conceivable environment. Most of experimental design is about figuring out how to shoehorn reality into the lab. We don't live in the laboratory, where scientists do backwards handstands trying to isolate a specific variable. The idea that the lab is a higher order of truth than human experience is untenable.
The problem was noted by Piaget. To realize that truth is based on trust you must compart two formal operational concepts. Truth and trust are abstractions, so abstract must be compared to abstract. The scientist will attempt to operationalize the abstract into physical procedures that can be measured. They think in terms of concept plus something physical (concrete operations). If you remove the physical part they are completely lost. Weinstein is a scientist and cannot make the transition. To be fair the super-genius scientist Hawking made the same mistake in one of his final books. When he talked about something coming from nothing in the creation of the universe, he was never able to conceive of the philosopher's definition of nothing, e.g., that of which rocks dream. He always defaulted to a quantum vacuum, something that philosophers would say is much more than nothing.
Nailed it!
This reminds me a lot of the logical positivism movement of philosophy. Part of its structure was the verification principle: everything that is cognitively meaningful can be verified through a scientific experiment. This was used to attack universal statements. The problem was that the verification principle is ITSELF a universal statement. How do you prove that everything true is provable? Godels theorems show that's quite unlikely. As A. J. Ayers said: "The greatest defect of positivism was that nearly all of it was false."
even if you yourself do the lab experiments, you still have to trust your tools to work well and your eyes to sense and intellect to reason well.
And if you dont trust your instruments and reason, you go insanely doubting everyting in Cartesian steps led by the prideful luciferian intellect that wants to base existence upon itself and trusts no one and nothing. Sadly satan is so opossing that he doesnt trust even himself. Ending in the self consuming loop of death.
Wow, man. Your pfp really brings me back...incredible.
SCIENCE- give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest"
Rupert Sheldrake.
I think that quote originally came from Terence McKenna but I have heard Sheldrake use it also.
"He shall fall down into a pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason."
"Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise."
-Liber Al vel Legis II:27 and 32.
"There is exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere "becoming", leaving no place for the changeless and permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this same "becoming", denying by implication true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, by which we mean the transcendent and universal principles." - Rene Guenon
"The Vedantic and Buddhist distinction of empirical knowledge (valid for practical purposes, and prob-able) from the intellectually valid and axiomatic truth of first principles is the same as that of "opinion" from "truth" in Greek philosophy; opinion corresponding to "becoming", and truth to "Being"; opinion having to do with "that which begins and perishes" and truth with "that which ever is, and does not begin". - Ananda Coomaraswamy, Time and Eternity
Nice.
This aged well.❤
The thing with athiest type is they tend to have some what superior conplex like theyre so sure they're right from the get go. Bret Weistein is one of the few that doesnt seem like so. And with that they're pretty much close off from ever expanding their comtemporary understanding beyond physical/ material reality. It'd rather dull to live in that world honestly.
"The thing with atheist type is they tend to have a (somewhat) superior(ity) complex" I find the exact same attitude in those that are NOT atheist.
No we are NOT closed off to anything. We can experience many levels of Transcendence and experience the Luminous and beauty in life. It seems you don't really know anyone who is Atheist, you're just checking off boxes of what you think we're supposed to be like. No, we're not sure of many things, so we continue to search and learn. Unlike many NON atheists, who, without so much as analysing what they "believe" and why they believe it, think they know it all and condemn those who don't think the same way.
PS: I corrected your spelling, grammar and syntax in quoting you.
@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 You don't seem to be a materialist that the op is talking about.
A subtle point. Agree.@@revermightstar8004
Your reply has been openly and fairly expressed. Learnt something.
This reply from a Raja Yogi meditator.. Fare thee well (PS There are 2 full stops)@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164
"Patterns of being"?
"Factual truth is the overarching truth (aka other forms of truth are nested inside it)" Could you not make a case for this actually because symbolism and spiritual language and so on are emergent from the physical world, the technical description of which is what people mean by the phrase "factual truth"? If I were explaining it I would choose a metaphor that represents it below as more of a foundation (like the bottom layer of a pyramid) rather than an arch but it's the same idea in the end.
I’m really not trying to start an argument, but to provide food for thought… “ and so on are emergent from the physical world” . What did the physical world emerge from? How do you know? What is a “force” like gravity or electro-magnetism (or strong\weak atomic) and how is it physical?
No. What Johnathan is talking about is far deeper than you are understanding, I think. It is not anarchy to let go of materialism - it’s just difficult and something most people aren’t used to. :) ✌🏼
@@Obilio222 I don't suppose it emerged from anything, that's why I would put it as the bottom. Does that make me a materialist? I don't think non-physical things are "not real" like some people but they must have some ground in the physical (even if we don't understand it).
@@GITAHxgCoo , I guess (for me) that would depend on your definition of “physical “. We all trust something, that is our true common ground. Like I said, I’m not looking for an argument. Thanks for the answer. : )
@@GITAHxgCooI hope you realize that once you start talking about "emergent qualities'', you can as well start talking about fairies. With the exception that the existence of the fairies is actually documented.
I cannot even give a raging reply. Fare thee well@@Obilio222
Jonathan so cute when rolling his eyes!😂😂😂
I got my BS in Conservation, I was taught that science deals in fact never truths
What is the distinction? That's interesting.
@@_VISION. "Hamlet" is truth, but it is not fact. "I ate corn flakes for breakfast at 8:14 AM" is a fact, but it is not truth, meaning that it carries no philosophical power. It's just something that happened.
@@TheRKae hmm okay; thanks
@@_VISION. Wow. You've never before heard the difference between "truth" and "fact"? You just think the two words are interchangeable? Damn. You need better books to read.
@@TheRKae Huh?
I'm just going to hedge and say the truth lies solely in the category of that which I don't know that I don't know.
The purpose of truth is to give you an evolutionary advantage? And people have a tendency to believe in the truth because it provided their ancestors with an evolutionary advantage? Are you out your mind, man? You can't explain everything with this silly evolutionary paradigm that you so love. Complex realities require profound explanations. You can't just say that people believe in truth because it offers them an advantage over those who don't. How about nietzsche's critique that a Will to Truth isn't even a primary motivation in people? There are so many powerful questions about these things and you can't just explain it away in terms of evolution.
For eg "A psychopath manipulated naive innocent people to commit atrocities that they otherwise wouldn't have" can explain the manson family murders but not nazi germany
The will to truth seems like it inevitably becomes The primary motivation in the people who do have even an inkling of it, and almost totally absent in everyone else. Neitzsche was right in terms that most people only have a will to truth insofar as they can maintain their place in a mainstream moral narrative + maintain that narrative itself, but obviously Neitzsche himself wasn't like that, and let his desire to understand everything pretty much destroy his own life.
@@G-Rockman Destroy his own life? As opposed to all the people who don't? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what you think the aim for a human being is. It's an open question
@@neversurrender6112 I like nietzsche's writing but he didn't seem like a happy dude. I always got the impression that his whole dionysian ideal was just kind of the way he wished he could be irl, but thats just my personal take.
@@G-Rockman Nietzsche would've probably laughed had he still been alive and read that comment. Life is not about being "a happy dude". A happy dude would be the last man. His life was intense and inspiring to a degree that almost nobody can even begin to imagine. He was well aware that he would "destroy his own life" if that means that he would never settle down but keep on going into chaos. But that was the point. To face reality. To make way for even greater things to come. He has written pretty explicitly about these things. He didn't care about what ordinary people called 'to be sick'.
@@SymbolicallyMemeing Ok forget happy but self-satisfied. He doesn't seem like he was really able to manifest the stuff he wrote about in his own life, more like he was writing it for someone else. I don't think that invalidates his ideas though.
All you gotta do with scientist is approach them from an epistemological angle. They truly believe they understand knowledge but really they only understand scientific knowledge.
In the thumbnail, Pageau looks like the excited Pepe lol
What were you thinking with the thumbnail, Jonathan
I have no respect for gatekeepers like Brett Weinstein or Jordan Peterson
Yes science is nested in religion,They clash but also motivated each other.
That’s the duality,,,,like ying yang
This is pretty damn funny given his recent stance on covid and the jabs.
Clout
Nonsense...