Nate Hagens could be interesting (would make a lot of connections, but you may already have most of those) David Shapiro? (for optimistic AI/singularity outlooks)
I would love to see you interview Shivon Zilis, the mother of twins reportedly fathered by Elon Musk , is a noted artificial intelligence expert and executive at Neuralink. There are so many topics you can go over with her. Could you make that happen?
@@Will-kt5jk Hehe....Shapiro has a crush on Liv. :) Just so people know, I said that as a joke. Shapiro has mentioned Liv quite a number of times on his channel, and it's obvious he thinks highly of her. But there's no reason to think homey's actually crushing on her. :)
TLDR: Game A vs Game B is a rehash of Finite vs Infinite Games by James Carse. Hyperconversation is the functional aspect of "collective unconscious" i.e. hyperconversation is how collective unconscious is conveyed
I haven't read Carse's book but I am aware that his work has inspired and framed Game B thinking. Specifically (as defined by Schmachtenberger and Hall elsewhere), Game be is: 1)Anti-fragile 2)Anti-rivalrous 3)Omni win-win 4)Infinitely recursive 5)Holistic Does Carse touch on these points also?
Thank you @LivBoeree for this interview. I loved the concept of using hyperconversation as a mindfulness technique. It makes me think about how we can encompass an action like "be mindful with your process/thinking" and awareness is really meta-helpful. The way he framed it made it seem like even if were not close to being there, there's always hope in whatever shifts we can make - especially if it entails how we act or think or filter or notice. Thank you for your own part in the collective miracle by inventing your own hologram inversion to Game-A mentality. You're certainly building momentum!
I believe there is another possibility....that something completely outside of the pattern emerges and lights the whole thing up - in a good way. I believe it would be in our best interest to hold that possibility very seriously.
"it's the reductio that happens when you use money as a protocol for communications between individuals so it reduces the complexity of actual of diversity of values into a single signifier " Jordan Hall
I think that there should be some way to simulate the effects of the hyper conversation by vectorizing a bunch of podcasts related to gameb (such as this one) . You can then talk to an AI connected to this vector database that is prompted to try to connect ideas in the podcasts to whatever it is that you are talking about
Jonathan Pageau - he is a French Canadian icon carver, public speaker and TH-camr exploring the symbolic patterns that underlie our experience of the world, how these patterns emerge and come together, manifesting in religion, art and in popular culture.
Epic discussion! To add to it, the cultures that built the cathedrals also knew/believed in reincarnation. So, while they knew their current incarnation wouldn't see the end, their next lives would. Still beautiful and still an important mindset ❤❤
This was a great interview! I loved the pacing, the depth of knowledge and although it might seem depressing; I don't believe it is at all.... I've been talking to some friends about the "Cooperation Barrier" in evolutionary biology, and precisely how that is a manifestation of the anti-moloch... There is a set of mechanisms and circumstances that do lead to win-win, emergence scenarios where whole new phenomena and laws come out from some stable coordination of the laws/agents/phenomena below it...
Parts of this conversation are making me think of Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age" which creatively imagines future visions of societies primarily organized under a Confuscian ethos vs a Victorian ethos. With nanobots. I'd love to see Neal as a guest!
@@JordanGreenhall Thank you for the clarification. I added The Works of Gilles Deleuze I: 1953-1969 by John Roffe to my reading list as an introduction.
This is my favorite guest and topic until now. Still hoping to see the great Judit Polgar. I suggested her first if you do meet her, I will ask you if possible to maybe give me the chance to either get a chance to interview you either one of you, or better yet both, for a podcast I'm starting. Just the opportunity to ask for an interview obviously in the case of GM Polgar🙏🏼 Sorry if I'm too forward, but where I'm from and the things I want to discuss, just typical social issues, are taboo because of the extraordinary nature of everything here which doesn't allow you to speak with anyone here about anything sensitive, even if it leads ro negative implications. Sorry for the long post but I didnt want to bother you on ur other socials with this long message. Big fan of this, whether you allow me the chance or not💙
I'm quite tired of people's avoidance of simplifying as if it is the main problem. Ignoring important aspects of reality is always the problem, obviously. But the reason why Newton and Maxwell brought us so much capacity and abundance was because they simplified physical reality to simple equations. All great progress is the result of such simplifications. Sure, reductionism has its dangers when we ignore the complexity of reality and thus begin missing important parts of the world, but the avoidance of simplification leads to paralysis. Our brain is in many ways mostly a filter of reality for us to be able to function. Notice how none of these people are actually providing solutions. They just say things like: "we need to be smarter and wiser". As if that were helpful advice.
I'm not sure how closely you watched the video, but I felt like Jordan in particular provided plenty of solutions. They just are not solutions you may be used to hearing. First, I would draw attention to the notion that Jordan brings up in the section starting at 36:00. The sin-as-described is not simplification on its own, but rather the abstraction of the complex into the complicated via simplification, but then trying to use that complicated system to control the complex. This is essentially making a map, but then forgetting the map is only a map and not the territory, which happens often on a collective scale. Second, in this same vein, because the complicated exists as a subset of the complex, the solution to the problem of the ossifying complicated must necessarily exist outside of the complicated. Trying to impose a 'larger' complication on the 'smaller' one generates even more externalities, and with higher leverage. Jordan mentions that 'technology cannot solve the problem of technology'. Another way of saying this is that the proper solution to X exists only outside of X, namely in the context that envelops X. Taken together, the advice here is something like this: "You may engage in simplification (reductive modeling), but only to the extent necessary, updating quickly with information from the larger (complex) context, and adjust/terminate the simplification immediately if too large of a gap emerges between the model and its container." This is something that most humans do already, by the way, but a lot of them do it quite badly for a variety of reasons. One must deeply engage in improving this skill in as many ways as possible, both alone and together. This brings up the third point: the solution, as Jordan mentions, is a problem of primarily attunement, *not* one of power, computation, distribution, systemization, etc. The example he gives is 'knowing what is the virtuous action to take is, and enabling yourself to take it, rather than avoiding or failing to recognize it.' In conclusion, the helpful advice is there if you know how to listen to it and are ready to apply it to the particularities of your life.
@@rajeevram4681 I generally distrust people who use big words and lots of definitions. These make it hard to really understand what they are saying, and often means they just want to look smart, they are full of themselves, and maybe even want to confuse and mislead the audience. I found that really smart people can explain complex topics with simple words, and tend to be humble. Also distrust people who talk fast and never stop to make sure the audience follows them. That also suggests that they don't want you to understand what they are saying, because you might find that it's mostly bullshit. Seriously, this guy uses so many big words that it would take like a week for me to translate it to plain English and finally understand what they f*ck he's talking about. And not because I'm uneducated, I have a degree in physics and computer science, and I study a lot in my free time too.
@@andrasbiro3007 That's just bullshit my guy, the proper reaction when you don't understand something should be one of humility, not of suspicion and rejection. You're literally saying that you understood so little of the conversation that it's probably bullshit and they're just trying to sound smart. Just preposterous. Check yourself. It reminds me of people's reaction to complex music who haven't been exposed to it before and just lack the tools to perceive the patterns. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. You perceive so little of it that you literally think it's mumbo jumbo. Like giving a Chic Corea album to someone who's only listened to Reggaeton their whole life. Many will say it's just random sounds jumbled up. What's shocking to me is that you would immediately conclude your interpretation of something you can't make sense of is the correct one, i.e. that it actually makes no sense. What should be undeniable to you is that you couldn't possibly reach your conclusion with any level of certainty because, as you said, you can't make any sense of it. Either it *does* make sense and you just lack the knowledge to understand, or it actually *doesn't* make sense. But to differentiate between the two you must understand what the words mean in the first place. And by the way, your attitude towards this question is the very definition of one being "full of themself"
@@rajeevram4681 no, I have listened to these guys for years. It is well spoken repetition of the obvious. The solution is simple but they just don't have the courage to say it and instead hide behind the intent of solving all problems for ever, which is silly. Humanity's goal is clear: meeting the needs of humans. Let's say it clearly and get to work
@@andrasbiro3007 degrees means nothing in face of reality. you can learn a tons of memory pet theory. that's not the pragmatic. more info on the idea of game B here if you're curious to see it "elaborated" www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=Game_B
I am stoked to have found your channel. I'm working on something similar actually so this was super inspiring. It would be awesome to see you interview Richard Barrett.
43:01 as a programmer and a computing scientist I have to say that attaining control of that thing with software is basically a thin razors edge, its too easy to create too much ripples and complicatedness and actually lose control of the thing, precisely because you have to control externalities. Too much it becomes complicated, too little it doesn't become complex enough. I don't think most of programmers can play that game well, and society is running on this thing now. Its totally out of control and creating ripples everywhere, and people think this is funny or desirable. Software has emergent behavior, it is not entirely deterministic, the machines that run it are deterministic, but software running on top of the machine isn't. That was stated before, and its wrong. Software is only bounded to the maximum level a human mind can control it. by the maximum amount of complicatedness we can deal with, and that's already far above what it produces of complexity, that's why computers are so powerful. They produce both things at the same time.
Win/loss hardly matters and the externalities don't matter either. Are YOU operating at your peak? If yes, then win/loss doesn't matter. If no, then win/loss doesn't matter. Its about stretching your own peak performance. How can you both be super competitive and also working towards a win-win society? Those feel like antipodes as a "win" is someone else's loss, increases your renown and thus socially competitive advantage at the expense of others.
My lingering question is, how does game B deal with with sincere hostility toward its ways ? Does it ? It seems to me that certain of those playing game A will want to destroy all things game B -- in essense, it is very game A to do so. It is really hard for me not to see this simply as another Utopian ideal -- even if, like many ideals, there are wonderful things about it and that come in the very striving for, and ultimately, unattainability of it. It seems to me, the most fruitful way of interpreting all this, is that there is not a "game A" or "game B" but rather that there is a tendency for us to see things in these terms -- at least in modern humanity -- no matter the context; that there is something in us that wants to gamify certain things and that what it means to game A something or game B something is more of some latent, semantic archtype, than any real thing. Perhaps not unlike a 'god' or a 'tribe' (race, sex, creed etc).
i really love this conversation and i appreciate it's existence deeply. However, I do worry for the future of these ideas that there is not a diverse set of voices (culuturally, economically and racially, sexuallty etc) in general that are speaking on this. i already see the leakage of "game a" into "game b" simply by the language chosen to describe the game. and it's clearly already having it's unintended consequences.
In the context of prestige being the mechanism that made us evolve and improve...can we conclude that ideologies that negate prestige as something unwanted in society (that need to be rid off) are actualy anti-evolutionary ideologies?
i think dave uses the word phase-shift because abstraction implies a different relationship between domains that is more about our understanding of them whereas phase-shift implies something more scientific and material
Gretchen: I only brought one infinite scorpion. *Laughs* Paradoxically delicious. Gretchen: I only chew it up. Lola: You didn't swallow? Gretchen: You were more fun when you were less funny, Lola. Lola: *holding a box with a B written on it in marker* Well, does the B stand for birds or bees? Gretchen: *aggressively in faux German accent* Release de birds or bees! Lola: *shrugs and drops the box* *All three stand there looking at the B box for awhile before shrugging and leaving quietly* 🎁
Every point in a hologram contains the entire image with each point having a slightly different set of relationships. N dimensions of information in n minus one dimensions.
I think if Jordan used 20% more simple language, 50% more insights could be gotten, I feel there is issue of how he uses terms he uses, what he means by them, to me it feels he uses them in novel ways and it is hard figuring out what he means. I guess too abstract. Would just like more straightforward explanations im not sure.
That is typical of this type discussion. It sounds far less impressive in simple language. You are right though. Philosophy won't put food on the table, but it sure sounds smart while letting you starve.
Sorry, but I felt that your co-presenter didn't add to my consumption while viewing . Not very good camera presence , little contributions , and I found distracting on the screen. No bad vibes, just honest feedback as an avid viewer .
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! Who should I interview next, Win-Winners?
Ahren Belisle, he’s a comedian in who performs in Texas a lot, would be great to see him on here!
Nate Hagens could be interesting (would make a lot of connections, but you may already have most of those)
David Shapiro? (for optimistic AI/singularity outlooks)
I would love to see you interview Shivon Zilis, the mother of twins reportedly fathered by Elon Musk , is a noted artificial intelligence expert and executive at Neuralink. There are so many topics you can go over with her. Could you make that happen?
@@Will-kt5jk Hehe....Shapiro has a crush on Liv. :)
Just so people know, I said that as a joke. Shapiro has mentioned Liv quite a number of times on his channel, and it's obvious he thinks highly of her. But there's no reason to think homey's actually crushing on her. :)
Maybe Robert Greene.
TLDR: Game A vs Game B is a rehash of Finite vs Infinite Games by James Carse. Hyperconversation is the functional aspect of "collective unconscious" i.e. hyperconversation is how collective unconscious is conveyed
Thanks, ordered a copy
Correct. Jordan’s colleague Daniel schmachtenberger mentions that book
I haven't read Carse's book but I am aware that his work has inspired and framed Game B thinking. Specifically (as defined by Schmachtenberger and Hall elsewhere), Game be is:
1)Anti-fragile
2)Anti-rivalrous
3)Omni win-win
4)Infinitely recursive
5)Holistic
Does Carse touch on these points also?
Thank you @LivBoeree for this interview. I loved the concept of using hyperconversation as a mindfulness technique. It makes me think about how we can encompass an action like "be mindful with your process/thinking" and awareness is really meta-helpful. The way he framed it made it seem like even if were not close to being there, there's always hope in whatever shifts we can make - especially if it entails how we act or think or filter or notice.
Thank you for your own part in the collective miracle by inventing your own hologram inversion to Game-A mentality. You're certainly building momentum!
This guys use of language is simply sublime...
My first time hearing of Jordan. Thanks for the introduction!
Excellent! Thank you all for this. I learned a lot.
This led me to watch Jordan's appearance on Triggernometry 2 years ago which I can now highly recommend!
I believe there is another possibility....that something completely outside of the pattern emerges and lights the whole thing up - in a good way. I believe it would be in our best interest to hold that possibility very seriously.
"it's the reductio that happens when you use money as a protocol for communications between individuals so it reduces the complexity of actual of diversity of values into a single signifier "
Jordan Hall
I think that there should be some way to simulate the effects of the hyper conversation by vectorizing a bunch of podcasts related to gameb (such as this one) . You can then talk to an AI connected to this vector database that is prompted to try to connect ideas in the podcasts to whatever it is that you are talking about
Jordan with another Gem.
The ability to hold dichotomy within is so important. Be the person who plants the tree who's shade they shall never sit under.
Freedom is an incentive, responsibility is an understanding.
Yeah, many movies and memories with DivX
This is a great conversation. Thank you so much for this!
Jonathan Pageau - he is a French Canadian icon carver, public speaker and TH-camr exploring the symbolic patterns that underlie our experience of the world, how these patterns emerge and come together, manifesting in religion, art and in popular culture.
Epic discussion!
To add to it, the cultures that built the cathedrals also knew/believed in reincarnation. So, while they knew their current incarnation wouldn't see the end, their next lives would.
Still beautiful and still an important mindset ❤❤
Whatever sort of ideology/mindset/religion or approach would help us needs to have a multi-generation if not eternal perspective on life wouldnt it?
@@teiuq absolutely 🙏
Love the summary : "Capitalism is what happens when you use money as a protocol for communications between individuals" 👍
I can align with the thought that complicated system is subset of the overall complexity system. 🤔 Jordan Hall indeed needs to be checked out.
Will AI ever break out of being complicated and become complex? Or will it eventually align with its own created Complexity? 🤔
This was a great interview! I loved the pacing, the depth of knowledge and although it might seem depressing; I don't believe it is at all.... I've been talking to some friends about the "Cooperation Barrier" in evolutionary biology, and precisely how that is a manifestation of the anti-moloch... There is a set of mechanisms and circumstances that do lead to win-win, emergence scenarios where whole new phenomena and laws come out from some stable coordination of the laws/agents/phenomena below it...
Brilliant explanation and differentiation. Gratitude
Parts of this conversation are making me think of Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age" which creatively imagines future visions of societies primarily organized under a Confuscian ethos vs a Victorian ethos. With nanobots. I'd love to see Neal as a guest!
He even included a private computer which role is a tutor in education. Quite possible a scenario arising in the next few years
Woop, Jordan on the pod
Fantastic conversation. Am I wrong in thinking that he is applying a lot of ideas from Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation?
Certainly - though I’m more influenced by deleuze.
@@JordanGreenhall Thank you for the clarification. I added The Works of Gilles Deleuze I: 1953-1969 by John Roffe to my reading list as an introduction.
This is my favorite guest and topic until now.
Still hoping to see the great Judit Polgar. I suggested her first if you do meet her, I will ask you if possible to maybe give me the chance to either get a chance to interview you either one of you, or better yet both, for a podcast I'm starting. Just the opportunity to ask for an interview obviously in the case of GM Polgar🙏🏼
Sorry if I'm too forward, but where I'm from and the things I want to discuss, just typical social issues, are taboo because of the extraordinary nature of everything here which doesn't allow you to speak with anyone here about anything sensitive, even if it leads ro negative implications. Sorry for the long post but I didnt want to bother you on ur other socials with this long message. Big fan of this, whether you allow me the chance or not💙
I'm quite tired of people's avoidance of simplifying as if it is the main problem. Ignoring important aspects of reality is always the problem, obviously. But the reason why Newton and Maxwell brought us so much capacity and abundance was because they simplified physical reality to simple equations. All great progress is the result of such simplifications. Sure, reductionism has its dangers when we ignore the complexity of reality and thus begin missing important parts of the world, but the avoidance of simplification leads to paralysis. Our brain is in many ways mostly a filter of reality for us to be able to function.
Notice how none of these people are actually providing solutions. They just say things like: "we need to be smarter and wiser".
As if that were helpful advice.
I'm not sure how closely you watched the video, but I felt like Jordan in particular provided plenty of solutions. They just are not solutions you may be used to hearing.
First, I would draw attention to the notion that Jordan brings up in the section starting at 36:00. The sin-as-described is not simplification on its own, but rather the abstraction of the complex into the complicated via simplification, but then trying to use that complicated system to control the complex. This is essentially making a map, but then forgetting the map is only a map and not the territory, which happens often on a collective scale.
Second, in this same vein, because the complicated exists as a subset of the complex, the solution to the problem of the ossifying complicated must necessarily exist outside of the complicated. Trying to impose a 'larger' complication on the 'smaller' one generates even more externalities, and with higher leverage. Jordan mentions that 'technology cannot solve the problem of technology'. Another way of saying this is that the proper solution to X exists only outside of X, namely in the context that envelops X.
Taken together, the advice here is something like this: "You may engage in simplification (reductive modeling), but only to the extent necessary, updating quickly with information from the larger (complex) context, and adjust/terminate the simplification immediately if too large of a gap emerges between the model and its container."
This is something that most humans do already, by the way, but a lot of them do it quite badly for a variety of reasons. One must deeply engage in improving this skill in as many ways as possible, both alone and together.
This brings up the third point: the solution, as Jordan mentions, is a problem of primarily attunement, *not* one of power, computation, distribution, systemization, etc. The example he gives is 'knowing what is the virtuous action to take is, and enabling yourself to take it, rather than avoiding or failing to recognize it.'
In conclusion, the helpful advice is there if you know how to listen to it and are ready to apply it to the particularities of your life.
@@rajeevram4681
I generally distrust people who use big words and lots of definitions. These make it hard to really understand what they are saying, and often means they just want to look smart, they are full of themselves, and maybe even want to confuse and mislead the audience. I found that really smart people can explain complex topics with simple words, and tend to be humble. Also distrust people who talk fast and never stop to make sure the audience follows them. That also suggests that they don't want you to understand what they are saying, because you might find that it's mostly bullshit.
Seriously, this guy uses so many big words that it would take like a week for me to translate it to plain English and finally understand what they f*ck he's talking about. And not because I'm uneducated, I have a degree in physics and computer science, and I study a lot in my free time too.
@@andrasbiro3007 That's just bullshit my guy, the proper reaction when you don't understand something should be one of humility, not of suspicion and rejection. You're literally saying that you understood so little of the conversation that it's probably bullshit and they're just trying to sound smart. Just preposterous. Check yourself. It reminds me of people's reaction to complex music who haven't been exposed to it before and just lack the tools to perceive the patterns. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. You perceive so little of it that you literally think it's mumbo jumbo. Like giving a Chic Corea album to someone who's only listened to Reggaeton their whole life. Many will say it's just random sounds jumbled up. What's shocking to me is that you would immediately conclude your interpretation of something you can't make sense of is the correct one, i.e. that it actually makes no sense. What should be undeniable to you is that you couldn't possibly reach your conclusion with any level of certainty because, as you said, you can't make any sense of it. Either it *does* make sense and you just lack the knowledge to understand, or it actually *doesn't* make sense. But to differentiate between the two you must understand what the words mean in the first place. And by the way, your attitude towards this question is the very definition of one being "full of themself"
@@rajeevram4681 no, I have listened to these guys for years. It is well spoken repetition of the obvious. The solution is simple but they just don't have the courage to say it and instead hide behind the intent of solving all problems for ever, which is silly.
Humanity's goal is clear: meeting the needs of humans.
Let's say it clearly and get to work
@@andrasbiro3007 degrees means nothing in face of reality.
you can learn a tons of memory pet theory.
that's not the pragmatic.
more info on the idea of game B here if you're curious to see it "elaborated"
www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=Game_B
I am stoked to have found your channel. I'm working on something similar actually so this was super inspiring. It would be awesome to see you interview Richard Barrett.
Would love a show about your burning man experience, all your costumes and awesome style...
43:01 as a programmer and a computing scientist I have to say that attaining control of that thing with software is basically a thin razors edge, its too easy to create too much ripples and complicatedness and actually lose control of the thing, precisely because you have to control externalities. Too much it becomes complicated, too little it doesn't become complex enough.
I don't think most of programmers can play that game well, and society is running on this thing now. Its totally out of control and creating ripples everywhere, and people think this is funny or desirable.
Software has emergent behavior, it is not entirely deterministic, the machines that run it are deterministic, but software running on top of the machine isn't.
That was stated before, and its wrong.
Software is only bounded to the maximum level a human mind can control it. by the maximum amount of complicatedness we can deal with, and that's already far above what it produces of complexity, that's why computers are so powerful.
They produce both things at the same time.
love the intro, WHOHO! win-win! so cute :D
Great conversation...thanks.
Win/loss hardly matters and the externalities don't matter either. Are YOU operating at your peak? If yes, then win/loss doesn't matter. If no, then win/loss doesn't matter. Its about stretching your own peak performance. How can you both be super competitive and also working towards a win-win society? Those feel like antipodes as a "win" is someone else's loss, increases your renown and thus socially competitive advantage at the expense of others.
Liv and Igor 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
My lingering question is, how does game B deal with with sincere hostility toward its ways ? Does it ?
It seems to me that certain of those playing game A will want to destroy all things game B -- in essense, it is very game A to do so.
It is really hard for me not to see this simply as another Utopian ideal -- even if, like many ideals, there are wonderful things about it and that come in the very striving for, and ultimately, unattainability of it.
It seems to me, the most fruitful way of interpreting all this, is that there is not a "game A" or "game B" but rather that there is a tendency for us to see things in these terms -- at least in modern humanity -- no matter the context; that there is something in us that wants to gamify certain things and that what it means to game A something or game B something is more of some latent, semantic archtype, than any real thing. Perhaps not unlike a 'god' or a 'tribe' (race, sex, creed etc).
i really love this conversation and i appreciate it's existence deeply. However, I do worry for the future of these ideas that there is not a diverse set of voices (culuturally, economically and racially, sexuallty etc) in general that are speaking on this. i already see the leakage of "game a" into "game b" simply by the language chosen to describe the game. and it's clearly already having it's unintended consequences.
I really feel like the philosophy of cardano as a new FOS would help us move towards being a game B civilisation
This guy is like a smart Jack Dorsey with an actual chin.
In the context of prestige being the mechanism that made us evolve and improve...can we conclude that ideologies that negate prestige as something unwanted in society (that need to be rid off) are actualy anti-evolutionary ideologies?
i think dave uses the word phase-shift because abstraction implies a different relationship between domains that is more about our understanding of them whereas phase-shift implies something more scientific and material
love this so much thank youuuu
What are we going to do with all of the people sitting at the kid's table?
Awesome ❤
Pure gold
Finally some JH!
Gretchen: I only brought one infinite scorpion.
*Laughs* Paradoxically delicious.
Gretchen: I only chew it up.
Lola: You didn't swallow?
Gretchen: You were more fun when you were less funny, Lola.
Lola: *holding a box with a B written on it in marker* Well, does the B stand for birds or bees?
Gretchen: *aggressively in faux German accent* Release de birds or bees!
Lola: *shrugs and drops the box*
*All three stand there looking at the B box for awhile before shrugging and leaving quietly*
🎁
Please can you have Joscha Bach on soon? He will bake your noodle in the best way.
Every point in a hologram contains the entire image with each point having a slightly different set of relationships.
N dimensions of information in n minus one dimensions.
I think if Jordan used 20% more simple language, 50% more insights could be gotten, I feel there is issue of how he uses terms he uses, what he means by them, to me it feels he uses them in novel ways and it is hard figuring out what he means. I guess too abstract. Would just like more straightforward explanations im not sure.
Totally agree
That is typical of this type discussion. It sounds far less impressive in simple language. You are right though. Philosophy won't put food on the table, but it sure sounds smart while letting you starve.
@@Miner-dyne Goal is to get us fed and build muscle
Too soon for such conversations.
How would Antigone fit into your algorithm?
TLDR: highfalutin gobbledygook way of saying, be a hippie, practice some wisdom and smoke some of that green stuff.
The example of the COVID response (lockdown) and consequences (behavior modification and conformity) was eloquent.
How is it possible you guys can talk about Bitcoin (creating a collective intelligence) for hours without saying the word Bitcoin?
Polytheistic belief system!!!
I fear the moloch/algo has picked up where this podcast is going...
I wish she looked at me like that. Lucky man, that. Cheers, Liv. Brilliant and beautiful
intellect: 1, experience: null
Landfills are dumb.
The only single use item should be toilet paper.
Hmmmm - Jordan is much easier to understand when talking Christianity!
Sorry, but I felt that your co-presenter didn't add to my consumption while viewing . Not very good camera presence , little contributions , and I found distracting on the screen.
No bad vibes, just honest feedback as an avid viewer .
I don't think this guy actually said anything of significance. 😐
Shit! I think you might be right😅
Step 1: Get rid of fascism
Step 2: Make some coffee
Done
Wtf, you live in 1939?
Liv! Ever thought about trying to be Funny?!
This conversation was too abstract