Видео

I resonate with the diagrams. Seems straight forward and the combo perspectives made it even more impactful. Thank you!

the Tensorial relationship between InTentional Focus and Mechanistic AtTention Intellidoscope equation including XZY+Q Coordinates Let 'T' Stand for Tensorial Let 'I' represent Intentional and 'F' be Focus Let 'M' represent Mechanistic and 'A' Attention. •X( zi Fqt(mA ) Z𝐈 ( aM)TQf zi )Y•

my modelling suggests that such a Twistor Bundle is fifth dimensional. •X( z5d qtb() Z5d ()BTQ z5f )Y• Exactly! in regards to the body and mind, The body an mind relationship can be considered much the same way as a markov blanket . •X( z qb(m )Z( M)BQ z )Y•

•(()())•

Hyperspacetime Coordinate System at T≈0 •X h(s zc qt() ZC ()TQ zc S)H Y•

Well, you have the other video? -elijah logozar channel is down rn, officially at least ;p

Having listened to Jordan since my journey to Orthodoxy began in 2018 or so, I am consistently happy to see him speaking the way he is. This conversation is lifegiving!

Very happy I found this channel. Some very fine folk to hear speak, thanks all.

'dont even know if they are bad in the first place' ;D

TO BE REAL :D :D :D wow ur so cool

non propositional! yay we can chat ;D & i listened 33:00 on, ;D e:i might need to finish the video tho l;

Wow, you are back!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You two are wonderful conversation partners. I enjoyed this just as much as your appearance on Lucas' podcast a few months ago. Plenty to chew on!

Welcome back, Ken. It is interesting to watch you wrestle with the cycles of transformation God has allowed/created in your life. I encourage you to dig out the precepts and principles of transformation found in 1Corinthians 3:18, Romans 12:1-2, Psalm 37:3-6, Ephesians 2:10, and Matthew 5:16. Let me know if you would like to discuss further. I believe you can translate to the next gen of leaders and would love to help you do that. Have a strong day in the Lord.

What a nice surprise! Congratulations to both of you!

Thanks again, Ken. Loved speaking to and learning from you!

This was really nice. Love you both. Right there with you guys. I may write some reflections and send in a whatsapp group to you both

Great conversation! Congrats on the second child Ken, and happy to hear from you again. Best wishes to you and your family.

Only in the north America's could there be three people in a room with humanities degrees of which two identify as practising Christians That part of the world needs to start going in the European direction of increasing secularisation before it goes completely crazy

Great conversation. Hopefully everyone understands what Jonathan is talking about and the terminology doesn’t make it confusing as if they’re talking about magic or something because talking about trans personal agents as angels or gods makes perfect sense, and I hope people are familiar with the way they’re speaking. Jonathan’s face when John started talking about bioelectric self organizing constructs that we all ready are making was priceless.

What an anchored conversation!

Great talk ❤️

25:25 On the descend, I descend into my actual life as it is ATM 🙃 And then walk from there, wherever I am. ❤️ And that means facing what I'd rather not face - because I have fear and doubt and the lack of humility - some would say, I might be a sinner ^^ 😁❤️❤️

I forgot to speak earlier: "Hey, Jesus follows people and everyone lives forever no matter what."

hi socrates

Just starting but it seems to me that David is being evasive..nothing to do with A.I. a zoom format is not AI..my "horror" of it has nothing to do with artifical intelligence par se..but those in control of A.I. in whatever form and what their agenda might be is fairly wearisome...is there a deceptive motivation behind AI for like world wide mind control say.. Btw I'm only 15 minutes into this video

Hey Ken, do others know how to do the "I am" thing yet or what

Congratulations on this wonderful announcement Ken, blessings to you and your family, I'm a month late so forgive my tardiness, just getting started with the podcast and I'll comment after listening/watching, peace

how should i know. people are not really clarifying

1:12:24 - Schindler tying things together beautifully 🎉

What keeps us from going bonkers? Prayer and the teachings of the Church. The main modern heresy was to take teleology (purposes) out of God’s hands and for man to set his own telos. This was explicit in Nietzsche, Marx and others: to change the telos of man. Every political ideology sets its own telos (purposes). Liberalism (freedom). Marx (communism). Nietzsche (Superman). God’s telos is not a political ideology. Modern ideologies also want to create new collective identities. Proletariat vs bourgeoisie. Superman vs herd. Democratic vs authoritarian. Oppressor vs oppressed.

Read the passion through the lens of psalm 22.

The difference between Enoch admiring the beauty of creation and the wizard trying to capture the spirit and put it into a device to control it is the difference between holy sexual coupling with your spouse and naughty internet videos. The first is uplifting and creates bonds and the second alienates and destroys.

1:33:00 Couple of thoughts on this appraisal: Didn't Gandalf reject wearing the ring himself? Is there any difference for Jonathan between Gandalf and Saruman or does the magician archetype have only a negative, one sided form to him? Didn't Merlin guide one towards the holy grail? 🤔

Sounds like shit man fix your audio guys

Hypothesis: puncture and startle is a self medication for a growing sense of horror in reality.

great, thank you all. I listened to the two talks back to back (the advantage on being well behind on all the inspiring talks out there), and it was amazing how you all just jumped into where you left off.

1:45:20 here's something that can appeal to culutures in asia and so on: Black outs! this AI thing, is a nothing burger, there won't be any AI or drone crisis when we struggle to keep the lights on with our failing infrastructure.

John’s philosophical Silk Road, despite his protestations, does not resolve the Christian/non-Christian and abstraction/propositionalizing issues that John raises. Of course we need to address these issues in love, fellowship and friendship. But that is still the biggest trick or biggest problem we always face - how to do those 3 things without falling into simplistic ecumenism or moral relativism.

Human limitation or finitude is the very thing that should keep us from ultimately thinking that creating auto-poetic beings in any way other than the “natural” way which we did not devise is a bad idea. Perhaps this should be the fundamental reason we do not push toward creating things by our own means that have their own agency. Sounds like idolatry.

Knowledge seems almost always coupled with a temptation to instrumentalize or weaponize it. Whether this is absolute to every single bit of knowledge I can’t say but the most sacred of kinds of knowledge seem to me to be the most powerful and thus can be wielded for the most gain in both good and not good senses.

"We are delivered over to (technology) in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology." --Martin Heidegger, "The question Concerning Technology"

Unheimlich which means uncanny or weird or possible if broken down in pieces, would be not-home-like, so maybe also can be said, as not being the center or Christ. Your thoughts? 30:00

Really looking forward to the next instalment because although it might be difficult, it is getting to the crux of the problem for a lot of people regardless of their faith or lack of faith. John is right that belief is simply not open to people in the face of modernity, even if they might wish for it genuinely. Jonathan has talked about how Christianity itself might undergo a transformation in the face of this though, so I think there is something of a common problem for both secular and Christian people here. The way back to Christianity might not be a simple return but another surprise entirely. Great work Ken, keep it up.

The ending conversation about deepening Christianity in order to allow for something genuinely new to emerge is Berdyaev’s thinking to a tee. I wish he was more widely read.

This is the longest RUclips video I have ever watched, I thought I was just going to watch an hour but I could not turn this off! It's really great to see people get along and listen and enjoy others perspectives. We don't all have to think exactly alike to get along, and really we all have so MUCH more in common than we think. But one thing is certain, we know a lot less about everything than we think we know. So the problem with AI is many of those working on AI think they can control something they don't fully understand yet. And people need to stop comparing it to human intelligence, that to me seems very dangerous, if not for just the fact that we don't even completely understand human Intelligence.

Reestablishing science within theology is exactly what Steiner proposes, as well as Barfield, as a Final Participation.

These convos are wild. I'm not sure where people are getting their information (or missing some of it) from. A few notes just because someone needs to say something critical. We don't have a definition of intelligence, much less a way to measure it. IQ does not do this, as Nassim Taleb points out. AI is getting more spread out and worse, not coelescing on anything, that is abundantly clear. Why is 'more intelligence' somehow equal to 'being'? That is just wrong. Lots of leaps here that make no sense to me (who actually has built AI's from scratch) in the industry. I cannot imagine anyone who does AI work making these sorts of mistakes. Why do we think we can convey being to technology? That is pure hubris, and why do we think if that is possible that it is possible to 'get more' than we give it? This is irrational, logical, unreasonable and just plain broken thinking. Jonathan is correct, AI is a Frankenstein fun house mirror, we are zapping electricity into something we built and it's spitting back jumbled (but intelligible) dead text to us. That which makes intelligibility isn't the AI, it is us, hence the mirror (self fulfilling prophesy) and our own projection is the fun house aspect. How would 'these machines' come out of philosophical or scientific realms when neither of those folks are working on them? Computers and AI's already have their own languages. So, there is that. Horse, barn, gone. Agents? How can AI become any kind of agent? Where are the scientific papers outlining these advancements? What isn't driven by 'market forces'? Just one thing will do, really. Markets are just groups of people, ultimately, so...not a helpful frame. Science is not free of economics. This is just a confusion about valid division of the world vs. invalid. You cannot do stuff unattached from others (science) without money. Doing things in science has to lead to something, which you can always use to make money. Money is independent of science but science is not independent of money. This goes for technology, teaching, learning, pretty much everything. So I find arguments about 'breaking free' from some (already bad) frame to be unconvincing. The world is more highly connected than that and always has been. I would argue that John outlined normativity and labeled it desirous. He's ignoring the unity, and the definition of caring. The idea that machines could do this is pretty out there, honestly. It is more likely that people see their own caring, projected (as in psychological projection) onto machines that are manipulating language in a way that mimics us enough for just such a projection. Of course, we already do this with animals who don't speak, so, it's already a thing in some sense. Notice we went from caring for itself and others to concern for transcendentals, which is a pretty inconsistent way to argue in general. Now we need to know what concern is, unless it's caring (still undefined) and how to measure it with respect to transcendentals, since we already have that problem with other people - are they doing this for the good? Is the art beautiful? Is this statement truthful? So the likelihood, that even if you did this, you'd be solving some problem is technically zero. You'd just create more agents of unknown motivation, able to fool you into believing its motivation is good, true and beautiful. Sounds like a minus, not a plus. In most forms of compression, you lose things. With a high information density, you'll lose a lot when you compress. However, there is a deep confusion here between propositions and intelligence. At best the propositions are poor expressions of intelligence and even lower resolution of knowledge. Stating that intelligence is important is Age of Gnosis, as if intelligence matters. Note that earlier, what mattered (correctly) was caring, now John has switched it up to intelligence. Further, the only way compressed intelligence can be neutral is if the intelligence compressed was neutral to begin with. Given that nearly everyone seems to think things like Facebook and TicTok and Twitter are BAD expressions of the Internet, it seems like that, at best, your data samples are bad. So, that fails the neutral test immediately using previous statements by John himself about the nature of the Internet. This means Jonathan is more correct in his caution than it seems. Even if it IS neutral, then it's a mirror and you'll project and it will leverage that projection (technology is a lever). Ambiguity is not cognitively disabling at all, it rules out scientific thinking for sure. It is not the domain of BS, that is called 'lies'. The Open AI folks are, in fact, doing rituals while 'enhancing' ChatGPT. That is happening. I don't think it's good, but they are doing that and it's pretty creepy, honestly. This was widely reported when Sam Altman was temporarily removed. So it is too late, really, for someone to come along and 'fix' this with 'better' ritual - just on a time to catch up basis. I am not sure that re-establishing something is radical. It's certainly going back to something that works, which I support. This proposition that Christianity didn't work or isn't working seems just wrong. Not sure what else to say. Growing in China, for example.