CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race. All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical. The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination. All the rest is academic. My answer is no.

Quantum mechanics is the bridge that is going to make a lot of materialists spiritual

This is such a treat! I love how they have such opposing beliefs, yet are completely capable of discussing them.

I wish we could get a deep dive into Van Tillian epistemology some day. Finding conceptual primitives in a classical-theist model and the use of Data Semantics as a way to model presupposition and "intelligibility", as well as a hard look at those 3 "principia" alluded to in this episode ...

interesting that Alex became a Platonist to dodge this argument! So now, instead of believing in an eternal mind to ground necessary truths, he prefers to believe in an eternal realm of abstract entities that mysteriously exist without any divine help or ontological foundation which is really fascinating! It's like upgrading from a grounded explanation to a metaphysical mystery box, Perhaps next, he will tell us that he doesn't believe in unicorns, but he believes in their abstract forms galloping through the Platonic heavens!

experiencing blue is no new knowledge. its just a new experience.

I didn’t know he was Catholic. Very cool!

You gentlemen seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule of test taking, that if you don't show your work, you don't get credit. HOW did you get to the conclusion that Christianity is true? Unless and until you show your work, no one should take you seriously, and anything beyond your lack of an explanation is just a waste of time. Grade: F

What came first, humans recognizing that some ways of behaving in the world work better than others, Christianity, or the egg? I'll give you this first one, it was the egg.

I don't think "mind" is fundamental. I believe that jubbalubba is fundamental. The mind is constituted by jubbalubba. This is the true essence of reality; it's the most fundamental substance that constitutes everything. Everything is jubbalubba, which includes the mind. By the way, jubbalubba is singular, not plural. It is the most fundamental and true nature of reality, and I am certain of this. However, we have a standard model of subatomic particles based on years of research and observation. We use these particles and the theories behind them to model practical phenomena, such as electricity. For example, you can produce light to see in dark places, heat resistances to stay warm in winter, and transfer information quickly through wires. What practical application does this jubbalubba theory offer? Besides theoretical discussions, it seems to lack tangible utility. As far as we are concerned, the world is physical. It is composed of objects subject to physical laws. To deny this is irrational. Whatever may lie beyond or beneath the physical realm, assuming it exists, has no practical utility and cannot be accessed or used. It is completely useless.

I don't know if I should spring $15 for this book.

Unfortunately a lot of my Christian brethren haven't married reason and faith yet. Great interview!

I'd love to see another episode with these two, also reading sun eater which is how I found your channel and really enjoyed this conversation.

Is it Pence-ease? Or Pah-nc-ays?

I'm an agnostic leaning atheist, materialist, and seeing deeply thought out passionate evangelists really discuss how to improve things is a breath of fresh air. Can't wait to see more.

Concepts are the building blocks of thoughts?!?! People need to meditate more. Thinking isn't an active thing you do with concepts and language.

1. Ooh this looks like it'll be fun to watch! I'll watch it soon. Thanks for doing this interview, Parker. 😊 2. By the way, have you ever read Asimov's Foundation series? Tim O'Reilly has a good piece partly comparing Dune and Foundation in chapter 5 of his Frank Herbert biography (available to read online for free): "Dune is clearly a commentary on the Foundation trilogy. Herbert has taken a look at the same imaginative situation that provoked Asimov's classic - the decay of a galactic empire - and restated it in a way that draws on different assumptions and suggests radically different conclusions. The twist he has introduced into Dune is that the Mule, not the Foundation, is his hero." O'Reilly says more in his chapter and book, and he includes quotations from Herbert himself about how he views history and science and so forth. It's worth a read.

Good word, thank you!

1:06:30

Are you a teacher?

Information will take over future generations... So this is definitely a great discipline to start learning about it!

To be the entire theory is a non-starter because once you posit that this reality is not the actual reality, you are giving up any possibility of analysis of actual reality. Any attempt to say the simulation is likely true is completely unfounded because you have no access to the parameters of actual reality. Also, a funny thing I'd like to note is that many of Huemer's arguments against the simulation are similar to arguments atheists make against theism with the problem of evil, and which I don't think are valid. For example, Huemer says if this were a simulation things would be more interesting.... but what if this IS the "more interesting" version? What if there are possible simulations that are even more boring than this one? It's similar to atheists asking "why didn't God make a world with less suffering?" well how do you know this isn't that world?

Whether you are seeing the color red or hallucinating it the point is the same: the scientific facts related to that brain state don't justify or explain the experience of "seeing" red.

It seems to me that there are relevant differences between every manipulation and normal case in that, in manipulation cases, (1) the manipulator is a mere creature and in the normal case the Determiner is the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge of all things created, and (2) God, the Determiner, has morally sufficient good end(s) in mind for the determined action, even if it be the judgement or discipline of the one determined or someone else. All humans sin and are therefore liable to divine judgment or discipline. Unbelievers sin in everything they think, say, and do.

Undergraduate Philosophy major from Baltimore here. You both are excellently admirable!

Not going to seek out the guidance or wisdom from a homophobic, unChristlike, hateful, MAGA pastor Chris Bolt who lacks the Love of Christ and works in the devil’s workshop.

Mike HUMOR... i really enjoy how he enjoys philosophy 😂

You should have an interview with an actual continental philosopher and ask these common sense questions. I think mabybe Zizek who is always available for online interviews but I am afraid that he could answer those questions. Let me think...it must be someone like Jean Luc Nancy

Ben Yalow is a legend - Worldcon, Hugo Awards, smof extraordinaire. I never expected a Parker Settecase and Ben Yalow crossover but here we are and I can't be happier! 😊

It’s funny how old physicists and scientists can’t grasp that human understanding is really only a perception of the base reality. The base reality may have put in place physics, science. Biology, etc… Yet they can’t remotely consider otherwise

Awesome

He said ‘as it were’ while waving his hand meaningfully. I’m certainly convinced.

And you're a fan of Nietzsche, ain't you !

so your first order argument is just to assume that everybody knows that you're God is the right one... even though there's billions of people who are either of different religions or take a secular position. it seems like you're taking the word 'knowledge' and stretching it into something that fits your narrative. Muslims can say that we all have knowledge of Allah, but obviously you don't believe that. why would that be? because they haven't provided sufficient evidence t convince you, well guess what, similarly just simply asserting that everybody knows your God is the one true God isn't convincing to everybody that isn't part of your religion.

41:52

You have to remember though that just because you might be created, intelligently does not mean that the thing that created you cares about you or has an afterlife waiting for you scientists that study bacteria and paramecium under glass slides and microscopes and combine cultures for them to breed and grow are not listening to their prayers and they definitely aren't judging their actions and building eternal afterlives of single cell variants of a heaven or a hell

Nazi for literally less than a year 😂 lack of constructive Criticism kinda reminds me of what Jaun Elia said : nahīñ duniyā ko jab parvā hamārī, to phir duniyā kī parvā kyuuñ kareñ ham ... barahna haiñ sar-e-bāzār to kyā, bhalā andhoñ se parda kyoñ kareñ ham ...

This is the best philosophy channel by far

The operative question is: Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination? All the rest is academic.

Why? I want to learn more and retain it, I want more knowledge

The assertion that an entire race is conspiring to oppress and subjugate the victim class is right out of the nazi playbook. The assertion that history is being suppressed is thoroughly debunked by the fact that the history in question is common knowledge, and always has been. "More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that PRESUMES that racism has contributed to ALL contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along RACIAL lines, including differences in income, imprisonment,health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this PRESUMPTION." "Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment" by Matsuda, Lawrence III, Delgado, and KIMBERLE' WILLIAMS CRENSHAW Those are their words from their intellectual papers: It is the entire foundation of the premise. CRT promotes the notion that the fact that a group is measurably superior is proof that everybody in that group is guilty; and, that a group being inferior is proof that everybody in that group is a victim. Further: this principle projects through time; asserting that what happened to the long dead projects onto the guilt or victimhood of the living; even if the living never experienced it at all........... CRT uses history and statistics to justify using government force to implement racial discrimination. CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race. All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical. The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination. All the rest is academic. My answer is no.

Because he’s the creator of it get it

Wtf didnt debunk it at all. simulation and reality both adhere to predetermined laws and data