Episode

[@Over-Boy42]

Hampster is probably thinking something along the lines of: FOOD! RUNNING! HUMAN!

[@ChristopherBlieka]

Throughout the whole hamster analogy all I could hear was that TMBG lyric: "Lately I've taken to vacantly making repetitive movements mistakenly seen as improvements."

[@melissasmind2846]

Love

[@christinemartin63]

I can see how scientists would adore Hume: never take anything for granted or never see only the evidence that fits your theory.

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

it seems like the feeling of a "soul" is a result of using words as symbols to represent people.. they think of the name/word and it works as like a proxy or a "one thing" besides just the many functions of the brain and body.. Its hard to believe in a soul beyond that because there are humans who get brain damage and their "soul" seems really different.. so, it just seems to me like there's workings of the brain/body that people represent with a name/word (i could be wrong and kinda hope i'm wrong) It seems like a word or name "thing-ifies" what could be lots of things or part of everything as one separate thing defined by the word/name.. but without the word or name of a thing, what defines the separation or limits of that thing? (i have yet to find a good answer to this, but i'm still looking :) )

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

11:48 "if you dont have a self, who am i talking to right now?" its like the word "who" suggests there's a who.. its like the person's name or the term functions as a separate thing because people use words as placeholders for just "the tao" or "the infinite, interconnected, ever-changing everything"... its weird, it seems better just to think of selves and words etc otherwise social existence doesnt really work and its just no fun :D it weirds me out constantly tho, the confusion of attributing static finite words to a constantly changing and possibly infinite universe lol (ok no more writing, i feel crazy)

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

it just seems like sh*t happens.. and we describe it how we will.. and we fight over which descriptions and words are right.. and who gets credit and blame.. (maybe a short sighted oversimplification)

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@seanpatrickrichards5593 it could also be you're using the word "who" incorrectly. If we're to be hyper skeptical, and trying to find a safe assumption we can stand on, who's to say the self, should it exist, has to be a "who" as we traditionally conceptualize it? Maybe it's a "what"? or a "collection of whats" instead of a singular. Maybe it doesn't even follow traditional logic like the external world does. Afterall, why would it? It's internal, not external. Maybe it is both a who and a what at the same time, while also being none of the above at the same time, and being a mix. That's a logical contradiction you might say, but why should we believe it is constrained by it? Food for thought.

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

23:53 "if you're a creative person, why wouldnt you want as many experiences to pull from as you could" Because alot of arts like illustration are competitive and the good people often spend like 10 hours a day doing it just to do good work :O Alot to do in one life, some people dont wanna be a jack of all trades and ace of none.. ace of one can take a ton of time in skilled crafts.. But yeah, i guess experiences can help.. unless they're bad, mundane or self destructive ones.. i dunno! :O

[@slyggbrygg1955]

so what you're saying is only 'good' experiences are valuable? he isn't saying that you should ride a bike and bake cookies and pretend they are instrumental to your art, he is saying that whatever you go through can add something to whatever youre doing, artist or not. on the whole positivity thing - I think Kahlo mightily disagrees :) have fun

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

18:10 - 19:55 I think you're muddying the waters too much here. Hume was never skeptical of "science" (which didn't formally exist at his time, only precursers to it) he was skeptical of the grander claims made in the *name* of science. Religions are all based on faith, quite literally the opposite of evidence and empiricism. Of course he wouldn't favor it just as much as science, that's absurd. If he were to witness modern scientific achievements, he would be extremely pro science, more so than the four horsemen are. Why? Because at the end of the day, when all is said and done, he still relied on induction. Throw a ball up a thousand times, and it comes down all thousand times. That was good enough for Hume. But modern scientific theories have scaled that up a million fold, and from multiple different angles, too. In the vacuum of space, under extreme temperatures, you name it. The evidence would have piled up so much in favor of science that he would have no choice.

[@daviddawson1718]

You can always find a way to denigrate Richard Dawkins, and it is getting old

[@bart6901]

Dont take life so seriously

[@albertjurcisin8944]

@@bart6901 That´s an advice you are giving to Stephen, I suppose :-) When mocking Dawkins the author very uncharactericaly loses the top view. Not that Dawkins should not be criticized. But when doing so, we should know why.

[@613positive]

@@bart6901 eat my shorts

[@bart6901]

@@613positive nice one chief

[@TheAlison1456]

The new atheist movement as a whole got old. It was just another way for people to split themselves and feel good in treating someone else like shit. Crazy to think I ever believed they knew what being a good person meant.