The operation Corpus callosotomy, is good evidence we don’t. When patients are tested, the different hemispheres act independently from each other in some cases.
You can only ask or answer certain questions about a system. The real question is was it OK to treat matter & physical lawisms as Devine, create re routing words that are sloppy generalization that don't care about oreintation and direction only about keeping youth trapped in physical 1st position knowing it's 3 degrees from separation/motion = physically mystified minds. Trapped in a local dualistic syatem that ensures it can be manipulated and evolved how ever seen fit. Academic, monetary even time. Treating time ,matter as if Devine in direct known opposition to its host likeminded majority Americans who hold the proper orientation and direction to be precise and accurate where phenotypical explanatory power is all our greatest works.. But if powers that be didn't lye about Non homogenous galaxies foe 70 years it would be hard to re route them under the thumb wouldn't? Everything is identified by physical form #1 cracked open sir bacon #2 reorientate bottom up rule,#3 inside out.. We've had religious fuber but more nepharous than that. 1Single cell Finley tune Darwin Babylonian primordial goo struck by lightning, space is a bottleneck.. Millions of American gallaleo kids in health class predicting code of life measure despite not being discovered and in direct opposition to darwins postulations . Because this was always the plan of pilgrims its the proper orientation and direction that sent Amish into the feilds. But like Athens they had a ( just uh ,just uh ,deductiveness how about physically mystified atomized comet showers progressive building blocks? That's not enough in 1990s more Devine matter extremism panspermia everywhere 2020 lol I know wataboutism ( Sean carrol host some ) Everything consciousness dualism still Devine matter same Ole same Ole. Oh and never fear Lee Cronin is here with some ,drawin back to rinse repeat square one , single cell Devine matter but abstract assembly Theory selection this time. Everyone of these are obviously avoiding the most dominant and proven explanatory power of all . Anything but pragmatic common sense literal christian Newtonian science. I don't think religion Is as big as it is to keep everyone trapped into 1st position physicalism for the cause of power that be can play Newton and manipulate the local system to evolve how they see fit..
Considering the why/how & the believe/know distinction, why or why not believe or disbelieve in FW suggests you’re requesting motivated reasoning. We either have it (a), do not have it (b), or have it to one degree or another (c). Believing one way or another really has no bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a, b, or c. Thus far all experiments suggest we do not have free will. It would simply be more productive to place the energy we have towards this subject into constructing further experiments to prove / disprove, than place the energy we have towards this subject into philosophically “argueing” one way or the other. Similar to the God question, I struggle to understand why the question is even posed, (not that I'm opposed to questions) granting I see no reason to assume FW exists in the very first place.
@@crestiferj2689 This is actually the only criticism of that entire issue that has any real merit. Sam is always condescending, so I can't take his side, nor can I take Brian's side for being shocked that Sam would be so Sam-like...but you' can't not' know that behind the scenes, these days, everyone is like, "You know I only said that to boost the ratings, right? Let's grab a pint and talk about our true feelings" That's what I like about Jordan Peterson...he has so little control of his emotions that he 'can't not' be brutally honest and transparent.
Brian, why did you slander Sam like that in the podcast intro. Incredibly dishonest and it shows that you have very questionable character at best. I don’t mean to totally dunk on Keating but he was so lost in this whole conversation. He really can’t have a true intellectual conversation with Sam, or someone like Sam. It really felt like he was constantly just missing the mark.
I'd like to know why you began your spotify podcast version of this discussion by suggesting Sam continuously steered the conversation back towards the topic of Trump when in actual fact it was you yourself that did this. You should listen to this podcast yourself then offer Sam an apology. No wonder he does so few podcasts. Very dishonest on your part Dr Keating.
100%. I'm in disbelief that the so called "Trump Derangement System" is given any amount of legitimacy. One of the dumbest claims anyone can make. Anyone with a pulse can see how destructive Trump is to societal norms and democracy. To me, anyone arguing otherwise has just been completely roped in to the personality cult that is Trump, despite how smart they might be. The mental gymnastics you have to do, to get behind someone like Trump is insane to me.
These podcasters leverage Sam whatever way they can to try to benefit from their brief exposure to him bc Sam makes so much sense that he has a huge following.
That was really odd. I had to come to the RUclips comment section when I heard that. Really seemed like he was desperate to pander to his perceived right leaning audience members. So much so that he misrepresented the truth and scorned his guest.
Keating sounds like another apologist for the bible, Judaism and Christianity. It's surprising, given how smart the guy is. It just sounded like mental masturbation towards the end of the conversation. Nevertheless, I mostly enjoyed this discussion.
This podcast shows how he thinks. He tried to impress Sam and his audience with physics jargon that had nothing to do with the discussion. He had no counters to Sam the entire podcast. LOL when Sam said, “I promise you, it’s not going to go where you think it is.”
I feel that my will is contingent on circumstances beyond total control. But,within awareness I can and do grow psychologically. I through conditioning and experiences adjust behaviors. Recognizing what my limits are and accepting to be useful and be grateful . And about declaring my identity on that form which I was totally against,did fill out with incredible awareness! Sam Harris,you are helping me to breathe with more understanding. Thank you.
Ditto. It's Brian's incredible dishonesty. It's one thing for him to disagree with Sam on free will. I think it's silly, but it's not necessarily dishonest. However, Brian utterly misrepresented Sam, and that's disgraceful.
if only it were that easy, beeing "smart" is in a sense a tool. you can use it as knife to cut through bullshit. or you can use it as a smoke machine to obfuscate, to justify nonsense and elaborately lie to yourself and others.
I was surprised at how different your introduction was on the Spotify version of this interview. There, you sounded a little regretful in some ways that you had this chat with 'Sam. You seemed to want to distance yourself from some of his ideas, in way that quite frankly, I found to be somewhat disrespectful. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but I was surprised that your intro here on YT was so different. More friendly and conciliatory. Seems a little duplicitous to me. All that aside, I enjoyed the interview. Personally, I think that Sam is right on the money when it comes to Trump and he articulates just what is so concerning about him as a human being better than anyone else I have heard opine on the subject. P.S. I certainly hope that you do part 2 of this interview so that you can ask some of the questions that you feel you missed on this go round, and also push back more on some of ths issues where you disagree with Sam's take on certain things. I'd be very interested to see how he responds to that kind of healthy debate. Cheers!
Agreed. Heard the podcast intro first, then came to YT to watch the interview instead. The podcast seemed disingenuous, as if to preemptively undercut Sam’s words based on negative feedback from those who watched YT shorts and unfollowed the show before the full interview was released. If somebody is too soft, intellectually lazy, or filters out criticism of the former president for another reason, that’s on them. The lack of ability to accept feedback is the major issue with people who claim TDS every time they hear fair and deserved criticism. Many of us who did not and will not vote for 45 are not tripping over ourselves and contorting our logical faculties to defend every action made by the current administration. To me, 45 sounds like a blithering idiot when he speaks, and has so since he rode the momentum of the Obama birth certificate conspiracy he promoted, to Ted Cruz’s dad killing JFK during the Republican primaries (😂), to the current “Biden crime family” nonsense... completely ignoring the blatant nepotism of his administration and huge money transfers that occurred while in office. He does have an incredible gift to promote and spread memes, which has kept him afloat and relevant. He deserves credit for having that gift for sure. That TDS meme is a perfect example 😃.
"Personally, I think that Sam is right on the money when it comes to Trump" I'm shocked there are people who A) would disagree with his obviously accurate characterization of Trump B) would literally unsubscribe from the pod over him voicing his thoughts on said topic.
If subscribers can’t bear to listen to someone they disagree with (or just skip an episode) they should be extremely embarrassed as they look for a suitable echo chamber
@@brentsutherlandwelp, he lost another subscriber for catering to them in his desperate plea in the Spotify intro. I listen to podcasts with different political leanings than mine all the time, I don’t listen to podcasts that are completely audience captured and pander to people who don’t want to hear reality.
Sam Harris is the only podcaster that I listen to everyone of his episodes. It's better to have less subscribers than to have more at any cost - reference to the starting statements on Spotify.
Brian you are very very smart and have wit, that is very obvious from all the podcasts I watched with you. What kind of always takes me by surprise is how religion "virus" is so strong that it can overcome even the most rational and smart people. The last part of this podcast is great example of that. And I make distinction between religious in the vaguer sense of having sense of higher power vs religions in a very traditional way and defending each line in a 3000 old book. This was example of the latter.
I really do respect both Sam and Brian. In 2017 I was in his class at UCSD and really loved his work and teaching. Sam Harris also introduced me to sound arguments and logic and was a big part of me growing up “coming of age” if you will But unfortunately I do feel that Brian does let religion cloud his judgement far too often. And it’s unfortunate because he is 100000x as brilliant as I am, but still lets religion get in the way of logical discussion
@@hwlbausch Think it's a bit reductive to say he is either a legend or a monster and has changed that much over time. I never agreed with Sam on everything, but on most subjects he still has quite a bit of insight.
Sam Harris for President. Seriously he is a great blend of conservative and liberal. He has great morals. He does not dump on religion as a social construct. A bunch of atheists getting together is thought bad by the KKK and vice a versa. We need to be a little more accepting of other ideas. Religion should be treated as the founders considered. How could the SC get this wrong?
The phrase "What it's like to be something" equated to being conscious never made sense to me. There is a "What it's like to be" a rock. "What is awareness ?" is a better question. If we pretend that a rock is conscious or aware at some level (because forces and energy are also flowing within it), the idea of consciousness becomes distinctionless/meaningless. The sensation of consciousness clearly depends on forces flowing through subsystems and structures of channels and pathways doing differencing, integration, and comparison (that is only and exactly Now).
On free will part, Sam Harris was speaking how we can't control things, but free is not synonymous with control, but it is with adaptation. When speaking about free will we need to distinguish what is freedom and what is your will (or the self). When I think of free will, it's not about how we came to conclusion to do something, it's about having the ability to do it, or having that option available (even when that option is not part of our choice or outcome). The way we came to that decision is not involved in the concept of freedom, it's involved in the concept of self. Freedom is expressed in our (the self) interaction with the world. Being able and being free is the same thing, how we came to make decision is all part of the self and the desire to make a particular choice came from the self. The fact that you did something doesn't mean your ability to do the other thing disappeared, it just means you are able to do 1 thing at a time, you are able to make just 1 decision in a present moment and in my opinion that is crucial why some people lean towards the notion that we don't have free will. When we make a decision it's over, and it creates a feeling we are not in control, but it's not about control. It''s about being able to navigate through unpredictable situations, the tool that allows us to live through chaos or not knowing what is coming next, it's about adaptation and fluidity.
Your definition is not what most people mean by free will. Most people think what ever they chose to do, came because they (themselves) thought and decided it. And if they could go back in time, they could've chosen differently. Also I disagree with your premise. You are not free to select among things that you don't know, or that you don't remember. This was the point of the "think of a celebrity" exercise. There are probably thousands of celebrities who you don't know so you are not free to select those. And there are other celebrities who you know but their name did not come to mind when you were asked. Were you free to choose those? It almost sounds like you're conflating political free will with philosophical free will.
@@jarinthemood2000 I see... it's ok if you disagree, but I think you maybe misunderstood what I said. I agree with you that free will is what people themselfs decided, and I was trying to explain exacly that. Free = having options, everything else that influenced our decision is the self (even when the self is influenced by the circumstances). Every person is unique and the way they are influenced by something is all part of the self (your will). That's what free will is supposed to be it's very simple, when we go further why we came to the conclusion it's all because of the self (because you exist). We can't say that we are not free because we can't control some things. Freedom is having options, not how we came to choose one particular option, how we came to take the option is the self, and options are freedom. Options + making decisions (the self) = free will, all parts of making the decision is because we exist (it's the self, or your will) if we go further we complicate the issue but the deffinition is very simple in my view. We can ask where is the line of being influenced and making the decision yourself? but in my view it's all because we exist, we must make decisions because we live and that's your will, and that realm of various options is freedom.
@@The-Underground-Man Right... And I rebutted by saying that those options are not always available to you. So you are not free to choose things that are not on the list. So now if you're saying it doesn't matter if those options are not available, then that's like me telling you, that you are free to pick any car you want as long as its a toyota or a ford.
@@jarinthemood2000 Having only 2 options still requires choosing don't you agree ? Being free to choose between 2 things is still making the decision isn't it ? Sometimes we have only 2 options sometimes we have more, it's the realm of options in all aspects of life that makes us free. Even if there is 1 option you are able to choose or not choose at all. And the fact that you get to choose and also the fact that you will lean towards choosing one thing over another is because you exist, not because you are shaped by the circumstances (that is also a factor, but primary factor is your existence, if you don't exist no circumstances can influence your decisions, so you being influenced is all part of your existence).
My point was that you had nothing todo with which options were presented to you in the first place. That's the exact opposite of what people mean by free will, they usually mean "I authored the thought and I made the choice" In my example, I made the choices for you. By presenting only the options I wanted you to see. I think you should examine the implications of what you're saying more carefully. Why did I presented only 2 options? What If I had only presented 1 option? What if I had presented nothing? In a sense your brain is doing the samething in a more complicated manner. I still think you are talking about a different kind of free will, not in the philosophical sense, but in a political sense.
It baffles me that people regard Sam Harris as an intellectual. The reason an IDF soldier can pick up his sniper rifle and take aim at a four year old girls head, is because propagandists like Sam Harris has dehumanized muslims for decades.
Dr. Keating, when persons hear voices in the sense that they are in a state of psychosis - the voice is disembodied. This person will not recognize the voice as their inner dialogue and can then develop delusional thinking in relationship to it. People also can become highly neurotic and attend obsessively to their thoughts, and recognize them as their own and feel like they are in a state of “psychotic break” - which distinct from psychosis - it is generally taken as a nervous breakdown. Hope this helps expand what Sam has stated in relationship to thoughts and meditation. 💜
psychosis is more akin to a total fusing with mental appearances to the point the person can no longer distinguish between the thoughts/appearances they are creating and the fact they are unreal ie. created by them. in other words they think the appearances are actually real. the exact opposite of lucidity such as is observing in lucid dreaming to varying degrees of understanding that the dreams are being self created. lucidity is the opposite of fusing with appearances and the knowledge that they are self created becomes clear and easily discriminated.
I think it’s still unclear to me how this all matters. Either we have free will and society needs to change or we don’t and society needs to change? It all seems academic and not at all relatable to daily life. I have to say, for most, me included, the concept of not having free will is hard to grasp. And if we don’t, why even suggest how society should change? Presumably we have no control over that. And that said, the podcast intro was really dishonest, and the idea that slavery is justifiable in any context is repugnant. I can’t hear another defense of religion and keep listening to this podcast. Have your beliefs, but man made religion is the source of so much horror. Frankly, I know there were a lot of Sam Harris fans in this feed. This was my first exposure, and he just came off as another pompous intellectual. I did learn some things, but overall this one failed.
Im happy Brian was able to get a guest the size of Sam, way to go! And I’m also happy SH is finally being seen as a grifter. He’s not dumb, but he lacks the wisdom and mental flexibility to fill the shoes he tries to wear. Every problem in his own life stems from his Twitter addiction, which is only partially his own fault. And every problem in the wider world was caused by Trump. SH needs to step away or this will be his farewell tour. If you’ve heard one SH in the past 5 years, you’ve heard every long winded interview he’s given
Again a hypothetical "Organized religion" In a blink of a eye "Historical time scale" Writing, Religion and Rock piling. This is based on actual physical experiences. Very hard to convey to someone who does not have any. Apologies
I think the reason Dr Keating was so ungracious and dishonest in his introduction on the Spotify version was that Sam absolutely embarrassed him in the last minutes of this discussion.
It really seems like Brian is just so in love with his religion that he completely shuts off his logic and reasoning. For him to sit there and attempt to justify what is clearly barbarism is just proof that the cult he’s part of is simply man made make-believe. So strange how someone seemingly intelligent can still manage to uphold extreme intellectual laziness.
I think many religious people do not realize how moral and logical some atheists are. They are likely are afraid of slipping into immorality. I am never going to be forgiven for my sins so I try a bit harder. Live your best life.
I agree. But this isn't unique to followers of religion. It happens whenever we feel that someone someone is attacking any of the beliefs that we hold as sacred (religion-based or not). We are all prone to it to some extent. The best we can do is watch out for that reaction in ourselves.
That's odd, I thought he was non-religious. I got the impression he was playing devil's advocate. i think you have to love Same to take this so one sided. He looks professional and sounds professional, and talks of morality and ethics, so I can certainly see how someone sharing his views would adopt him as a guru, but non of those things, especially sharing the views, make someone a good choice of guru. A guru is someone who demolishes your worldview and leaves you so broken than you can rebuild yourself better. Sam just doesn't do that for me, but if you are at some other place where he does, God bless you...oops...I guess in that place that would be considered an insult...how about, "May the arbitrarily absolute pre-existing non-personal moral standard bless you!"
In the final act, his true nature was revealed when the mask came off. Brian's attempt to rationalize and defend religious views, especially slavery was reprehensible, revealing a disturbing cognitive dissonance. If Brian were able to see beyond his indoctrination...
NO it should be called "Sam my orthodox guest who couldn't get past his own rigid thought process, because he speaks logically and argues calmly everyone falls for it"
In your audio version of this podcast you sounded very condescending towards Sam and said he is obsessed with Trump. You said he kept bringing Trump up throughout every topic you discussed which is not true. He didn't bring Trump up in every topic yet that is what you are claiming. You are a dishonest person.
The host provided a pretty dismissive and inaccurate introduction to Sam on his audio version podcast. Note he conveniently left this intro out of the RUclips version he posted on this subreddit yesterday. It was a long introduction/disclaimer about Sam Harris' "Trump derangement syndrome" and "obsession" with mentioning Trump every chance he could get. Pretty weak to provide this as a postscript with no way for Sam to respond. Not sure Sam would love his characterization of this conversation especially since Sam was "a get" for this guy's podcast and especially when it was the host who was bringing up Trump and it wasn't even that much of the conversation. Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Herms on the into the Impossible podcast. My longest episode ever, I've never done an episode this long, and this audio essay I am about to give you is going to add to the length of it. But I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what what goes through my mind when I'm doing a podcast with somebody, A big name podcaster, like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it's incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And, and this time, I, I kind of made a mistake, as you'll find out I did not ask Sam some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. And you'll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we're talking about diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness. And he'll come back to Trump. We'll talk about psychedelics Trump, we'll talk about, we'll talk about meditation Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So, I don't know. I don't know the best way to, to attack that, except that I feel I let down my audience. My, my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do kind of the verbal gymnastics, to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. And it didn't really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris, because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast. And it's unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they're unsubscribing, And, I, see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on RUclips and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired today. So I lost many, many subscribers. And the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them, although, you know, it's, it's, it's always better not to lose subscribers than to, than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep what you have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it's not really my concern. I'm not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome? And it, it would be, it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and pointless one at that. And so I didn't do that, but I did fail. of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You'll hear, compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler, And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And, and for all the things that he said and, and done online and elsewhere, he is incredibly courageous and he just doesn't give a, you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I. I mentioned this in my Monday magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Brian Keating dot com slash list me to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, And I, wanted to ask him, but I didn't, is knowing his Sam's opinions about Free will, that we don't have Free will. How is it appropriate in any way or logical in any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just, just malevolent malicious notions to Donald Trump if they're not caused of his own volition? He doesn't choose to be this way according to Sam, I don't believe that, and you'll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard. But respectfully on that notion from Sam about the non-existence of Free will and the non behaviorist activities, nobody behaves as if they have no Free will, as I mentioned with Polsky. And Polsky admitted it as he said, quote to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category, and that he believes nobody has Free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November
Did he also reference Tate, Trump, Musk as paragons of masculinity?? Masculinity requires strength & character, center of which is not treating women like objects or garbage. (not attacking Brian, I admire him as a communicator & I believe he is sincere, its just bewildering how pervasive some of those ideas are)
Brian, I say this with respect and compassion - your discussion/questioning style is extremely chaotic. It nearly became unlistenable in the free will and religious sections towards the end. In trying to ask a question or present a counterargument, you'd go off on many tangets, without finishing any of them, and not even getting close to finishing your original point. Yes, this was compounded by Sam interrupting - I think due to the meandering/rambling way with how your thoughts were manifesting. If you have a point, please try and make it efficiently. As it stands, no points were even made, and it was very frustrating to listen to. It's much more pronounced during a discussion/debate. But it's still present when you're asking questions. You often ramble until the guest is basically forced to interject with their response. They've gotten the gist of the question and things are just becoming more convoluted by letting you continue. Can you write your questions down and word them efficiently beforehand? It seems like it would help a lot.
Good point. Perhaps Brian is taking some tips from the worst podcast host of all time: Lawrence Kraus. Lawrence uses every question to try to convince the audience that he knows his guest's topic better than the guest does.
I fail to see the brilliance. He has an occasional bright idea, and is well prepared to make the same solid arguments about the same topics in every podcast I see him in. I fail to see what is so unusually bright about that. Even Richard Dawkins is more insightful, and his arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. Dawkins is more polite too, which is really saying something, because I find him devoid of humility. Sam is a good debater because he is great at communicating not only eloquently but without opening himself up to attack. He is sharp that way, but it makes his arguments seem a lot more valid than they actually are, because he puts up a kind of wall around them, by finding something the opponent agrees with him about and then using that as a shield. But the down side is that his technique relies almost exclusively on the viewer sharing in his assumptions from the start. He is never going to bring anyone over to his way of thinking. His fans are almost entirely people who agreed with him before they experienced him.
2:56:00 hahaha I love these moments from Sam. The subtle, politely snide response, certain that the bomb the host thinks he's about to drop is a dud. Being distracted with the water bottle really added to it. And the warm and unthreatened smile of kind condescension at 2:57:54 as his expectation is fully realized lol. Sam's the best.
@@nottroy4500 that is ridiculous. Of course you understand exactly what I'm trying to say. Your comment was well written, eloquent, and intelligent,, so you don't lack the capacity to understand. You in no ways misunderstand me, but just as Sam did 48 times in this interview, you take this shortcut to making a point by bypassing the issue stated and claiming that you are somehow not able to comprehend. A stupid person claims to not understand when they have given up on impressing anyone. A brilliant person pretends to be stupid when they know they've already impressed someone, and that anything more they say can only reverse that. It's a good tactic but betrays mild cowardice. I'd rather have a room full of people call me an idiot than one person called me a liar. Clearly I did not suggest anyone invent a new moral paradigm. I was speaking of the fact that we already see that is what Sam is doing, and then if someone is going to do it, the xact qualities you praise in him are the ones that would make for the most dangerous scenario. If a monster suggests doing monstrous things, there's a chance that people will not follow. But if a good person convinces many to declare for all others what is good, we end up in the exact same scenario which created the false religions Sam so adamantly cries out against. I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant, but for those you convinced to think otherwise, now they know also.
Mr. Keating: I'm not unsubscribing to your podcast b/c of Sam's (accurate) observations on Trump. I'm unsubscribing b/c of your sleazy, disingenuous introduction to this episode on Google Podcasts. You have drifted so far away from who (I at least THOUGHT) you were - you've now empirically proven you have ZERO integrity. Semper Fi
Here are the reasons why I think people are unsubscribing: Your attempts at clickbaiting by repeatedly uploading old clips that dilute your feed. Embedded ads and plugs that headbutt the viewer literally mid sentence. Your dishonest attempts at making your guest seem more inflammatory than they really are in your introductions. *add your reasons for unsubscribing in replies*
Rambling with half sentences on and on when people come to listen to the guest. Related: instead of asking a question and yield to the guest, he repeats five different variations of the question. One time I recorded his “questions” lasting a minute and a half or something. I’ve sent him reviews twice over the years pointing these things out, and he claims to read all reviews. And yet he doesn’t change.
It's odd how weirdly he just wants to be famous, he just really wants to be known, and will pander dishonestly to get more engagement. His cognitive dissonance towards the end was weird and interesting to watch, it seems more like he doesn't want to understand or give space to the realization that free will is just not a thing, it goes against things that he very successfully got endoctrinated to believe in since he was a kid. I'm not saying i like seeing it, i understand it and even feel compassionate, because i was once that person. Shattering a religious based belief that was there since your childhood feels very uncomfortable, and so you'll just meander and avoid and you just become incoherent.
I find his works compelling, and I found this discussion enjoyable. Let's delve deeper into the discourse. He posited that Trump has caused harm. To begin, we must establish a moral framework for defining and quantifying harm. Once we establish clear definitions and metrics, I contend that both the Democratic and Republican parties will bear losses. Hence, I perceive Sam as deploying a heuristic vigorously. Consequently, I advocate for voting Libertarian. 55555555555
@@MaxB712 Yeah, was just wondering the exact same thing. What "aha" moment of self-revelation and inner change would occur from his message. Like, maybe if you were a religious zealot and realized you had done evil through that, but I can't see such a person being swayed by absolutist arguments against absolutism. Fight fire with fire is actually not something that generally works well at all, unless you don't care how much of the world burns.
Brian Keating did you really try to defend slavery at 2:57:00? You said the Torah forbids stealing. How does someone become a slave without their life being stolen from them, even if they have the sabbath off?
He never defended slavery. He stated correctly that the term slave is a bit of a mistranslation in some cases, that the actual legal decries were limiting evil, not unleashing it. He botched this explanation, but I have a couple years formal education on Hebrew scriptures such that I just barely have enough expertise to know what he meant to demonstrate despite stating it horrendously. I would argue against him, of course, that they didn't limit the evil enough, and that Yahweh is a monster and a counterfeit god, and though I see Judaism as no more good or evil than any other institutionalized religion, and antisemitism without justification, all religions should be criticized by the arguments like Sam Harris makes, that there is no reason why Judaism should get a free pass on accountability for its evils. But the problem is that Sam can only respond to the arguments as if they are absolutely wrong, because he is an absolutist. Only absolutists can be so spiteful of other absolutists, so perhaps I am one too, at least somewhat, in that I hate the absolutist religious views as much as he does, but I perceive his solution as just an attempt to remove god from religion as if god was ever the problem. The problem was the conception of god and the claim that the conception was itself divine, which is by definition idolatry, so the Mosaic law is ironically, as it was historically perceived, in violation of one of its most high tenants. So Sam rightly points some of this out, but has no conceptual capacity to perceive the rightness in anyone else's argument, so he seems brilliant but only in the mind's of those who agree with him already, either universally or on that specific point. What are you planning to replace religion with? Irreligion. Hatred of tunnel vision with tunnel vision? It sounds like that is all that is being offered, and the world has already seen that tried and failed.
Yes, betrays the fact that you clearly did not listen to what he was saying because the moment that began to speak you would already decided not to listen. He made it clear that he was saying that these were not slaves that were being referred to in all of the incidences and refers to. He's in actual fact correct, not every case but in many of them.. although I don't entirely agree with Brian he simply stated several factual things that contradicts some assumption Sam makes. Nobody in that conversation was arguing that slavery was a good idea. But as usual Sam twists the intent and meaning of the other person's words, and because he's so crafty in how he does so, the other person almost always takes the bait, skipping to the argument that Sam leads them to rather than defend themselves the misuse of their own words. We see Don Lemon try to do a similar thing in the conversation about racism and slavery with Elon Musk. In that case Don was baiting a particular response from the start, what Elan wasn't going to have any of that. I don't entirely agree with Elon's opinion either, nor could I agree with Don's. But I can appreciate Elon's honesty to say what meant and not let those words be diverted to some other purpose. Not did he back down, but rather doubled down on his position. Now someone will probably want to call me a proponent of slavery even though I've done nothing of the sort. That just is the generation that we have all become. It will be short-lived but we have to suffer through it for the moment.
Before agreeing to come onto this podcast, every guest should see how Brian treats Sam with this indefensible introduction (in the podcast, not this video) with false accusations and pandering to his audience. Shameful!
I rarely downvote a video with Sam Harris but have to make an exception with this one. The good Dr. Brian Keating is a special kind of blundering collocutor.
He's a _religious_ physicist who can keep his religion outside his lab, but not outside of his 'pod'. Christians can't accept the idea of No-Free-Will because Xianity *explicitly* demands "willing" submission to God, not "automatic" or "soulless" submission. Meanwhile, no person who fully rejects irrationality would have Stephen Meyer on as a guest and NOT be confrontational with him, like Drs. Sean Carroll & Lawrence Krauss always were with apologists.
Right? Dr. Keating appears to have a mental block against understanding determinism in this context. His questions/objections are total non sequiturs and I applaud both Harris and Sapolsky for figuring out ways to respond.
in general it's a topic where imo experts from other disciplines think this is an outgrowth of spirited dinner party conversation -- like arguing about which star trek is better -- and refuse to believe that everybody didn't start thinking about it as recently as themselves. the reality is that philosophers nailed down the terminology years ago, as well as labeling most pathways the arguments wind up going down. physicists are notorious for imagining they can sort out the soft sciences for all those silly people who cannot do physics, but they are also notorious for being socially clueless and unaware that they are failing to grasp abstract notions of society and mind. [excepting sagan, who spoke so eloquently about the human condition that other physicists imagine they can emulate him with profound words and a weighty demeanor.] Although there is a bind in that non-physicists are generally incapable of saying things about quantum physics that aren't inadequate approximations. in the past i would have nominated dennett as the right figure to referee these discussions, as a philosopher who writes about disputes in his field with great clarity and scepticism. he might still be in written discourse, but i think he is a decade or two past being able to navigate a live argument and articulate where the problems and misunderstandings occur in real time. i heard a recent discussion with sapolski where the two were talking past each other and failing to agree on definitions, and dennett was at times noticeably frustrated and unable to sort out the situation. i would still rate dennett as knowing what he's talking about, but i have to emphasise that a *lot* of people with technical superiority in a topic aren't great at navigating live argument where people are operating from different frameworks. this is its own rare and specialised skill
Everyone is confused. The topic is close in philosophical disagreement as religion. The probability of one’s convections being right are no more than 50%. I can’t believe Harris can be so confident. Mathematic geniuses are not including wolfram, wolpert, Gödel etc. I’m staying with my illusion that free will exists until falsified
I am mystified why anyone argues with Sam or Sapolsky on this. Just because their view on this shatters conventional wisdom doesn’t make it not completely true !
Respectfully Brian you gotta stick to talking about the cosmos you seemed a little unprepared when it came to discussing politics and free will. Then again i loved this beast of a podcast, was great to have on in the background all afternoon.
It is not the fault of Sam Harris that it did not occur to Dr Keating to ask him why in a deterministic universe only Donald Trump should take responsibikity for his actions. Beyond that, Dr Keating has dug a massive hole for himself by misrepresenting the interview in an attempt to retrieve lost subscribers (in a way totally unfair to Sam Harris). No-one can please all of the people all of the time, so it would be best for Dr Keating to be far more dispassionate and say far less when he is hosting his own podcast and allow the guest to be the controversial one. Dr Keating makes for an excellent guest in his own right on other peoples' podcasts. That's where he can be himself more. Things didn't go very well when Dr Keating hosted the IAI show with Hossenfelder, Rovelli and E Weinstein which ended up being a competition to see who of the three guests could diss Roger Penrose's CCC and quantum consciousness ideas the most. The rival theorists appeared to be just that... rivals. And rather defensive with it, particularly Rovelli. Dr Brian Keating is a great guy and a blessing on humanity. But he needs to be more succint with his questions, more dispassionate with his guests and less evangelical with his viewers. And if an interview doesn't go entirely to his liking, just live with it or don't broadcast it at all. But don't under any circumstances tinker with it. And if you don't want a guest to use the word bullshit, tell them before the interview begins. Muting it out just adds to the sense that things are being tampered with.
What ????? Did you watch the entire podcast or you just saw the free will part ??? Keating was speaking about 11 minutes in TOTAL (Only on free will part)
For those who don't know Dr. Keating added this preamble to his audio podcast version of this interview (transcription not my own): "Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Harris on the into the Impossible podcast. My longest episode ever, I've never done an episode this long, and this audio essay I am about to give you is going to add to the length of it. But I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what what goes through my mind when I'm doing a podcast with somebody, A big name podcaster, like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it's incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And, and this time, I, I kind of made a mistake, as you'll find out I did not ask Sam some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. And you'll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we're talking about diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness. And he'll come back to Trump. We'll talk about psychedelics Trump, we'll talk about, we'll talk about meditation Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So, I don't know. I don't know the best way to, to attack that, except that I feel I let down my audience. My, my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do kind of the verbal gymnastics, to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. And it didn't really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris, because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast. And it's unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they're unsubscribing, And, I, see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on RUclips and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired today. So I lost many, many subscribers. And the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them, although, you know, it's, it's, it's always better not to lose subscribers than to, than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep what you have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it's not really my concern. I'm not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome? And it, it would be, it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and pointless one at that. And so I didn't do that, but I did fail. of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You'll hear, compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler, And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And, and for all the things that he said and, and done online and elsewhere, he is incredibly courageous and he just doesn't give a, you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I. I mentioned this in my Monday magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Brian Keating dot com slash list me to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, And I, wanted to ask him, but I didn't, is knowing his Sam's opinions about Free will, that we don't have Free will. How is it appropriate in any way or logical in any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just, just malevolent malicious notions to Donald Trump if they're not caused of his own volition? He doesn't choose to be this way according to Sam, I don't believe that, and you'll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard. But respectfully on that notion from Sam about the non-existence of Free will and the non behaviorist activities, nobody behaves as if they have no Free will, as I mentioned with Polsky. And Polsky admitted it as he said, quote to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category, and that he believes nobody has Free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November." Inaccurate characterizations of the interview aside (it was Dr. Keating who brought up Trump for the most part and it encompassed a very small portion of the interview), if it was cowardly of him not to challenge Sam more then it was double-cowardice to only voice his alleged frustration when he started losing subscribers. During the interview he asks Sam for advice for podcasters, but allow me to proffer some of my own: don't publicly disparage your guests for your own failures and definitely not only after losing subscribers and definitely definitely not when the main challenge you wanted to present they already answered during said appearance.
Yes he is def seeking to become super popular. I enjoy his topics for the most part, but the way he tries to sensationalise aspects of it to gain popularity, the way he constantly name drops, is off putting.
@@yttamhtimshe’s been actively trying to win a Nobel prize for years now, and talks about it all the time. I’ve never come across someone so desperate for recognition.
I’m 45 minutes in, and I haven’t heard Trump brought up yer.. but reading the top comments I was so shocked I stopped listening and opened the Spotify app version and heard that weird introduction… I’m watching the rest to see for myself if your introduction was warranted, because it sounded ridiculous. I expect to hear Sam go off on nonstop Trump tirades like you suggested, I really hope you didn’t just add that dishonest intro because of Sam went off on trump in a relevant response to one or two questions..
Brian you seem like a great person, you seem kind and empathetic. This discussion was not your best moment. Thanks for posting it and best of luck to you. Thanks Sam for agreeing to come on
I think it is great to see someone like yourself speak out with a moderate and unifying message. I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, but I admire and applaud any and all moderates who speak loud with their moderacy. If more moderates would speak out, polarization would be drowned in the sound.
In fairness to Brian, playing devils advocate in that argument gives Sam an awfully big target, and I thought Brian argued it poorly, but it is a bit of a no win situation. I'd like to debate this topic on a moral high-ground to moral high-ground topic...even someone like myself could handle him in a fair fight. But Sam always tricks the debaters into arguing with him on some topic that is indefensible from the start. He is more devious and crafty than wise or brilliant in my assessment, apologies if I am being unfair, but that is just how it seems to me.
Brain between hour 2:29 & 2:44 you should have had an epiphany on whether or not "free will" or "agency" is part of the human condition by now. The fact that you still seem to push free will, even though you do concede, more frequently of late, some of the points Sam & Robert raises, that determinism isn't that crazy. Your position reminds me, God of the gap argument. Ever replenishing, "yeah but".... You as a scientist who understands physics and mathematics can see through woo woo nonsense, the likes of Deepak Chopra of this world, seem incredibly ignorant and arrogant to his own religious belief is mind blowing! WTF?
Brian - so cringe to hear an adult, let alone a scientist keep saying "but but , let me read you another piece of my holy book to justify my holy book". Jesus Christ I thought we'd all moved on from this. So cringe.
People who defend free will aren't even really defending free will, they are defending the fact that they have a feeling of responsibility over their actions. However, feeling of responsibility =/= free will.
@@janluszczek1223 The ability to have done otherwise. I imagine that if I had free will I would be able to make radical changes to my emotional state and subsequently behavior. For example, if I got angry I would be able to immediately calm myself down. Or if I was reading a book and stopped concentrating I would use my free will to immediately get my concentration back. But even then this could be explained by me having my brain wired a certain way. I guess true free will in the end would be behavior which has no cause and was intended by the person who exhibited it. Free will can only exist if causality doesn't or if the causality is only partial. Sam calls this randomness but if the behavior was indeed intended, it wouldn't be random. The problem is that this type of intended yet uncaused behavior doesn't exist in this world. There is always a cause. And even if we were completely wrong about causality, it was just an illusion and didn't exist, then the behavior would still be unintended. If you think about it, behavior is never really intended. We go from having no intention to do something to having the intention. The intention just appears out of nowhere. One second you have no intention to drink water and the next second, you go "wow I'm really thirsty I should drink some water". So yes, in the end you have an intention but you didn't intend to have an intention. It appeared out of nowhere. Even if we are wrong about absolutely everything in this world, wrong about causality, wrong about the laws of physics, wrong about who we are, what matter is, what mind is... free will still makes no sense. I wish it did, because I really like the idea of being free. But the concept is just completely unintelligible.
@janluszczek1223 it's a good question....but I think the only thing anyone can say is that we have neither proof of free will nor proof of determinism.... We simply don't yet have the ability to step outside our own subconscious and emotional selves...so we can't even trust our own conclusions on such a thing.
are they not choosing to have feelings of responsibility? have you ever changed your mind, did something randomly different, even Brownian motion shows non determinism as a substructure of the universe.
@@TheUltimateTerran People definitely don't choose to feel responsible for things, it just happens. And to address your non-determinism argument, even if determinism was false and the causality that we perceive was just an illusion, we still wouldn't have any control over what's happening to us, we would be governed by randomness. One moment you're not thirsty and you're not even thinking about drinking water. The next second the feeling of being thirsty suddenly hits you and the thought to drink some water pops up. Even if we grant that this feeling and thought weren't caused and are therefore not determined, you didn't choose the feeling and the thought either, they just popped into your consciousness. Sam was right on point in this conversation when he said that experiences just appear in our consciousness. We don't plan them, we don't make them appear, they just appear by themselves. So even if you get rid of determinism, free will still makes no sense.
*Always good to see Sam school someone who thinks theyre cleverer than they actually are. The host's clumsy rambling and incapability to understand the basic points that Sam is making is pretty embarrassing.*
Holy shit the podcast intro to this episode is disingenuous. Dr Keating you should be ashamed of yourself, seriosuly. And thats before getting to the religious nonsense...
After seeing this episode, including how difficult it was for Brian to grasp the concept that free will is an illusion, and his weird forrays into religious tropes, I am now fully convinced that he isn't very bright.
@@minakoa7178 Why "yikes"? His thinking on this episode is objectively sloppy. Why is it wrong to point that out? Especially since people seeing my comment may have been affected by his sloppy thinking?
Brian Keating, you should call The Line and speak to Matt Dillahunty about slavery in scripture. You are lucky that you spoke to a more gracious Sam Harris, because, I kid you not, this is the sort of topic that would get Dillahunty riled up. 😁
sam is absolutely dismantling brian on free will. without intending to so, sam makes him look like a toddler flailing around. and it´s not like sam hasn´t any blind spots in his thinking, there aren´t many but they are there, but somebody with theological blinders as thick as brians, will never find those
Brian, I never thought I'd see some religious thinking make you so irrational. Saying a slave gets one day off as a defence of slavery?! That's still 6 days too many. Isn't that so obvious? All the slight mitigations of slavery almost make it seem worse: "New, Jewish Slaves! 10% less bondage and misery! Now it's OKAY!~~"
Hey there, stop for a second and read this: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."' John 3:16 Life is too short to just throw it away. Live it right for God, love God, and inherit eternal life in God's kingdom ❤️. The new Kingdom will be free of the curse of sin (death, suffering, violence, disease, evil, etc.) A true, spiritual journey awaits you! 🕊❤️ I was a militant atheist for years and later dabbled in the occult. I never imagined I would be a Christian. I hated the religion. However, I had a supernatural encounter with Jesus that completely changed me and my life. Nothing this world can offer you even compares to knowing Jesus. His peace, love, and joy transcends all. Jesus Christ loves you, He is your Creator ❤️🕊🙏 Seek Him with a genuine heart and He will reveal His existence to you. The truth shall make you free, friends! (John 8:32) ❤️🕊🙏
3:08:00 "...so god should have known..." Uhh... yes... he's omniscient, so he should have known that humans would use his instructions to justify chattel slavery.
Love your work, Brian. I’ve always viewed you as a rational yet open minded guy Based on everything I’ve heard from you in your podcast over the year I find you to be rational and pragmatic However your defense of Trump and your spin suggesting Sam’s “trump derangement syndrome” is truly baffling to me. Objectively Trump’s actions go directly against any basic ethical and moral code. And yet he even has people like you essentially defending and protecting him I truly want to understand what it is about him that causes folks like you to do so. Sams rationale on why he finds trump so abhorrent has been articulated time and time again. This is a man who’s entire life has run counter to literally every value he now claims to be standing for He’s a bad Christian. A bad conservative. A bad man. I will never understand the Trump kool aid And before it starts I think Biden is terrible. The democrats are terrible. So much is terrible on both sides but to deny that Trump has a fundamental flaw in terms of ethical and moral standing is truly baffling to me I would love to hear you elaborate on this.
Brian, time to let go with the references to a stone age fantasy tora book. Fables lessons are in many books time to move to more modern ideas and references than goats. BK = slavery was good. This is what religion does to otherwise smart people.
The people that still believe in free will do so despite the fact that: 1. They didn't choose their mom or dad. Nor their genes, nor their brain structure. 2. They didn't choose the country they were born in.And therefore 3. They didnt choose the language they were going to speak. 4.They didnt choose their neighborhood, neighbors or the friends they were going to have as kids . 5. Nor the school they were going to attend. 6. Nor the the influence that all these factors had on them (good or bad.) 7. They are communicating in a language they had nothing to do with creating, 8. On platform they didn't create, using digital rules they had nothing to do with. 9. Which uses laws of physics that they don't control, and similarly they didn't choose Nor create. 10.They didn't even choose whether or not they understood what I've written on this message. 11. But some how they all seem to think that choosing Whether to engage in this conversation or not is proof of their freedom of will. What a world!
Yep, and the worst thing is their lack of awareness that they don't actually choose their own wants. Desires just come and go. At any moment, your brain might trigger a craving for your favorite ice cream. The decision to resist that craving is nothing more than an illusion - you would need to have the desire to resist, which would have to be stronger than the urge to eat the ice cream. Can you consciously decide to simply conjure this contrary desire, and can you determine its intensity? Obviously not, because if that were possible, you would never give in to harmful cravings - no alcohol, no added sugars, no lounging on the couch all day, and so on. Desires and the will to oppose them are beyond your control. When we describe someone as "strong-willed" or "disciplined," we're really saying that their brain happens to generate very strong desires to resist those that are harmful or counterproductive. When I explain this to people, they often start to come around to the idea, until I bring up murderers and rapists... for some reason, even after becoming persuaded that they are slaves of their own minds, they reject it when they grasp its full implications, which is that we should treat those morally deranged people like broken biological machines. They have no control over the sudden urge to inflict harm, nor over the strength of their desire to resist it. We should try to fix them, isolate them or use other means to prevent them from causing more damage, just like we would do with an autonomous car that ran somebody over.
@@anatolydyatlov963 It seems like the problem is that they are afraid to lose it. I struggle the most with people who think that they are self-made. Is like talking to a mule.
The introduction on spotify is dishonest and shows lack of integrity. Sam is practically doing a favor here, and you decided to throw him under the bus for his opinions on Trump, wich you brought up. Is not right....
Brian seems like a nice guy but that whole free will section was legitimately painful to listen to. He simply was not understanding or internalizing the depth of what Sam was saying. He still thought there was an agent making choices but that “no free will” just meant that we had to work harder to overcome certain behavior patterns. In reality what Sam is saying is much deeper - all “you” are is just the fact of awareness itself, and all your thoughts, actions, emotions, etc, are just a movie unfolding before consciousness. I actually don’t agree with Sam on some level but you have to truly understand the full depth of argument being made to push back on it.
Ive never watched this guy Brian before and I can't understanding how he has so many followers? I won't be watching him again. Seems like he is trying too hard to apear smart when he asks question's
Sam Harris "calories in = calories out" mentality = how to stay sick and fat. You cut the carbs and eat meat. You will lose the weight and get healthy.
The existence of consciousness is not provable. Assume that consciousness exists. The purpose of consciousness is free will. The purpose of free will is survival. The purpose of survival is existence. Existence precedes essence.
"God should've known...??"-- yes I thought he was all knowing and all powerful if he really was those things and did exist he would've and could've written a better book.
![Dan Dennett: Sam Harris Is WRONG [Ep. 406]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5r8vMk0Zgds/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you believe in free will? Why or why not?
The operation Corpus callosotomy, is good evidence we don’t. When patients are tested, the different hemispheres act independently from each other in some cases.
No - don't feel like I have it
You can only ask or answer certain questions about a system.
The real question is was it OK to treat matter & physical lawisms as Devine, create re routing words that are sloppy generalization that don't care about oreintation and direction only about keeping youth trapped in physical 1st position knowing it's 3 degrees from separation/motion = physically mystified minds.
Trapped in a local dualistic syatem that ensures it can be manipulated and evolved how ever seen fit.
Academic, monetary even time.
Treating time ,matter as if Devine in direct known opposition to its host likeminded majority Americans who hold the proper orientation and direction to be precise and accurate where phenotypical explanatory power is all our greatest works..
But if powers that be didn't lye about Non homogenous galaxies foe 70 years it would be hard to re route them under the thumb wouldn't?
Everything is identified by physical form #1 cracked open sir bacon #2 reorientate bottom up rule,#3 inside out..
We've had religious fuber but more nepharous than that.
1Single cell Finley tune Darwin Babylonian primordial goo struck by lightning, space is a bottleneck..
Millions of American gallaleo kids in health class predicting code of life measure despite not being discovered and in direct opposition to darwins postulations .
Because this was always the plan of pilgrims its the proper orientation and direction that sent Amish into the feilds.
But like Athens they had a ( just uh ,just uh ,deductiveness how about physically mystified atomized comet showers progressive building blocks?
That's not enough in 1990s more Devine matter extremism panspermia everywhere 2020 lol
I know wataboutism ( Sean carrol host some ) Everything consciousness dualism still Devine matter same Ole same Ole.
Oh and never fear Lee Cronin is here with some ,drawin back to rinse repeat square one , single cell Devine matter but abstract assembly Theory selection this time.
Everyone of these are obviously avoiding the most dominant and proven explanatory power of all .
Anything but pragmatic common sense literal christian Newtonian science.
I don't think religion Is as big as it is to keep everyone trapped into 1st position physicalism for the cause of power that be can play Newton and manipulate the local system to evolve how they see fit..
Considering the why/how & the believe/know distinction, why or why not believe or disbelieve in FW suggests you’re requesting motivated reasoning.
We either have it (a), do not have it (b), or have it to one degree or another (c). Believing one way or another really has no bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a, b, or c.
Thus far all experiments suggest we do not have free will.
It would simply be more productive to place the energy we have towards this subject into constructing further experiments to prove / disprove, than place the energy we have towards this subject into philosophically “argueing” one way or the other.
Similar to the God question, I struggle to understand why the question is even posed, (not that I'm opposed to questions) granting I see no reason to assume FW exists in the very first place.
I just made a video on proving free will doesn't exist, it's on my channel if anyone wants to watch it.
The intro to the podcast version of this is the definition of audience capture.
Indeed
@@crestiferj2689 This is actually the only criticism of that entire issue that has any real merit. Sam is always condescending, so I can't take his side, nor can I take Brian's side for being shocked that Sam would be so Sam-like...but you' can't not' know that behind the scenes, these days, everyone is like, "You know I only said that to boost the ratings, right? Let's grab a pint and talk about our true feelings" That's what I like about Jordan Peterson...he has so little control of his emotions that he 'can't not' be brutally honest and transparent.
Brian, why did you slander Sam like that in the podcast intro. Incredibly dishonest and it shows that you have very questionable character at best.
I don’t mean to totally dunk on Keating but he was so lost in this whole conversation. He really can’t have a true intellectual conversation with Sam, or someone like Sam. It really felt like he was constantly just missing the mark.
Sam is a fan of his own voice, the guy is very rigid on his own thought process to the point it's so stubborn it's classified as dumb.
I'd like to know why you began your spotify podcast version of this discussion by suggesting Sam continuously steered the conversation back towards the topic of Trump when in actual fact it was you yourself that did this. You should listen to this podcast yourself then offer Sam an apology. No wonder he does so few podcasts. Very dishonest on your part Dr Keating.
100%. I'm in disbelief that the so called "Trump Derangement System" is given any amount of legitimacy. One of the dumbest claims anyone can make. Anyone with a pulse can see how destructive Trump is to societal norms and democracy. To me, anyone arguing otherwise has just been completely roped in to the personality cult that is Trump, despite how smart they might be. The mental gymnastics you have to do, to get behind someone like Trump is insane to me.
These podcasters leverage Sam whatever way they can to try to benefit from their brief exposure to him bc Sam makes so much sense that he has a huge following.
Yeah it's pathetic really. In his attempt to cater to MAGA imbeciles, he turns away all of Sam's listeners with this BS.
Brian didn’t get political from what I heard. It was Sam who kept circling back to Trump and Brian didn’t feel comfortable challenging him.
That was really odd. I had to come to the RUclips comment section when I heard that. Really seemed like he was desperate to pander to his perceived right leaning audience members. So much so that he misrepresented the truth and scorned his guest.
Keating sounds like another apologist for the bible, Judaism and Christianity. It's surprising, given how smart the guy is. It just sounded like mental masturbation towards the end of the conversation. Nevertheless, I mostly enjoyed this discussion.
This podcast shows how he thinks. He tried to impress Sam and his audience with physics jargon that had nothing to do with the discussion. He had no counters to Sam the entire podcast.
LOL when Sam said, “I promise you, it’s not going to go where you think it is.”
Such a great talk. As time passing like Harris more and more. Great thinker.
I feel that my will is contingent on circumstances beyond total control.
But,within awareness I can and do grow psychologically.
I through conditioning and experiences adjust behaviors.
Recognizing what my limits are and accepting to be useful and be grateful .
And about declaring my identity on that form which I was totally against,did fill out with incredible awareness!
Sam Harris,you are helping me to breathe with more understanding.
Thank you.
I think Brian thought the unsubscribes were because of Sam but mine at least was because I realized how naive Brian is
And a truly bad actor. I'm through 50% of this interview and sam going back to trump just isn't there. Brian is just lying
@@tonynewton5713 it’s worse than lying. He accuses Sam of doing what he did himself!
Ditto. It's Brian's incredible dishonesty. It's one thing for him to disagree with Sam on free will. I think it's silly, but it's not necessarily dishonest. However, Brian utterly misrepresented Sam, and that's disgraceful.
Mr. Keating, you are too religious for such a smart scientist.
Just goes to show, some people can be really smart in some areas and really stupid in others
if only it were that easy, beeing "smart" is in a sense a tool. you can use it as knife to cut through bullshit. or you can use it as a smoke machine to obfuscate, to justify nonsense and elaborately lie to yourself and others.
I was surprised at how different your introduction was on the Spotify version of this interview. There, you sounded a little regretful in some ways that you had this chat with 'Sam. You seemed to want to distance yourself from some of his ideas, in way that quite frankly, I found to be somewhat disrespectful. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but I was surprised that your intro here on YT was so different. More friendly and conciliatory. Seems a little duplicitous to me.
All that aside, I enjoyed the interview. Personally, I think that Sam is right on the money when it comes to Trump and he articulates just what is so concerning about him as a human being better than anyone else I have heard opine on the subject.
P.S. I certainly hope that you do part 2 of this interview so that you can ask some of the questions that you feel you missed on this go round, and also push back more on some of ths issues where you disagree with Sam's take on certain things. I'd be very interested to see how he responds to that kind of healthy debate. Cheers!
I thought the same. Especially the claim that Harris brought up Trump all the time when it was predominantly Keating who introduced Trump.
Agreed. Heard the podcast intro first, then came to YT to watch the interview instead. The podcast seemed disingenuous, as if to preemptively undercut Sam’s words based on negative feedback from those who watched YT shorts and unfollowed the show before the full interview was released.
If somebody is too soft, intellectually lazy, or filters out criticism of the former president for another reason, that’s on them. The lack of ability to accept feedback is the major issue with people who claim TDS every time they hear fair and deserved criticism.
Many of us who did not and will not vote for 45 are not tripping over ourselves and contorting our logical faculties to defend every action made by the current administration. To me, 45 sounds like a blithering idiot when he speaks, and has so since he rode the momentum of the Obama birth certificate conspiracy he promoted, to Ted Cruz’s dad killing JFK during the Republican primaries (😂), to the current “Biden crime family” nonsense... completely ignoring the blatant nepotism of his administration and huge money transfers that occurred while in office. He does have an incredible gift to promote and spread memes, which has kept him afloat and relevant. He deserves credit for having that gift for sure. That TDS meme is a perfect example 😃.
Different title, too...
"Personally, I think that Sam is right on the money when it comes to Trump" I'm shocked there are people who A) would disagree with his obviously accurate characterization of Trump B) would literally unsubscribe from the pod over him voicing his thoughts on said topic.
@@gretahoffmann8614 Exactly! The ONLY TWO segments where Trump was brought up by OP in fact!
If subscribers can’t bear to listen to someone they disagree with (or just skip an episode) they should be extremely embarrassed as they look for a suitable echo chamber
apparently even some presumably very smart people need safe spaces
Don't sweat it. They're just bots. They come with the territory wherever Harris is featured.
100% correct. Those that are unsubscribing can’t tolerate having their viewpoint challenged. A major problem with society today.
@@brentsutherlandwelp, he lost another subscriber for catering to them in his desperate plea in the Spotify intro. I listen to podcasts with different political leanings than mine all the time, I don’t listen to podcasts that are completely audience captured and pander to people who don’t want to hear reality.
Answers are clear, questions are beyond confusing
Sam Harris is the only podcaster that I listen to everyone of his episodes. It's better to have less subscribers than to have more at any cost - reference to the starting statements on Spotify.
Brian you are very very smart and have wit, that is very obvious from all the podcasts I watched with you. What kind of always takes me by surprise is how religion "virus" is so strong that it can overcome even the most rational and smart people. The last part of this podcast is great example of that. And I make distinction between religious in the vaguer sense of having sense of higher power vs religions in a very traditional way and defending each line in a 3000 old book. This was example of the latter.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ as Japanese would say ….. huh !
I laughed so hard at the example of Trump pointing out his own kids success is riding his coat tails
Dr Keating not an efficient thinker.
My takeaway from this podcast: Sam is leagues above Dr Keating intellectually
I really do respect both Sam and Brian. In 2017 I was in his class at UCSD and really loved his work and teaching. Sam Harris also introduced me to sound arguments and logic and was a big part of me growing up “coming of age” if you will
But unfortunately I do feel that Brian does let religion cloud his judgement far too often. And it’s unfortunate because he is 100000x as brilliant as I am, but still lets religion get in the way of logical discussion
Been following Sam for nearly 30 years, I am so thankful for his perspective and voice of reason.
Sam is a hypocrite. Went from preechong dissolve the ego to this TDS ego monster he is today... old sam wad a legend
@@hwlbausch Think it's a bit reductive to say he is either a legend or a monster and has changed that much over time. I never agreed with Sam on everything, but on most subjects he still has quite a bit of insight.
This poor chap is confused. His religious indoctrination has left him cognitively blocked.
“If you make yourself small enough, you can externalize everything.”
Sam and Brian remember thy seats given will follow thee!
The proud are all too unwilling to let go of the notion that it all boils down to luck.
The host made himself look like a real idiot at the end
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ whom was the host and did it have free will
too much drama politics is draining our energy
Indeed to have Offsprings to suck as time as this! Many Offsprings Perish! Troubles my beautiful spirit, Hearts, and Minds!
The word polymath is branded around these days so much without care or consideration, but this guy Sam Harris really is a polymath!
Sabbath washing thy feet to be given New feet! And wiping thy tears from your eyes! Instead of bounding all feet and thy hands in front!
Sam Harris for President. Seriously he is a great blend of conservative and liberal. He has great morals. He does not dump on religion as a social construct. A bunch of atheists getting together is thought bad by the KKK and vice a versa. We need to be a little more accepting of other ideas. Religion should be treated as the founders considered. How could the SC get this wrong?
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ why do we needa pr4sident /
You're doing well, Brian. And yo'u're doing good. I'm a high school physics and chemistry teacher. I can see how we are in the same business.
There is chattel slavery in the Bible. Get ancient near east expert on the show, like Dr. Josh Bowen. Would be great to clear this up.
The phrase "What it's like to be something" equated to being conscious never made sense to me. There is a "What it's like to be" a rock. "What is awareness ?" is a better question. If we pretend that a rock is conscious or aware at some level (because forces and energy are also flowing within it), the idea of consciousness becomes distinctionless/meaningless. The sensation of consciousness clearly depends on forces flowing through subsystems and structures of channels and pathways doing differencing, integration, and comparison (that is only and exactly Now).
On free will part, Sam Harris was speaking how we can't control things, but free is not synonymous with control, but it is with adaptation. When speaking about free will we need to distinguish what is freedom and what is your will (or the self). When I think of free will, it's not about how we came to conclusion to do something, it's about having the ability to do it, or having that option available (even when that option is not part of our choice or outcome). The way we came to that decision is not involved in the concept of freedom, it's involved in the concept of self. Freedom is expressed in our (the self) interaction with the world. Being able and being free is the same thing, how we came to make decision is all part of the self and the desire to make a particular choice came from the self. The fact that you did something doesn't mean your ability to do the other thing disappeared, it just means you are able to do 1 thing at a time, you are able to make just 1 decision in a present moment and in my opinion that is crucial why some people lean towards the notion that we don't have free will. When we make a decision it's over, and it creates a feeling we are not in control, but it's not about control. It''s about being able to navigate through unpredictable situations, the tool that allows us to live through chaos or not knowing what is coming next, it's about adaptation and fluidity.
Your definition is not what most people mean by free will. Most people think what ever they chose to do, came because they (themselves) thought and decided it. And if they could go back in time, they could've chosen differently.
Also I disagree with your premise. You are not free to select among things that you don't know, or that you don't remember. This was the point of the "think of a celebrity" exercise.
There are probably thousands of celebrities who you don't know so you are not free to select those. And there are other celebrities who you know but their name did not come to mind when you were asked. Were you free to choose those?
It almost sounds like you're conflating political free will with philosophical free will.
@@jarinthemood2000 I see... it's ok if you disagree, but I think you maybe misunderstood what I said. I agree with you that free will is what people themselfs decided, and I was trying to explain exacly that. Free = having options, everything else that influenced our decision is the self (even when the self is influenced by the circumstances). Every person is unique and the way they are influenced by something is all part of the self (your will). That's what free will is supposed to be it's very simple, when we go further why we came to the conclusion it's all because of the self (because you exist). We can't say that we are not free because we can't control some things. Freedom is having options, not how we came to choose one particular option, how we came to take the option is the self, and options are freedom. Options + making decisions (the self) = free will, all parts of making the decision is because we exist (it's the self, or your will) if we go further we complicate the issue but the deffinition is very simple in my view. We can ask where is the line of being influenced and making the decision yourself? but in my view it's all because we exist, we must make decisions because we live and that's your will, and that realm of various options is freedom.
@@The-Underground-Man
Right...
And I rebutted by saying that those options are not always available to you. So you are not free to choose things that are not on the list.
So now if you're saying it doesn't matter if those options are not available, then that's like me telling you, that you are free to pick any car you want as long as its a toyota or a ford.
@@jarinthemood2000 Having only 2 options still requires choosing don't you agree ? Being free to choose between 2 things is still making the decision isn't it ? Sometimes we have only 2 options sometimes we have more, it's the realm of options in all aspects of life that makes us free. Even if there is 1 option you are able to choose or not choose at all. And the fact that you get to choose and also the fact that you will lean towards choosing one thing over another is because you exist, not because you are shaped by the circumstances (that is also a factor, but primary factor is your existence, if you don't exist no circumstances can influence your decisions, so you being influenced is all part of your existence).
My point was that you had nothing todo with which options were presented to you in the first place. That's the exact opposite of what people mean by free will, they usually mean "I authored the thought and I made the choice" In my example, I made the choices for you. By presenting only the options I wanted you to see. I think you should examine the implications of what you're saying more carefully. Why did I presented only 2 options? What If I had only presented 1 option? What if I had presented nothing? In a sense your brain is doing the samething in a more complicated manner.
I still think you are talking about a different kind of free will, not in the philosophical sense, but in a political sense.
It baffles me that people regard Sam Harris as an intellectual. The reason an IDF soldier can pick up his sniper rifle and take aim at a four year old girls head, is because propagandists like Sam Harris has dehumanized muslims for decades.
Sam criticizes Muslim ideas, not Muslim people. Guess who gets affected the worst by Muslim ideas? Other Muslims.
@@BigMeatyClaaws All Abrahamic faiths are just Death Cults so whatever Sam can say only touches the surface. Go Sam
Dr. Keating, when persons hear voices in the sense that they are in a state of psychosis - the voice is disembodied. This person will not recognize the voice as their inner dialogue and can then develop delusional thinking in relationship to it. People also can become highly neurotic and attend obsessively to their thoughts, and recognize them as their own and feel like they are in a state of “psychotic break” - which distinct from psychosis - it is generally taken as a nervous breakdown. Hope this helps expand what Sam has stated in relationship to thoughts and meditation. 💜
psychosis is more akin to a total fusing with mental appearances to the point the person can no longer distinguish between the thoughts/appearances they are creating and the fact they are unreal ie. created by them. in other words they think the appearances are actually real.
the exact opposite of lucidity such as is observing in lucid dreaming to varying degrees of understanding that the dreams are being self created. lucidity is the opposite of fusing with appearances and the knowledge that they are self created becomes clear and easily discriminated.
@@5piles interesting 🤔 🙂
I think it’s still unclear to me how this all matters. Either we have free will and society needs to change or we don’t and society needs to change? It all seems academic and not at all relatable to daily life. I have to say, for most, me included, the concept of not having free will is hard to grasp. And if we don’t, why even suggest how society should change? Presumably we have no control over that.
And that said, the podcast intro was really dishonest, and the idea that slavery is justifiable in any context is repugnant. I can’t hear another defense of religion and keep listening to this podcast. Have your beliefs, but man made religion is the source of so much horror.
Frankly, I know there were a lot of Sam Harris fans in this feed. This was my first exposure, and he just came off as another pompous intellectual.
I did learn some things, but overall this one failed.
you want me to subscribe after that ending… Yeezus ..
Im happy Brian was able to get a guest the size of Sam, way to go! And I’m also happy SH is finally being seen as a grifter. He’s not dumb, but he lacks the wisdom and mental flexibility to fill the shoes he tries to wear. Every problem in his own life stems from his Twitter addiction, which is only partially his own fault. And every problem in the wider world was caused by Trump. SH needs to step away or this will be his farewell tour. If you’ve heard one SH in the past 5 years, you’ve heard every long winded interview he’s given
667th comment.
the OPRAH phenomenon just blew my mind.
It started well, middle was great. but when Brian Keating started all religious BS, it went all downhill. Kudos to Sam for keeping cool.
Brian, how about letting all that ancient Jewish nonsense go? You don't need it. You are a citizen of the world, my friend.
Again a hypothetical "Organized religion" In a blink of a eye "Historical time scale" Writing, Religion and Rock piling. This is based on actual physical experiences. Very hard to convey to someone who does not have any. Apologies
Sam even from my Heirs shared "i" AM from China knows WHO? Why nor How? 1 out of many.
Anyone ever hear of a guy named Alan Watts? Look him up and then listen to this again.🕉️
I just subscribed because you were honest in explaining why more subcribers help. That and Im a fan of Sam and many of the guests you have had before.
I think the reason Dr Keating was so ungracious and dishonest in his introduction on the Spotify version was that Sam absolutely embarrassed him in the last minutes of this discussion.
I think he embarrassed himself. Sam was just being Sam.
Yeah this was a bit cringe to watch on Brian’s behalf. I was really surprised how hard Brian went trying to defend the religious texts.
Wow, Keating lost it pushing his Iron Age fables at the end, but I credit him for not getting angry as Sam dismantled Keating's Koran arguments.
Oh, it got worse? I couldn't make it passed the free will part.
I was getting too much second hand embarrassment from Brian's replies 😅
I think Sam even implied that he was an idiot at one point
It really seems like Brian is just so in love with his religion that he completely shuts off his logic and reasoning. For him to sit there and attempt to justify what is clearly barbarism is just proof that the cult he’s part of is simply man made make-believe. So strange how someone seemingly intelligent can still manage to uphold extreme intellectual laziness.
I think many religious people do not realize how moral and logical some atheists are. They are likely are afraid of slipping into immorality. I am never going to be forgiven for my sins so I try a bit harder. Live your best life.
I agree. But this isn't unique to followers of religion. It happens whenever we feel that someone someone is attacking any of the beliefs that we hold as sacred (religion-based or not). We are all prone to it to some extent. The best we can do is watch out for that reaction in ourselves.
That's odd, I thought he was non-religious. I got the impression he was playing devil's advocate. i think you have to love Same to take this so one sided. He looks professional and sounds professional, and talks of morality and ethics, so I can certainly see how someone sharing his views would adopt him as a guru, but non of those things, especially sharing the views, make someone a good choice of guru. A guru is someone who demolishes your worldview and leaves you so broken than you can rebuild yourself better. Sam just doesn't do that for me, but if you are at some other place where he does, God bless you...oops...I guess in that place that would be considered an insult...how about, "May the arbitrarily absolute pre-existing non-personal moral standard bless you!"
This episode should be called “The Unmasking of Brian Keating.”
In the final act, his true nature was revealed when the mask came off. Brian's attempt to rationalize and defend religious views, especially slavery was reprehensible, revealing a disturbing cognitive dissonance.
If Brian were able to see beyond his indoctrination...
NO it should be called "Sam my orthodox guest who couldn't get past his own rigid thought process, because he speaks logically and argues calmly everyone falls for it"
In your audio version of this podcast you sounded very condescending towards Sam and said he is obsessed with Trump. You said he kept bringing Trump up throughout every topic you discussed which is not true. He didn't bring Trump up in every topic yet that is what you are claiming. You are a dishonest person.
The host provided a pretty dismissive and inaccurate introduction to Sam on his audio version podcast. Note he conveniently left this intro out of the RUclips version he posted on this subreddit yesterday. It was a long introduction/disclaimer about Sam Harris' "Trump derangement syndrome" and "obsession" with mentioning Trump every chance he could get. Pretty weak to provide this as a postscript with no way for Sam to respond. Not sure Sam would love his characterization of this conversation especially since Sam was "a get" for this guy's podcast and especially when it was the host who was bringing up Trump and it wasn't even that much of the conversation.
Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Herms on the into the Impossible podcast. My longest episode ever, I've never done an episode this long, and this audio essay I am about to give you is going to add to the length of it. But I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what what goes through my mind when I'm doing a podcast with somebody, A big name podcaster, like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it's incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And, and this time, I, I kind of made a mistake, as you'll find out I did not ask Sam some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. And you'll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we're talking about diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness.
And he'll come back to Trump. We'll talk about psychedelics Trump, we'll talk about, we'll talk about meditation Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So, I don't know. I don't know the best way to, to attack that, except that I feel I let down my audience. My, my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do kind of the verbal gymnastics, to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. And it didn't really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris, because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast.
And it's unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they're unsubscribing, And, I, see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on RUclips and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired today. So I lost many, many subscribers. And the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them, although, you know, it's, it's, it's always better not to lose subscribers than to, than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep what you have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it's not really my concern. I'm not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome?
And it, it would be, it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and pointless one at that. And so I didn't do that, but I did fail. of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You'll hear, compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler, And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And, and for all the things that he said and, and done online and elsewhere, he is incredibly courageous and he just doesn't give a, you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I. I mentioned this in my Monday magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Brian Keating dot com slash list me to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, And I, wanted to ask him, but I didn't, is knowing his Sam's opinions about Free will, that we don't have Free will. How is it appropriate in any way or logical in any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just, just malevolent malicious notions to Donald Trump if they're not caused of his own volition? He doesn't choose to be this way according to Sam, I don't believe that, and you'll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard. But respectfully on that notion from Sam about the non-existence of Free will and the non behaviorist activities, nobody behaves as if they have no Free will, as I mentioned with Polsky. And Polsky admitted it as he said, quote to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category, and that he believes nobody has Free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November
What subreddit is it?
Brian how could you defend slavery, in whatever mild form? Sam is right. Why are we even talking about these stone age ideas?
Did he also reference Tate, Trump, Musk as paragons of masculinity?? Masculinity requires strength & character, center of which is not treating women like objects or garbage.
(not attacking Brian, I admire him as a communicator & I believe he is sincere, its just bewildering how pervasive some of those ideas are)
He’s kinda Weird. I remember why I unsubscribed. I came for Sam and now I will unsubscribe yet again.
Brian, I say this with respect and compassion - your discussion/questioning style is extremely chaotic. It nearly became unlistenable in the free will and religious sections towards the end.
In trying to ask a question or present a counterargument, you'd go off on many tangets, without finishing any of them, and not even getting close to finishing your original point.
Yes, this was compounded by Sam interrupting - I think due to the meandering/rambling way with how your thoughts were manifesting.
If you have a point, please try and make it efficiently. As it stands, no points were even made, and it was very frustrating to listen to.
It's much more pronounced during a discussion/debate. But it's still present when you're asking questions. You often ramble until the guest is basically forced to interject with their response. They've gotten the gist of the question and things are just becoming more convoluted by letting you continue.
Can you write your questions down and word them efficiently beforehand? It seems like it would help a lot.
Good point. Perhaps Brian is taking some tips from the worst podcast host of all time: Lawrence Kraus.
Lawrence uses every question to try to convince the audience that he knows his guest's topic better than the guest does.
Fantastically worded. The host is embarrassing himself. His questions and exchanges are inane, at best, disingenuous at worst.
It's always great to hear Sam, he has brilliant mind.
I fail to see the brilliance. He has an occasional bright idea, and is well prepared to make the same solid arguments about the same topics in every podcast I see him in. I fail to see what is so unusually bright about that. Even Richard Dawkins is more insightful, and his arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. Dawkins is more polite too, which is really saying something, because I find him devoid of humility. Sam is a good debater because he is great at communicating not only eloquently but without opening himself up to attack. He is sharp that way, but it makes his arguments seem a lot more valid than they actually are, because he puts up a kind of wall around them, by finding something the opponent agrees with him about and then using that as a shield. But the down side is that his technique relies almost exclusively on the viewer sharing in his assumptions from the start. He is never going to bring anyone over to his way of thinking. His fans are almost entirely people who agreed with him before they experienced him.
2:56:00
hahaha I love these moments from Sam. The subtle, politely snide response, certain that the bomb the host thinks he's about to drop is a dud. Being distracted with the water bottle really added to it.
And the warm and unthreatened smile of kind condescension at 2:57:54 as his expectation is fully realized lol. Sam's the best.
You are describing the exact qualities of someone most capable and least worthy of inventing a new morality and replicating it in others.
@@michaelbarrett7327 Not sure what you’re trying to say but “inventing a new morality” makes me think it’s probably not worth unpacking.
@@nottroy4500 that is ridiculous. Of course you understand exactly what I'm trying to say. Your comment was well written, eloquent, and intelligent,, so you don't lack the capacity to understand. You in no ways misunderstand me, but just as Sam did 48 times in this interview, you take this shortcut to making a point by bypassing the issue stated and claiming that you are somehow not able to comprehend. A stupid person claims to not understand when they have given up on impressing anyone. A brilliant person pretends to be stupid when they know they've already impressed someone, and that anything more they say can only reverse that. It's a good tactic but betrays mild cowardice. I'd rather have a room full of people call me an idiot than one person called me a liar. Clearly I did not suggest anyone invent a new moral paradigm. I was speaking of the fact that we already see that is what Sam is doing, and then if someone is going to do it, the xact qualities you praise in him are the ones that would make for the most dangerous scenario. If a monster suggests doing monstrous things, there's a chance that people will not follow. But if a good person convinces many to declare for all others what is good, we end up in the exact same scenario which created the false religions Sam so adamantly cries out against. I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant, but for those you convinced to think otherwise, now they know also.
Mr. Keating: I'm not unsubscribing to your podcast b/c of Sam's (accurate) observations on Trump. I'm unsubscribing b/c of your sleazy, disingenuous introduction to this episode on Google Podcasts.
You have drifted so far away from who (I at least THOUGHT) you were - you've now empirically proven you have ZERO integrity.
Semper Fi
Here are the reasons why I think people are unsubscribing:
Your attempts at clickbaiting by repeatedly uploading old clips that dilute your feed.
Embedded ads and plugs that headbutt the viewer literally mid sentence.
Your dishonest attempts at making your guest seem more inflammatory than they really are in your introductions.
*add your reasons for unsubscribing in replies*
Rambling with half sentences on and on when people come to listen to the guest.
Related: instead of asking a question and yield to the guest, he repeats five different variations of the question. One time I recorded his “questions” lasting a minute and a half or something.
I’ve sent him reviews twice over the years pointing these things out, and he claims to read all reviews. And yet he doesn’t change.
@@pesimeon I think he likes to listen to his own voice a bit too much...
Commenters who have reasons why "they think" bla bla bla.
It's odd how weirdly he just wants to be famous, he just really wants to be known, and will pander dishonestly to get more engagement. His cognitive dissonance towards the end was weird and interesting to watch, it seems more like he doesn't want to understand or give space to the realization that free will is just not a thing, it goes against things that he very successfully got endoctrinated to believe in since he was a kid. I'm not saying i like seeing it, i understand it and even feel compassionate, because i was once that person. Shattering a religious based belief that was there since your childhood feels very uncomfortable, and so you'll just meander and avoid and you just become incoherent.
Grow balls, Keating, and stand up to your Trumpist audience
Are you a Dem?
Let me just say, Sam Harris has changed my life in various ways. It's always a pleasure and a privilege to hear him speak. His wisdom is timeless.
Is this satire?
Must be @@MaxB712
I find his works compelling, and I found this discussion enjoyable. Let's delve deeper into the discourse. He posited that Trump has caused harm. To begin, we must establish a moral framework for defining and quantifying harm. Once we establish clear definitions and metrics, I contend that both the Democratic and Republican parties will bear losses. Hence, I perceive Sam as deploying a heuristic vigorously. Consequently, I advocate for voting Libertarian. 55555555555
Cringe
@@MaxB712 Yeah, was just wondering the exact same thing. What "aha" moment of self-revelation and inner change would occur from his message. Like, maybe if you were a religious zealot and realized you had done evil through that, but I can't see such a person being swayed by absolutist arguments against absolutism. Fight fire with fire is actually not something that generally works well at all, unless you don't care how much of the world burns.
Sam Harris is fantastic. Whats up with the cowardly way you cratered to audience capture and insulted him after the fact? Be better, amigo.
Brian Keating did you really try to defend slavery at 2:57:00? You said the Torah forbids stealing. How does someone become a slave without their life being stolen from them, even if they have the sabbath off?
His defense of religion while debating Sam Harris is clownish stuff
@@skatealex1 Defending religion isn't the issue, defending the wicked talmudic idea of jewish bloodline supremacy is mind boggling.
He never defended slavery. He stated correctly that the term slave is a bit of a mistranslation in some cases, that the actual legal decries were limiting evil, not unleashing it. He botched this explanation, but I have a couple years formal education on Hebrew scriptures such that I just barely have enough expertise to know what he meant to demonstrate despite stating it horrendously. I would argue against him, of course, that they didn't limit the evil enough, and that Yahweh is a monster and a counterfeit god, and though I see Judaism as no more good or evil than any other institutionalized religion, and antisemitism without justification, all religions should be criticized by the arguments like Sam Harris makes, that there is no reason why Judaism should get a free pass on accountability for its evils. But the problem is that Sam can only respond to the arguments as if they are absolutely wrong, because he is an absolutist. Only absolutists can be so spiteful of other absolutists, so perhaps I am one too, at least somewhat, in that I hate the absolutist religious views as much as he does, but I perceive his solution as just an attempt to remove god from religion as if god was ever the problem. The problem was the conception of god and the claim that the conception was itself divine, which is by definition idolatry, so the Mosaic law is ironically, as it was historically perceived, in violation of one of its most high tenants. So Sam rightly points some of this out, but has no conceptual capacity to perceive the rightness in anyone else's argument, so he seems brilliant but only in the mind's of those who agree with him already, either universally or on that specific point. What are you planning to replace religion with? Irreligion. Hatred of tunnel vision with tunnel vision? It sounds like that is all that is being offered, and the world has already seen that tried and failed.
Yes, betrays the fact that you clearly did not listen to what he was saying because the moment that began to speak you would already decided not to listen. He made it clear that he was saying that these were not slaves that were being referred to in all of the incidences and refers to. He's in actual fact correct, not every case but in many of them.. although I don't entirely agree with Brian he simply stated several factual things that contradicts some assumption Sam makes. Nobody in that conversation was arguing that slavery was a good idea. But as usual Sam twists the intent and meaning of the other person's words, and because he's so crafty in how he does so, the other person almost always takes the bait, skipping to the argument that Sam leads them to rather than defend themselves the misuse of their own words. We see Don Lemon try to do a similar thing in the conversation about racism and slavery with Elon Musk. In that case Don was baiting a particular response from the start, what Elan wasn't going to have any of that. I don't entirely agree with Elon's opinion either, nor could I agree with Don's. But I can appreciate Elon's honesty to say what meant and not let those words be diverted to some other purpose. Not did he back down, but rather doubled down on his position. Now someone will probably want to call me a proponent of slavery even though I've done nothing of the sort. That just is the generation that we have all become. It will be short-lived but we have to suffer through it for the moment.
Before agreeing to come onto this podcast, every guest should see how Brian treats Sam with this indefensible introduction (in the podcast, not this video) with false accusations and pandering to his audience. Shameful!
I rarely downvote a video with Sam Harris but have to make an exception with this one. The good Dr. Brian Keating is a special kind of blundering collocutor.
I’m astonished at how even scholarly physicists can be confused about free will.
He's a _religious_ physicist who can keep his religion outside his lab, but not outside of his 'pod'. Christians can't accept the idea of No-Free-Will because Xianity *explicitly* demands "willing" submission to God, not "automatic" or "soulless" submission. Meanwhile, no person who fully rejects irrationality would have Stephen Meyer on as a guest and NOT be confrontational with him, like Drs. Sean Carroll & Lawrence Krauss always were with apologists.
Right? Dr. Keating appears to have a mental block against understanding determinism in this context. His questions/objections are total non sequiturs and I applaud both Harris and Sapolsky for figuring out ways to respond.
Yep.@@brandonandrews4009
in general it's a topic where imo experts from other disciplines think this is an outgrowth of spirited dinner party conversation -- like arguing about which star trek is better -- and refuse to believe that everybody didn't start thinking about it as recently as themselves. the reality is that philosophers nailed down the terminology years ago, as well as labeling most pathways the arguments wind up going down. physicists are notorious for imagining they can sort out the soft sciences for all those silly people who cannot do physics, but they are also notorious for being socially clueless and unaware that they are failing to grasp abstract notions of society and mind. [excepting sagan, who spoke so eloquently about the human condition that other physicists imagine they can emulate him with profound words and a weighty demeanor.] Although there is a bind in that non-physicists are generally incapable of saying things about quantum physics that aren't inadequate approximations. in the past i would have nominated dennett as the right figure to referee these discussions, as a philosopher who writes about disputes in his field with great clarity and scepticism. he might still be in written discourse, but i think he is a decade or two past being able to navigate a live argument and articulate where the problems and misunderstandings occur in real time. i heard a recent discussion with sapolski where the two were talking past each other and failing to agree on definitions, and dennett was at times noticeably frustrated and unable to sort out the situation. i would still rate dennett as knowing what he's talking about, but i have to emphasise that a *lot* of people with technical superiority in a topic aren't great at navigating live argument where people are operating from different frameworks. this is its own rare and specialised skill
Everyone is confused. The topic is close in philosophical disagreement as religion. The probability of one’s convections being right are no more than 50%. I can’t believe Harris can be so confident. Mathematic geniuses are not including wolfram, wolpert, Gödel etc. I’m staying with my illusion that free will exists until falsified
I am mystified why anyone argues with Sam or Sapolsky on this. Just because their view on this shatters conventional wisdom doesn’t make it not completely true !
Respectfully Brian you gotta stick to talking about the cosmos you seemed a little unprepared when it came to discussing politics and free will. Then again i loved this beast of a podcast, was great to have on in the background all afternoon.
It is not the fault of Sam Harris that it did not occur to Dr Keating to ask him why in a deterministic universe only Donald Trump should take responsibikity for his actions.
Beyond that, Dr Keating has dug a massive hole for himself by misrepresenting the interview in an attempt to retrieve lost subscribers (in a way totally unfair to Sam Harris).
No-one can please all of the people all of the time, so it would be best for Dr Keating to be far more dispassionate and say far less when he is hosting his own podcast and allow the guest to be the controversial one. Dr Keating makes for an excellent guest in his own right on other peoples' podcasts. That's where he can be himself more.
Things didn't go very well when Dr Keating hosted the IAI show with Hossenfelder, Rovelli and E Weinstein which ended up being a competition to see who of the three guests could diss Roger Penrose's CCC and quantum consciousness ideas the most. The rival theorists appeared to be just that... rivals. And rather defensive with it, particularly Rovelli.
Dr Brian Keating is a great guy and a blessing on humanity. But he needs to be more succint with his questions, more dispassionate with his guests and less evangelical with his viewers. And if an interview doesn't go entirely to his liking, just live with it or don't broadcast it at all. But don't under any circumstances tinker with it. And if you don't want a guest to use the word bullshit, tell them before the interview begins. Muting it out just adds to the sense that things are being tampered with.
What ????? Did you watch the entire podcast or you just saw the free will part ??? Keating was speaking about 11 minutes in TOTAL (Only on free will part)
For those who don't know Dr. Keating added this preamble to his audio podcast version of this interview (transcription not my own):
"Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Harris on the into the Impossible podcast. My longest episode ever, I've never done an episode this long, and this audio essay I am about to give you is going to add to the length of it. But I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what what goes through my mind when I'm doing a podcast with somebody, A big name podcaster, like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it's incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And, and this time, I, I kind of made a mistake, as you'll find out I did not ask Sam some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. And you'll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we're talking about diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness.
And he'll come back to Trump. We'll talk about psychedelics Trump, we'll talk about, we'll talk about meditation Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So, I don't know. I don't know the best way to, to attack that, except that I feel I let down my audience. My, my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do kind of the verbal gymnastics, to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. And it didn't really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris, because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast.
And it's unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they're unsubscribing, And, I, see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on RUclips and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired today. So I lost many, many subscribers. And the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them, although, you know, it's, it's, it's always better not to lose subscribers than to, than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep what you have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it's not really my concern. I'm not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome?
And it, it would be, it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and pointless one at that. And so I didn't do that, but I did fail. of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You'll hear, compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler, And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And, and for all the things that he said and, and done online and elsewhere, he is incredibly courageous and he just doesn't give a, you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I. I mentioned this in my Monday magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Brian Keating dot com slash list me to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, And I, wanted to ask him, but I didn't, is knowing his Sam's opinions about Free will, that we don't have Free will. How is it appropriate in any way or logical in any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just, just malevolent malicious notions to Donald Trump if they're not caused of his own volition? He doesn't choose to be this way according to Sam, I don't believe that, and you'll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard. But respectfully on that notion from Sam about the non-existence of Free will and the non behaviorist activities, nobody behaves as if they have no Free will, as I mentioned with Polsky. And Polsky admitted it as he said, quote to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category, and that he believes nobody has Free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November."
Inaccurate characterizations of the interview aside (it was Dr. Keating who brought up Trump for the most part and it encompassed a very small portion of the interview), if it was cowardly of him not to challenge Sam more then it was double-cowardice to only voice his alleged frustration when he started losing subscribers. During the interview he asks Sam for advice for podcasters, but allow me to proffer some of my own: don't publicly disparage your guests for your own failures and definitely not only after losing subscribers and definitely definitely not when the main challenge you wanted to present they already answered during said appearance.
I only discovered brian recently but the way he advertises and hypes things in a feeble attempt for views really leaves a bad taste in my mouth
He rambles a lot! It’s really hard to read!
Yes he is def seeking to become super popular. I enjoy his topics for the most part, but the way he tries to sensationalise aspects of it to gain popularity, the way he constantly name drops, is off putting.
@@yttamhtimshe’s been actively trying to win a Nobel prize for years now, and talks about it all the time. I’ve never come across someone so desperate for recognition.
Very well said!
I’m 45 minutes in, and I haven’t heard Trump brought up yer.. but reading the top comments I was so shocked I stopped listening and opened the Spotify app version and heard that weird introduction… I’m watching the rest to see for myself if your introduction was warranted, because it sounded ridiculous. I expect to hear Sam go off on nonstop Trump tirades like you suggested, I really hope you didn’t just add that dishonest intro because of Sam went off on trump in a relevant response to one or two questions..
Yeah.. wow Brian the end of this podcast was atrocious. I thank you for your courage to publish it, because you willingly put your foot in your mouth.
Harris mentioned Trump in the first few minutes of the interview. He suffers from TDS.
Brian you seem like a great person, you seem kind and empathetic. This discussion was not your best moment. Thanks for posting it and best of luck to you. Thanks Sam for agreeing to come on
I think it is great to see someone like yourself speak out with a moderate and unifying message. I don't necessarily agree with your assessment, but I admire and applaud any and all moderates who speak loud with their moderacy. If more moderates would speak out, polarization would be drowned in the sound.
God that ending was horrific. Imagine defending the morals of leviticus. Had to turn it off, idk what it was about but it seems to struck a nerve
In fairness to Brian, playing devils advocate in that argument gives Sam an awfully big target, and I thought Brian argued it poorly, but it is a bit of a no win situation. I'd like to debate this topic on a moral high-ground to moral high-ground topic...even someone like myself could handle him in a fair fight. But Sam always tricks the debaters into arguing with him on some topic that is indefensible from the start. He is more devious and crafty than wise or brilliant in my assessment, apologies if I am being unfair, but that is just how it seems to me.
Brain between hour 2:29 & 2:44 you should have had an epiphany on whether or not "free will" or "agency" is part of the human condition by now. The fact that you still seem to push free will, even though you do concede, more frequently of late, some of the points Sam & Robert raises, that determinism isn't that crazy. Your position reminds me, God of the gap argument. Ever replenishing, "yeah but"....
You as a scientist who understands physics and mathematics can see through woo woo nonsense, the likes of Deepak Chopra of this world, seem incredibly ignorant and arrogant to his own religious belief is mind blowing! WTF?
I respectfully thought your religious arguments were very weak.Sam seamed annoyed by them. Otherwise you are a terrific person.
Brian - so cringe to hear an adult, let alone a scientist keep saying "but but , let me read you another piece of my holy book to justify my holy book". Jesus Christ I thought we'd all moved on from this. So cringe.
Jesus Christ 😆
@@DrBrianKeating yah, the pun was intentional.
The interruptions in the conversation are incredibly disruptive
People who defend free will aren't even really defending free will, they are defending the fact that they have a feeling of responsibility over their actions. However, feeling of responsibility =/= free will.
How do you define free will? If you had it, how would it manifest itself?
@@janluszczek1223 The ability to have done otherwise. I imagine that if I had free will I would be able to make radical changes to my emotional state and subsequently behavior. For example, if I got angry I would be able to immediately calm myself down. Or if I was reading a book and stopped concentrating I would use my free will to immediately get my concentration back. But even then this could be explained by me having my brain wired a certain way. I guess true free will in the end would be behavior which has no cause and was intended by the person who exhibited it. Free will can only exist if causality doesn't or if the causality is only partial. Sam calls this randomness but if the behavior was indeed intended, it wouldn't be random. The problem is that this type of intended yet uncaused behavior doesn't exist in this world. There is always a cause. And even if we were completely wrong about causality, it was just an illusion and didn't exist, then the behavior would still be unintended. If you think about it, behavior is never really intended. We go from having no intention to do something to having the intention. The intention just appears out of nowhere. One second you have no intention to drink water and the next second, you go "wow I'm really thirsty I should drink some water". So yes, in the end you have an intention but you didn't intend to have an intention. It appeared out of nowhere. Even if we are wrong about absolutely everything in this world, wrong about causality, wrong about the laws of physics, wrong about who we are, what matter is, what mind is... free will still makes no sense. I wish it did, because I really like the idea of being free. But the concept is just completely unintelligible.
@janluszczek1223 it's a good question....but I think the only thing anyone can say is that we have neither proof of free will nor proof of determinism....
We simply don't yet have the ability to step outside our own subconscious and emotional selves...so we can't even trust our own conclusions on such a thing.
are they not choosing to have feelings of responsibility? have you ever changed your mind, did something randomly different, even Brownian motion shows non determinism as a substructure of the universe.
@@TheUltimateTerran People definitely don't choose to feel responsible for things, it just happens. And to address your non-determinism argument, even if determinism was false and the causality that we perceive was just an illusion, we still wouldn't have any control over what's happening to us, we would be governed by randomness. One moment you're not thirsty and you're not even thinking about drinking water. The next second the feeling of being thirsty suddenly hits you and the thought to drink some water pops up. Even if we grant that this feeling and thought weren't caused and are therefore not determined, you didn't choose the feeling and the thought either, they just popped into your consciousness. Sam was right on point in this conversation when he said that experiences just appear in our consciousness. We don't plan them, we don't make them appear, they just appear by themselves. So even if you get rid of determinism, free will still makes no sense.
*Always good to see Sam school someone who thinks theyre cleverer than they actually are. The host's clumsy rambling and incapability to understand the basic points that Sam is making is pretty embarrassing.*
Sam keep driving the crazy people crazier! ❤
Holy shit the podcast intro to this episode is disingenuous. Dr Keating you should be ashamed of yourself, seriosuly. And thats before getting to the religious nonsense...
After seeing this episode, including how difficult it was for Brian to grasp the concept that free will is an illusion, and his weird forrays into religious tropes, I am now fully convinced that he isn't very bright.
Same. Is this guy really a scientist?
Yikes, dude. Could’ve kept that to yourself.
@@minakoa7178 Why "yikes"? His thinking on this episode is objectively sloppy. Why is it wrong to point that out? Especially since people seeing my comment may have been affected by his sloppy thinking?
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ free wheel is a great illusion …….. Let’s all go to Sugar rock Candy Mountain.
@@99guspuppet8 Are you under the age of 10? If so, good job typing!
Thank you for bringing in such an insightful guest. Subscribed.
Welcome aboard!
Brian Keating, you should call The Line and speak to Matt Dillahunty about slavery in scripture. You are lucky that you spoke to a more gracious Sam Harris, because, I kid you not, this is the sort of topic that would get Dillahunty riled up. 😁
sam is absolutely dismantling brian on free will. without intending to so, sam makes him look like a toddler flailing around. and it´s not like sam hasn´t any blind spots in his thinking, there aren´t many but they are there, but somebody with theological blinders as thick as brians, will never find those
Brian, I never thought I'd see some religious thinking make you so irrational. Saying a slave gets one day off as a defence of slavery?! That's still 6 days too many. Isn't that so obvious? All the slight mitigations of slavery almost make it seem worse: "New, Jewish Slaves! 10% less bondage and misery! Now it's OKAY!~~"
Hey there, stop for a second and read this:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."' John 3:16 Life is too short to just throw it away. Live it right for God, love God, and inherit eternal life in God's kingdom ❤️. The new Kingdom will be free of the curse of sin (death, suffering, violence, disease, evil, etc.) A true, spiritual journey awaits you! 🕊❤️
I was a militant atheist for years and later dabbled in the occult. I never imagined I would be a Christian. I hated the religion. However, I had a supernatural encounter with Jesus that completely changed me and my life.
Nothing this world can offer you even compares to knowing Jesus. His peace, love, and joy transcends all.
Jesus Christ loves you, He is your Creator ❤️🕊🙏 Seek Him with a genuine heart and He will reveal His existence to you. The truth shall make you free, friends! (John 8:32) ❤️🕊🙏
3:08:00
"...so god should have known..."
Uhh... yes... he's omniscient, so he should have known that humans would use his instructions to justify chattel slavery.
Love your work, Brian. I’ve always viewed you as a rational yet open minded guy
Based on everything I’ve heard from you in your podcast over the year I find you to be rational and pragmatic
However your defense of Trump and your spin suggesting Sam’s “trump derangement syndrome” is truly baffling to me.
Objectively Trump’s actions go directly against any basic ethical and moral code.
And yet he even has people like you essentially defending and protecting him
I truly want to understand what it is about him that causes folks like you to do so.
Sams rationale on why he finds trump so abhorrent has been articulated time and time again.
This is a man who’s entire life has run counter to literally every value he now claims to be standing for
He’s a bad Christian. A bad conservative. A bad man.
I will never understand the Trump kool aid
And before it starts I think Biden is terrible. The democrats are terrible. So much is terrible on both sides but to deny that Trump has a fundamental flaw in terms of ethical and moral standing is truly baffling to me
I would love to hear you elaborate on this.
If you have to employ moral relativism ("well, back then..") to defend your defend your deity - maybe you don't have such a high opinion of him.
Ben stiller is surprisingly insightful and a joy to listen to
Be very careful of audience capture. you seem very concerned about justifying things to your audience.
Brian, time to let go with the references to a stone age fantasy tora book. Fables lessons are in many books time to move to more modern ideas and references than goats.
BK = slavery was good. This is what religion does to otherwise smart people.
The people that still believe in free will do so despite the fact that:
1. They didn't choose their mom or dad. Nor their genes, nor their brain structure.
2. They didn't choose the country they were born in.And therefore
3. They didnt choose the language they were going to speak.
4.They didnt choose their neighborhood, neighbors or the friends they were going to have as kids .
5. Nor the school they were going to attend.
6. Nor the the influence that all these factors had on them (good or bad.)
7. They are communicating in a language they had nothing to do with creating,
8. On platform they didn't create, using digital rules they had nothing to do with.
9. Which uses laws of physics that they don't control, and similarly they didn't choose Nor create.
10.They didn't even choose whether or not they understood what I've written on this message.
11. But some how they all seem to think that choosing Whether to engage in this conversation or not is proof of their freedom of will.
What a world!
Yep, and the worst thing is their lack of awareness that they don't actually choose their own wants. Desires just come and go. At any moment, your brain might trigger a craving for your favorite ice cream. The decision to resist that craving is nothing more than an illusion - you would need to have the desire to resist, which would have to be stronger than the urge to eat the ice cream. Can you consciously decide to simply conjure this contrary desire, and can you determine its intensity? Obviously not, because if that were possible, you would never give in to harmful cravings - no alcohol, no added sugars, no lounging on the couch all day, and so on. Desires and the will to oppose them are beyond your control. When we describe someone as "strong-willed" or "disciplined," we're really saying that their brain happens to generate very strong desires to resist those that are harmful or counterproductive. When I explain this to people, they often start to come around to the idea, until I bring up murderers and rapists... for some reason, even after becoming persuaded that they are slaves of their own minds, they reject it when they grasp its full implications, which is that we should treat those morally deranged people like broken biological machines. They have no control over the sudden urge to inflict harm, nor over the strength of their desire to resist it. We should try to fix them, isolate them or use other means to prevent them from causing more damage, just like we would do with an autonomous car that ran somebody over.
@@anatolydyatlov963
It seems like the problem is that they are afraid to lose it. I struggle the most with people who think that they are self-made. Is like talking to a mule.
The introduction on spotify is dishonest and shows lack of integrity. Sam is practically doing a favor here, and you decided to throw him under the bus for his opinions on Trump, wich you brought up. Is not right....
I feel sam is wrong in terms of people from Far distant future civilizations will not remember the guy that colonized mars.
Like really shakespeare 🤨
I agree, I think Sam is the closest human specimen we have that could pass for AI intelligence living in a human body.
Brian seems like a nice guy but that whole free will section was legitimately painful to listen to. He simply was not understanding or internalizing the depth of what Sam was saying. He still thought there was an agent making choices but that “no free will” just meant that we had to work harder to overcome certain behavior patterns. In reality what Sam is saying is much deeper - all “you” are is just the fact of awareness itself, and all your thoughts, actions, emotions, etc, are just a movie unfolding before consciousness.
I actually don’t agree with Sam on some level but you have to truly understand the full depth of argument being made to push back on it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ what level would that be?
Ive never watched this guy Brian before and I can't understanding how he has so many followers? I won't be watching him again. Seems like he is trying too hard to apear smart when he asks question's
Nailed it.
Dr. Josh (Bowen) could put Keating firmly in his place on the slavery issue very quickly! This was just embarrassing.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ who or whom was embarrassed
Sam Harris "calories in = calories out" mentality = how to stay sick and fat. You cut the carbs and eat meat. You will lose the weight and get healthy.
The existence of consciousness is not provable.
Assume that consciousness exists.
The purpose of consciousness is free will.
The purpose of free will is survival.
The purpose of survival is existence.
Existence precedes essence.
"God should've known...??"--
yes I thought he was all knowing and all powerful if he really was those things and did exist he would've and could've written a better book.