JORDAN PETERSON UNABLE TO DEFEND GOD AGAINST MATT DILLAHUNTY!?

#jordanpeterson #mattdillahunty #exmuslim #atheism #islam #atheist #exmuslimlive #exmuslimsameer #muslim #muslims #quran #muhammad #muhammadﷺ #quran #quranrecitation #christianity #jesus #bible #jordanpeterson #samharris #motivation
#hindu #hinduism #hindi #hindudeity
#exmuslim #atheism #Jesus
#Faith
#Pray
#Bible
#Christianity
#Amen
#GodIsGood
#Prayer
#Spirituality
#Worship
#Inspiration
#Truth
#secularhumanism #secularism
#education
#exmuslim #atheism #douglasmurray #immigration #politics #islam #immigration #freespeech #islamaphobia #atheist #exmuslimlive #exmuslimsameer #muslim #muslims #israel #israelpalestineconflict #quran #hamas #hamasvsisrael #refuge #muhammad #muhammadﷺ #quran #quranrecitation #christianity #jesus #bible #hamas #hamasvsisrael #jordanpeterson #samharris #bretweinstein #god #religion
Full discussion here: • The Greatest God Debat...
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.

[@Pangburn]

Full discussion here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5-0hppqhsp8lbs WE ARE COMING TO COLORADO! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks Nov 2nd - Boulder, Colorado Tickets here: pang-burn.com/tickets This event is set to challenge conventional perspectives, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between faith, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge.

[@tomrhodes1629]

The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: The limited, anthropomorphized "god" that most people believe in is dead, because it never existed. GOD is The Mind that is ALL. There simply isn't anything else. And this fact is the so-called "Philosopher's Stone"; the foundation of all knowledge without which absolutely nothing can be understood. But this won't make perfect sense to you until you understand what YOU are and WHY we are experiencing this irrational realm of limitation.

[@tomrhodes1629]

@@OCW55 Many of us call It "GOD," but It's simply limitless Reality. For "GOD" is The Mind that is ALL, and there simply isn't anything else! This temporal human body and this temporal world of limitation that we are currently experiencing is NOT Reality, but is a bad dream; a hellish, temporary virtual reality simulation. And are experiencing it due to an error that we made; an IRRATIONAL DESIRE that this entire illusory world of spacetime is designed to correct, and in fact has already corrected - for time is an illusion. Pain and suffering are caused entirely by our own irrational desires, but are answered in such a way so as to WITHDRAW us from irrational desire and return us to RATIONAL desire so that we can return to Reality! The "Good News" of Jesus Christ is fantastically good news, but has been entirely corrupted, beginning with the "Apostle" Paul, who invented the "Jesus died for your sins" and ":you are saved by your belief" BS. But ALL is a perfect part of GOD's perfect plan, and I explain absolutely everything in my various works, which I can't mention by name due to KZbin comment policy. But if you seek you will find, guaranteed! (Curiosity has as its root the word CURE for very good reason.)

[@dwightfitch3120]

@@tomrhodes1629WTf?

[@donellebullock7404]

People take for granted things that are. What PROOF is there that life is better than death? Your DESIRE isn't the proof; you need something more. You wouldn't say that if you believed life was meaningless; only if it had meaning. The issue Peterson seemed to be trying to get at was what is the basis, which has no answer besides feelings if there is no giver of purpose. Many would say killing is good, but many say nay.

[@derhafi]

“Rule based systems don’t work!” Argues the guy who got famous by his book “12 rules for a better life”

[@craigjones9372]

And the example he gives IS A RULE BASED SYSTEM, be just doesn't know it. AND medical diagnosis using computers is, in fact, a very successful field. Peterson literally makes his arguments up.

[@drillyourarguments]

Oh, but they do, US consitiution. Math. Etc!

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

@@craigjones9372 No, he did not make it up. He probably could've been more precise, but the reality is that medical diagnosis with AI has improved drastically thanks to the recent developments of machine learning. Machine learning is not a ruled-based system. Was there any success in medical diagnosis with ruled-based systems? Probably. However, light years from the success achieved with data-driven approaches.

[@craigsj]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 "He probably could've been more precise..." LOL maybe he should follow his own rules then! "...the reality is that medical diagnosis with AI has improved drastically thanks to the recent developments of machine learning." That's NOT what JP said. He said medical diagnosis could not be done with rules based systems. That's the whole subject here! "Machine learning is not a ruled-based system..." Yes it is, anything implemented by a "machine" is rules-based. You're as ignorant as JP. "Was there any success in medical diagnosis with ruled-based systems?" Yes, it was remarkably successful, in direct contradiction to JP's claim. JP is a liar. "However, light years from the success achieved with data-driven approaches." Citation please. You don't even know the history of medical diagnosis software, nor do you know how software works. " ...data-driven approaches..." How does the data drive the approach? With rules. Duh.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

@@craigsj I did not personally attack you. No need for you to do so. :) I think you do not understand what ruled-based systems means in the context of AI. Machine learning is NOT a ruled-based system. Ruled-based system in this context means that you explicitly program the rules that govern the model that you are modeling. Machine learning models implicitly learn the rules from the data. For example, if you make an AI model that makes weather forecast, machine learning models do not include the differential equations that explain the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. It just minimizes a cost function that attempts to reduce the prediction of the model with the observed data. According to your definition of ruled-based, everything on earth would be ruled-based, cause anything we see follows the laws of physics, therefore everything follows a rule. This is equivalent to say nothing. I did not personal attacked you. No need for you to do so. I think you do not understand what ruled-based systems means in the context of AI. Machine learning is NOT a ruled-based system. Ruled-based system in this context means that you explicitly program the rules that govern the model that you are modeling. Machine learning models implicitly learn the rules from the data. For example, if you make an AI model that makes weather forecast, machine learning models do not include the differential equations that explain the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. It just minimizes a cost function that attempts to reduce the prediction of the model with the observed data. According to your interpretation of ruled-based, everything on the universe would be ruled-based, cause anything we see follows the laws of physics, therefore everything follows a rule. This is equivalent to say nothing. www.zucisystems.com/blog/the-conundrum-of-using-rule-based-vs-machine-learning-systems/ "However, light years from the success achieved with data-driven approaches." Citation please. You don't even know the history of medical diagnosis software, nor do you know how software works. Here just a few: www.nature.com/articles/s41746-023-00811-0 proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/58cc11cda2a2679e8af5c6317aed0af8-Abstract-Conference.html neurips.cc/virtual/2023/76710 www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55761-8 I invite you to do the same, find recent papers based on ruled-based systems applied to medical diagnosis in major publications.

[@rollingmancave4547]

I was in my college Western Civilization class when the instructor asked "What is the purpose of religion?" I blurted out "To guide those that can't think for themselves". There were lots of oohs and ahs from the rest of the class. 40 years later I still stand by that remark.

[@1992rmaw]

the problem is anyone narcissistic enough will gladly say they are the one that think for themselves. thus each and every time you argue some point you should start with proving what you say is your own thinking or thinking for yourself, whatever it may mean. what are the criteria? and have you proved you actually think for yourself or is it just your narcissism talking whenever you think you think? and thinking for yourself is no remedy against making mistakes, on the contary, going alone makes you more vulnerable and prone to mistakes. so, why is such a value ascribed to a cliche ( which by itself is a manifestation of dependent thinking)?

[@theboombody]

I am pretty sure Michael Faraday and Bernhard Riemann could think for themselves.

[@Vic82toire]

Have you talked to a college aged person recently? They're not the brightest bulb. Easily impressed by anything that contradicts what parents or other authority figures in their lives said.

[@theboombody]

@@Vic82toire For being taught to be skeptical they sure are prone to falling for ear-tickling.

[@daraghokane4236]

​@@OCW55community and culture is a big reason for it now. It's part of our history is why countries follow there religion

[@leifurfinney3658]

How do you know getting your arms ripped off by a gorilla is a bad thing?

[@Jacob-py9mx]

😂

[@virgodem]

Aren't you remotely skeptical about the possibility that it may not in fact be a bad thing? I mean what, so you take it on faith that it is then?

[@mirabilis]

My nervous system says ouch.

[@djinnxx7050]

Well that's a lot to unpack. What do you mean by gorilla?

[@smbogan]

Who can say? We'll just have to get the gorillas and find out I guess.

[@kunalincredible]

Jordan Peterson talks a lot without saying anything!!

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

Jordan Peterson and Deepak Chopra are _legends_ of incoherent nonsensical wold salad. Love or hate Matt, he's great at taking complex concepts and making them simple to understand for us layman.

[@Black-White-BW1]

How so?

[@troy3456789]

@@TheLegendOfRandy Matt is a *woke idiot* though that undoes any part of his arguments of atheism; like more bad than good. He's only atheist with regard to Christianity and Christians, not all obviously crappy ideas. The only thing that holds JPB back is his love of Christianity and his leaning into free will. He has helped many many young men, unlike Dillahunty. Dillahunty only says what you like to hear, not what you need to hear.

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

@@Black-White-BW1 If people weren't anymore convinced that a god or gods exist, then, "We'd would lose our metaphoric substrate of our ethos, and we'd be lost." To you, this is how human beings speak?

[@Black-White-BW1]

@@TheLegendOfRandy Depends. Humans talk in a lot of different ways.

[@Phantomselbst]

Peterson loses every debate with a halfway educated opponent. Only in monologues where no one contradicts him can he convince incels that he is knowledgeable.

[@Sagano96]

leave incels out of this. some incels aint that naive xD

[@Phantomselbst]

@@Sagano96 sry

[@fluWmiR]

Yeah, for sure. Oh, and also in academic papers. But those don't really matter

[@mrsatire9475]

@@fluWmiR Right, especially in Theology and Psychology ... useless

[@SwoleTown]

I think Peterson is tasked with defending a more difficult position on a lot of these.. and to be fair, at times even a correct position can be the more difficult to defend. and, the fact that he may be out-debated by a handful of people who are extremely intelligent doesn't really mean that he isn't a brilliant guy, because he is. I also don't understand resorting to calling strangers on the internet "incels." Not exactly a high IQ thing to do.

[@roscius6204]

Peterson simply cannot stand to be the one not talking.

[@henkresink5073]

Word salade is equal to JP

[@drillyourarguments]

What convinced you of this? And even if that is true, it doesn't mean that his points & arguments are false.

[@last12know30]

@@drillyourargumentsjust listen to him speak.

[@PhoenixHinds]

Jordan Peterson talking is what has convinced me. ​@@drillyourarguments

[@dirkschmitz7884]

bs

[@sergduchini7299]

Jordan has become increasingly irritating

[@HistoritorJimaldus]

And bigoted and harmful

[@Carole-j3t]

By the time I learned of his existence, Peterson was already too gratings my nerves to tolerate. I have to miss out on Delahunty here because I can't listen to Peterson 🤮

[@doomtumor]

He thinks stringing big words together means he's saying something correct, deep and effective.

[@cardiacpa]

Because he can not tolerate a smarter person in the room. Dilahunty's IQ is at least 20-30 points high than his.

[@sumbuddyhappy]

I think his reasoning is unraveling, and unfortunately, he doesn’t seem flexible to learning or growing.

[@n1njasause]

Jordan Peterson's description of AI is categorically wrong.

[@mugflub]

A lot of what he says is categorically wrong

[@Raseneisen]

@@mugflub how polite. somebody may say jp talks only and always bs.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

I am not sure why you say that. Can you elaborate, please?

[@n1njasause]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 Peterson tries to make a case the AI "dont run on rules" distinct from traditional programming what he calls an "expert system". He claims expert systems are reduceable to "If X then Y" statements (and more complicated versions thereof) He claims that AI is different from this. But in reality, machine learning and AI is all about making really really really complicated rule based systems. It's true that the "output" of machine learning isn't -->easily

[@noooo8669]

​@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 I think they mean that the "AI don't operate on rules" part was categorically wrong because AI is created and developed in a rule based system.

[@qikebao7865]

Peterson is clearly frustrated, even with himself

[@ICSpiderProd]

and who isn't

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

he is clearly red in the face from a meat only diet

[@bruha321]

religious folk are the most frustrating people to talk to. No intellectual integrity whatsoever.

[@wolfdwarf]

He should clean his room 😅

[@TSL-210]

Matt was at his best here. Like an assassin.

[@Olyfrun]

How is this channel still releasing videos from this talk though?

[@Akira-jd2zr]

@@Olyfrun gotta rehash the old stuff for free content

[@YSFmemories]

@@TSL-210 his concept of updating morality is logically flawed because its impossible to update base axioms based on evidence. Imagine a guy staring at paint drying for 10 hours. Is that useful? Well, you would have to define what usefulness is. If the goal was to pass time, it is as useful as if you spent those 10 hours with family and had fun or w/e. Exactly the same. If you think the second is more useful, then you're bringing in a new axiom of usefulness. But no amount of staring at a wall and evaluating it against passing time would help you arrive at this new axiom. Therefore it is logically impossible to use rationality and logic to develop and improve on a set of axiomatic values

[@TabbyVee]

to be fair, JP was also uniquely stupid during this debate, the way he said "there are no chemical means to quit smoking" and then immeddietly saying Psilocibin, which is a chemical, can help you quit smoking.

[@radscorpion8]

@@YSFmemories that's such an old critique of atheism it has been addressed thousands of times. First of all NO system is free from having to start off with certain axioms. Yes, including religion which is famously vague on hundreds of issues anyway. And the kinds of axioms society needs to get off the ground are obvious and self-evident anyway. "Suffering is bad". That's the kind of axiom you're talking about lol. Do you think people really care about proving that? Even if we couldn't demonstrate philosophically that reducing suffering is objectively good, literally no one cares, because this is what is good for humanity not what is good according to some universal objective sense that has nothing to do with humans and probably doesn't exist.

[@raj.qwerty]

The man who wrote 12 Rules for Life says rules don't work.

[@ChanceC5]

He had a moment . Everybody makes mistakes.

[@sagarbhattarai8161]

@@ChanceC5 Yeah but at least they have the guts to admit it.

[@DingDong-ly5cj]

Jordan Peterson doesn't know what Jordan Peterson is saying 😅

[@daraghokane4236]

We can't know anything for certain so why is my made up stuff worse then all imperial evidence

[@Flunchbungle]

He does if you define him as somebody else who does know what they’re saying. It’s all about metaphysical substrates and Dostoyevsky or something. Try to keep up… 😁

[@funknelson87]

@@daraghokane4236because certainty isn’t the threshold by which we determine truths about reality. What you’re saying sounds like “since we can’t know anything for certain, the thing I just made up is on the same factual level as things we can demonstrate empirically” and that’s not the case at all.

[@petrkinkal1509]

What do you mean by saying?

[@LewseyFire]

😂

[@lunarwuffy5299]

Watching this video one thing is perfectly clear, Peterson knows he's on the losing side of the debate. Only one person on that stage was constantly squirming around in his chair.

[@dzsidzsi6278]

No, it's because he was in his manic phase.

[@obedpadilla5264]

He does the squirming thingy all the time regardless of the conversation, but yeah, he's losing... Normally he's pretty much able to interrupt and talk for a lengthy amount of time, but in here, he seemed to struggle to know how to respond.

[@DJWESG1]

he doesnt care too much, he knows having these debates reproduces religion, and reinforces belief.

[@dzsidzsi6278]

You're all delusional, he was in his manic phase, so he was thinking about the topic in a grander perspective and didn’t get into the details or create any gotcha moments (and because of this, your small brain thinks that JBP lost because he didn’t respond to Dillahunty's weak provocations). But for those who think Dullingham is smarter, just watch how he ran away from the right-wing Destiny (Andrew Wilson). Even with this, JBP didn’t lose that debate. JBP is much smarter than Dillahunty, and anyone who thinks otherwise is as dumb as a rock.

[@zointisarenazi]

he is right but he doesn't know match from what im seen . the bald guy talking about humans want survival yet the humanity birth rate decreases due to the fact of lgbt and bad corrupted science its not low damage or dot picking im talking about im talking about humanity will extinct if the religions not there Japan and China and many countries now have so much low birth to point they pay u to get married . religions and god is like lets say iPhone makers gives guide books to run the program SAFLY same with god god made humans and gave them books guide them so they wont extinct all religions mention same thing about end of humanity its that the human will die once religions goes away . from every war religion is the one bring humans back up its helps moral ground there fore faster economic and birth and overall growth . atheism is anti humanity its anti growth it help corruptions to spread far and wind the fastest way possible

[@donnamurphy8551]

“Jordan, what do you want for breakfast?” J: “What do you mean by “what”? What do you mean by “do”? What do you mean by “want”?…”

[@ArenHill]

And what do you mean by "breakfast?"

[@ydem1se]

@@ArenHill What do you mean by “Jordan”?

[@noradrenalpacifist0543]

What do you even mean by "breakfast"? What's the definition & underlying metaphysical purpose? The consumption of nourishment can by viewed in both a pure Jungian sense as well as an allegorical view of Solzhenitsyn's perspective on the orthodox interpretation of redemption of the human soul by physical means. Your question inevitably reflects the modern disenfranchisement of men from meaning driven by the neo-marסst academia & can't possibly be answered without understanding the roots of Western civilisation in both Judeo-Christian thought & Stoic philosophy as well as pagan mysticism that culminated not only in the writings of Bonaventura da Bagnoregio, but transcended the evolution of ideas all the way up to Gurdjieff & arguably Solomon Goldsmith. If I were to offer a very simple, utterly reductionistic answer, just for the sake of practical discussion without spending any thoughts on the implications on society, I'd probably reply "Egg & sausage biscuit & a cup of coffee", but it's highly contextual & can't be assumed to reflect any underlying truth.

[@SextusHempiryk]

@@noradrenalpacifist0543 Now, that's beautiful! 😄

[@OCD-GUY]

Stop hurting my brain

[@reefhog]

Peterson lost his own argument, when he talked about how the rules based systems don’t work. Christianity is based on a rules system.

[@Trumpulator]

Checkmate, Apologists 🫳🎤

[@kensell3844]

Right? I mean what the heck is The Ten Commandments if not a rule based system

[@grayintheuk8021]

:) totally.

[@ConorLowes]

True Christianity isn't that

[@reefhog]

@@ConorLowes It definitely is. What do you think commandments are ?

[@Daniel-ld3zi]

To religious people, God is this very complex entity that our human minds can't even begin to comprehend. Then when convenient, this God is also everywhere around us and the evidence is so obvious to anyone lol

[@jonah9861]

Atheism is for teenagers.

[@frozentspark2105]

Then believing in a go​d is for 4 year olds. Sorry kid, your invisible friend isn't real @@jonah9861

[@mattakudesu]

​@@jonah9861 And religion is for toddlers.

[@imjonathan6745]

@@jonah9861 is that really you on your profile picture? that better be you because its just weird to set your profile as that one

[@jonah9861]

Sorry, you don’t have age enough to comprehend it.

[@DefaOmega]

Matt is objectively a dick sometimes, but in this whole debate (the entire one not just this clip) he was fantastic and clear. Definitely felt like Jordan was intentionally misrepresenting him or muddying the waters for no reason other than self serving ones.

[@Trumpulator]

I like Matt's persona and debate using his methods, which is gratifying and fun 😊

[@Mattropolis97]

Anything Matt does for free (The Line, AXP, etc) he’s gonna be a dick because he’s heard the same arguments for over 2 decades. He takes events against actual smart people way more seriously

[@DefaOmega]

@@Mattropolis97 Agreed. AxP is how I first met Matt and I got just annoyed as him listening to callers say the same disingenuous bs time and time again. Though he's always on point, direct, and just importantly correct with respect to facts

[@0Fyrebrand0]

I love Matt, but there have definitely been some recent moments where I feel like he's been a little too impatient and even needlessly belligerent with callers. I can't really blame him though, considering he's done this for so long and has to listen to the same idiotic and dishonest arguments over and over. I can't say I'd be any better in his position. I'd probably be much worse. With regards to Jordan misrepresenting him here: yeah, I believe this was the event where he literally accused Matt of not really being an atheist because he "doesn't act like it." JP is a dishonest, pseudointellectual clown. He injects Christian Biblical allegory into every topic as naturally as breathing, and has said the Bible is "more true now than it has ever been," but when asked if he believe in God he goes: "Well what do you mean by God? What do you mean by believe? What do you mean by do? What do you mean by you?" Oh okay, so one minute you're telling me the story of Cain and Abel is a fundamental element of the hell of being living human, but when asked a simple question of religious faith he suddenly becomes The Riddler.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

you might assume jordan isnt trying, but the fact is everyone in modern philosophy spirals their own perspective into nonsense, because they have limited tools of comprehension- Rules For Understanding, if you will. Unironically lmao

[@christophersamuelson451]

I don't envision myself ever wanting to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson.

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

Well, as Peterson himself might say, "Well, _define_ a "conversation?" What does it truly mean to exchange thoughts and ideas through agreed upon words? Speaking of, what even _are_ "words?" To me, words are just a substrate of our collective consciousness acceptance of the reality that we seemingly experience." Something stupid like that, because he can't seemingly speak human.

[@troy3456789]

@@TheLegendOfRandy Your words and language are only from your brain that you did not choose, taught you from parents and teachers, friends and acquaintances you did not choose. You did not choose a single cell in your body, and there is no "collective' to be found in you. You have no free will, and I mean zero. It's not even an illusion of it. For it to be an illusion it would have to mimic something that is real. Mirages are illusions that look like water. Your thoughts just keep popping up and you don't choose any of them and you cannot shut them off.

[@longlost00]

Blah blah biblical corpus

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

I would pay a small sum not to have to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson.

[@anthonykenny1320]

JP has backed himself into a conundrum that can only be defended with increasing hostility and obfuscation

[@GeoffreyBRIDGLAND]

Peterson is a hot mess

[@James-ye7rp]

Biggest issue is that Peterson has absolutely no idea what he is saying.

[@nerdjournal]

Exactly. I don't understand how he thinks machine learning doesn't have rules. He doesn't really understand the concept of programming and seems to have given it some philosophical idiocy to twist a concept few people understand into something bizarre. Rule based systems don't work. Said this man talking about machine learning, which is quite literally just programming which literally is based off a specific set of "rules" or instruction. He acts like diagnostics is flawed because a human has rules, but fails to grasp that programs still have the same rules and limitations as the rest of the world. They just have the ability to compare more data at a far faster pace than humans could ever dream.

[@andressen]

What a waste of time to debate Peterson. The Deepak is strong in him. And he doesn’t get what Matt is trying to get across.

[@malafakka8530]

I think he got it, but he was kind of desperate because he knew he had no good answers.

[@pineapplepenumbra]

Doesn't get it, or pretends not to get it? He often seems deliberately obtuse.

[@adabsurdum5905]

Nah he simply refuses to accept it. I don't hate Peterson but he is a sad, desperate, emotional man, and he is frightened by the idea that we are the masters of our own destiny. He rebukes Sartre's "anguish of choice" and arbitrarily determines that there must be some existential guard rails keeping everything on track. I suspect that this is the same thought process behind many intelligent theists.

[@XYisnotXX]

Matt has nothing to say what are you on about? He thinks he is dating a woman for heavens sake!

[@fentonpeter1582]

@@XYisnotXX The whole world awaits your next insightful comment with great excitement !!

[@3halos]

If you want to mess with chatgpt, upload the text of this discussion and ask it to summarize Peterson's perspective.

[@fxbtz7031]

😂😂😂😂

[@colaboytje]

Great point about AI.

[@aarongarcia2911]

Jordan Peterson's point is that secular moral systems are better than religious moral systems because they allow for revision. Religious moral systems are based on divine command theory, which means that the rules are set by God and cannot be changed. Secular moral systems are based on the idea that the goal of morality is to get better at getting better. This means that if a rule is found to be wrong or in conflict with something else, it can be changed - Google's Gemini Ai... Lol

[@colaboytje]

@@aarongarcia2911 No, that is Matt's point. Jordan's point is that morality comes from metaphysical substrate of religion.

[@cokemango]

In the video, Jordan Peterson engages in a debate with Matt Dillahunty about the foundations of morality and the existence of God. Peterson's perspective emphasizes the difficulty of constructing a rule-based system for morality that adequately captures human behavior. He critiques the idea that a purely rational, rule-based system can fully govern human actions, arguing that attempts to build such systems have historically failed, especially in fields like artificial intelligence and machine learning. Peterson suggests that human cognition and moral decisions cannot be easily broken down into a finite set of rules, implying that there is a deeper metaphysical substrate that influences human values and actions. Matt Dillahunty counters Peterson by promoting a secular moral system that is flexible and open to revision. He argues that secular morality is distinct from religious morality because it does not rely on divine commands or absolute, unchangeable rules. Instead, it evolves based on evidence and experience, akin to how humans or AI systems learn and improve. Dillahunty uses the analogy of a chess game to illustrate this point, explaining that while the rules of chess are fixed, the strategies to win are not, and better strategies emerge over time through practice and experimentation. He critiques religious systems for their lack of adaptability, noting that religious texts do not get updated in response to new moral understandings or evidence. Throughout the debate, Peterson and Dillahunty discuss the limitations of both rule-based and faith-based systems in explaining morality, ultimately showcasing a clash between Peterson's skepticism about purely rational approaches and Dillahunty's critique of religious dogma.

[@RalphJBater]

So wait...Peterson is saying that society CANNOT come up with a rules based system for a 'better life' .... but didn't HE write a book about 'The 12 Rules for Life'?

[@LevisH21]

those 12 rules he talked about are based on religious moral beliefs and experiences. sorry but I would mich rather put my faith in some imaginary friend in the sky than some wannabe pope of morality like every single clown atheist guru Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever is out there claiming to be smart. there are plenty of smart people in the world that are also religious or believe in some God. atheists acts as if religious people have some sort of mental deficiency or something. some of the most advanced and rich civilizations in human history were built by religious believers. Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, British Empire, USA, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Spain, France, etc. atheists have done what exactly? the French revolution that was a disaster? the Soviet Union in which instead of worship of the sky daddy, people were forced to worship the state? narcissistic atheists always think they know everything. you don't. sure, theocracy and corruption is a problem in religions. besides that, I don't see anything bad and religion.

[@mana3735]

@@LevisH21 What a load of nonsense.

[@meowthemmd]

@@LevisH21 I need an interpreter for this

[@grahvis]

@@LevisH21 . "narcissistic atheists always think they know everything. you don't. " Whereas the religious claim they know the mind of an entity, for which they have not one iota of evidence for its existence.

[@RalphJBater]

​@@LevisH21so which commandment was 'clean your room'... clearly your knowledge and defense of Peterson has about as much thought behind it as your defense of your religion... that is why atheists think people like you are 'idiots' .... because you continuously provide evidence that you are..😅😅😅

[@drstuartjacobsen]

Rules based systems don't work..btw buy my book called 12 rules for life... This guy ..🙄

[@homebug22]

Haha I didn't even think about that while listening!

[@tonyclif1]

Surely you're not suggesting Peterson is either a hypocrite, or that he changes his argument to suit the circumstances?😂

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

its almost like you didn't grasp what he was saying, and just want to be elementary school in your semantic attack. what you say is meaningless. Attack a point, not semantics.

[@drstuartjacobsen]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue he is saying rules based systems are not optimal but offers a rules based system for life.. perhaps he should be more precise in his speech?

[@drstuartjacobsen]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue or to quote Peterson .."what you mean by you, what do you mean by point, what do you mean grasping?"

[@judebogart]

Peterson talks absolute bollocks. There, I've said it.

[@veniaminneofytidis9525]

He can’t be right all the time

[@malafakka8530]

He is not even talking that in this video.

[@ericanderson8795]

Do you disagree with him or don't understand what he's saying

[@AzafTazarden]

@@ericanderson8795 See, this is why he talks fancy so much. He confuses people with complicated words to make the weak minded revere him as some kind of genius, but is he actually smart if he can't make himself be understood?

[@ericanderson8795]

@@AzafTazarden I don't find him hard to understand at all. Point out any portion of this and I could explain the core of what he's saying

[@steeter93]

I'm an AI engineer and yeah, rules-based systems work better for a number of applications. Usually where high-precision results are needed and huge amounts of training data arent available. Which, y'know, has nada to do with philosophy. He's just wrong.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

I am sorry, but this is a misrepresentation of reality, to say the least. The great achievements in AI in the last 15 years have been purely data-driven, not ruled-based: Large Language models, Alpha Go, Alpha Fold, self-driving car AI technologies. It is like saying a butter knife might be a better weapon choice than a machine gun in a duel. You would have to think very hard to find that context.

[@steeter93]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 Actually I don't have to think very hard at all, because I helped develop an application to manage hospital resources and predict patient load using rules based systems. It outperformed all ML-based competitors because they didn't have much data to train on, and the tolerance for error was low. Like a machine gun with no ammo, you might say. It's also worth noting that this in some ways this is a false dichotomy, since for many applications the most effective ML solutions are decision trees. Technically these are learned from data, but the model itself is essentially a set of rules used to classify inputs into smaller and smaller categories. Similarly, rules-based systems can acquire new knowledge based on data analysis.

[@mirekkowalski2284]

​@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963AI solutions gives you no guarantee it is optimal. The reason it works better is because during process of learning it finds rules we didn't applied in our rule based systems models. AI solutions are faster to apply in solving problems but you simply cannot guarantee that for example solution found by AI for travelling salesman problem (TSP) is optimal, while you can find that optimum path only by rule based algorithms.

[@missk1697]

Now I understand why Jordan refused to debate Richard Wolff lmao

[@zarbins]

Richard Wolff has very little of interest to debate. Watch him discuss economic theory with Glenn Loury, someone that has a good understanding of markets.

[@jeremyh1914]

Worst thing Peterson ever did was consent to a discussion with someone who actually understands logical reasoning. Even worse than that, a literal master at it. Peterson doesn’t have the intelligence to keep up, and it’s painfully obvious.

[@seane6616]

If youtube censorship didnt get me whenever I post at length, I would explain exactly how you are wrong. I thought similar once, but I was wrong

[@jeremyh1914]

@@seane6616 you're still wrong

[@seane6616]

@@jeremyh1914 Your flawed world view only goes unchallenged because of media censorship

[@MakeTheRules2]

Peterson is emotionally driven and blown by every wind, so a person who sticks with only logical structures is going to tear him into pieces.

[@Ismael-c8v]

Guess what : you're still wrong​@@seane6616

[@aravindsanjeev4150]

Having conversation with Jordan Peterson should be given as a punishment to hardened criminals.

[@MinhNguyen-ue5ct]

Just put me on death row at that point.

[@Berserk1Manga]

How people think JP is an intellectual is beyond me lol.

[@zarbins]

His h-index of over 60 helps quite a bit.

[@croonermusicfan]

What a waste of time!!! It’s kind of like Matt explaining chemistry to a two year old. Peterson will never get it.

[@gleannmhuire]

Matt put his finger on it…. The goal is to thrive.

[@seane6616]

If youtube censorship didnt get me whenever I post at length, I would explain exactly how you are wrong. I thought similar once, but I was wrong

[@lutherandross3165]

@@seane6616buddy, this guy doesn’t even understand that the word thrive is a 3rd person present perspective that carry’s a slew of assumptions & means nothing without a foundational good. Next time you want to address these dipshits, just say something like “the word thrive assumes good exists. Prove good exists, then talk to me about your goals.”

[@uncledolan9228]

I used to respect Jordan Peterson a lot but the more religious debates of him I watch the more I’m suspecting that he isn’t going into these discussions in good faith and only wants to win them by all means necessary. Looking at rational arguments it’s so ridiculously obvious that believing in religion not reasonable. Intelligent, well spoken and debate experienced people like JP and Ben Shapiro might be able to get a ‚win‘ in a debate against an inexperienced college student or a random idiot on the street but once they are paired up with another intelligent, eloquent person they simply have no chance to defend their irrational views. That’s why they use a multitude of different tricks to make the topic seem more complicated than it actually is. They rely on ‚word salad‘ where they just bombard their opponent with paragraphs of over complicated, vague expressions so that the other person needs to first figure out what they even mean. They stop the debate in its tracks by denying any common ground, like JP does here by refusing to accept well being as a desirable goal. Also they use every single opportunitiy to go off topic and if you let them talk for too long you will end up discussing a completely different point than you were originally talking about. They know they can’t defeat the established key arguments against religion so their strategy is to never let their opponent arrive there by all means necessary. That’s how you end up with those confusing discussions where they seem to move in circles without ever arriving at the point. It’s just a more sophisticated way of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling ‚lalala‘ until the other person gives up trying to explain.

[@charliedekadens3348]

Well said l agree (JP is not himself anymore) Matt matters

[@Domzdream]

Jordan Peterson - way out of his comfort zone. Poor bastard had to deal with Dillahunty.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

Dillahunty is the bottom of the barrel.

[@mattwhite7287]

​@@ithurtsbecauseitstruemakes it even sadder considering he eats theists for breakfast. 😂

[@TiNRiB]

​@@ithurtsbecauseitstrueBottom of the barrel destroyed Mr I say things authoritively 😂

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@TiNRiB in your own debased imagination, yes. But Bottom of the barrel still didn't make any sense, nor does he have an actual moral compass or understand what morals even mean.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

bottom of the barrel atheist humbly demolishes all of christianity, then u wont even know how to cope with what top of the barrel atheists perceive reality

[@davidbentley4731]

Is quite clearly said “generally” and the Jordan Peterson just goes off on some BS about whether those things are defensible. What a nutter

[@ericanderson8795]

What do you think Peterson was getting at with his question about whether Matt was skeptic about those ideas

[@adabsurdum5905]

​@@ericanderson8795Because he takes the strawman definition of "skeptic" to mean "doesn't belive anything" rather than "questions everything and only believes things that meet their burden of proof".

[@ericanderson8795]

@@adabsurdum5905 are you talking specifically about in the beginning when Matt says let's assume being alive is being better than dead etc, and then Jordan asks why he takes those as assumptions?

[@russellward4624]

​@@ericanderson8795it's pretty simple logic to agree that to improve life you have to be alive. Being dead can't improve your life.

[@ericanderson8795]

@@russellward4624 unfortunately millions of people a year come to a different conclusion and take matters into their own hands

[@astral_brain]

Man I love Dillahunty. The AI chess analogy is so spot on.

[@machintelligence]

The world runs on algorithms. AI working on chess solutions generates its own algorithms.(And optimizes them.)

[@Trumpulator]

I debate like Dillahunty. It's a fun approach.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

Dillahunty is 0 x 0 = 0 declaring it self calculus

[@Trumpulator]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Aw somebody got their fee fees hurt 😂

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@Trumpulator awwww somebody is a snotty brat who has to project and lie to make themselves feel better. Sounds like you're the one that got your feelings hurt, whiney baby.

[@sirbarryvee-eight6485]

I have a nephew that reminds me of Peterson. Says a lot of things to hear himself say things, and is massively ambitious with his arguing. My nephew is known as total pain in the ass. He has that in common with Peterson as well.

[@shanecoleman5952]

Nietzsche: God is dead! Consubstantiationists: God is bread!

[@walking_in_the_shade]

Spoonerismists: Dog is gread!

[@JudasMaccabeus1]

I still have difficult accepting that there’s a billion “rational” and “intelligent” people on the planet today that believe they are eating a piece of Jesus’ flesh in a wafer and drinking his blood in juice from the grocery store.

[@mnn1265]

@@JudasMaccabeus1 It is absurd, not unlike religion itself.

[@paulhagen5645]

God isn't dead! He was never alive in the first place.

[@cheryllee81]

Matt Dillahunty is one smart dude.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

name one thing he's said that is smart? name ONE TIME he has bothered to take on the burden of proof EVER. He runs from it like a zombie mob.

[@imawake805]

That's silly. Why would you take on the burden of proof for a statement where your argument is that it's unprovable and therefore everyone should withhold acceptance until there's a reason to? Name a time, just once that Smokey the bear has ever thrown a little cigarette in a forest!

[@carlosvasquez6054]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstruelol cope

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@carlosvasquez6054 yeah, didn't think you could actually answer. lol. can't name one thing can you?

[@CalebScott1991]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Is it a trick question, because he addresses the burden of proof almost every day on his call in show? He has addressed his literally hundreds of times, and you can just search Matt Dillahunty Burden of proof into youtube and a bunch of videos pop up. This was so sad of an attempt lmao

[@andrewschaeffer8147]

My church dictated for me how my life was going to turn out. For years I couldn’t figure out why I couldn’t get a girlfriend and I beat myself up because I was a loser who couldn’t get anyone. I left my toxic church and then an old friend in the middle of a conversation just blurted out, “oh the church declared you not husband material.” The church decided in my 20s that I wasn’t worthy of a loving wife and then the cowards never bothered to tell me but still felt the need to interfere in all of my relationships

[@GStones58]

Huh?

[@atrot30001]

At least you took the right step and left them. By experience I know is difficult to leave the church and takes years to settle down with the new worldview. But is worth it.

[@Innesb]

You have described a cult. I’m sorry you went through that.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

so if i have a story about a bad thing a black person did - would you go around demonizing black people? just asking.

[@user-pn7bs3px5p]

I'm so sorry to hear that.... I would love to encourage you and tell you nothing in the Bible supports that behavior.

[@colaboytje]

AI isn't what Jordan thinks it is. AI has rules: the code that was written. If AI would write it's own code with a clear goal in mind, then it gets closer to "no rules". The chess AI: those programs are evaluating possible moves, and with more time and depth, the more accurate the next move becomes. AI is not "thinking". It is gathering information. You could feed AI a load of false information, but AI will not "know" that it is false.

[@HarvinderDhillon85]

Exactly this, I work with AI, every AI has base rules ie model and machine learning is just feeding an AI information for the model

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

No, machine learning is NOT a ruled-based system. A ruled-based system in the context of AI means a system in which you define explicitly the rules that explain the model you are modeling with your algorithm. ML in principle is blind to the underlying model or equations, it only tunes a model with a lot of data.

[@colaboytje]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 It seems you are playing a word game. You say it's not a rule-based system. A bit futher you say "you define explicitily the rules... your algorithm. What is an algorithm? A process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. ChatGPT will not make a model of quantum theory. It is bound by the rules/confines of the language processing. It can generate a hypothesis by "reading" scientific papers. But it can't make a scientific model on it's own. You need to feed it information.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

@@colaboytje I am not being intellectually dishonest. You interpret, like many other people in this chat, that any algorithm is a rule-based system. But Dr Peterson is talking about ruled-based systems in the context of AI, which has a more specific meaning, different from what you are assuming. I am not making this up, you can easily google rule-based vs data-driven and will understand the difference. What does it mean a ruled-based system in this context? If I want a build a model that predict if a patient has flu or not, a ruled-based system will require the programmer to code all the explicit rules that help determine the prediction. For example, if PatientTemp >37C and some other criteria are met, then Flu = True. In ML is not like that. You would define a regression with inputs and expected outputs, and then will tune the parameters of your model to force the output match the observed data. The rules are not hardcoded in your model, but rather inferred as an optimization problem. If you were to look into the ML model, you would only see matrices and functions. In fact, that is one of the challenges of current AI, since they are data driven, it is becoming very hard to know why they do what they do. There is a whole new field in AI called interpretable AI that tried to deal with it. Yes, all algorithms are based on the rules of the syntax of the language you are using and logic, but that is not the point. Ruled-based systems are something else. His point is solid. While ML is able to infer automatically correlations that human cannot see in complex data, ruled-based systems would require the programmer to account for every single different input and its corresponding expected output and define and program a rule for it. For this reason, ML is being so successful in so many areas in the last 10 years. Another example is chess. If you had to program a ruled-based AI chess player, it would've never achieved the success that it did with data-driven approaches. Because there are so many chess positions that the number or rules needed to code it would make it unfeasible. Now, beyond the scope of this, if you check this article:arxiv.org/abs/2407.16890 This guy explains why ethics might not be computable based on the halting problem.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

​@@colaboytje I am not being intellectually dishonest. You interpret, like many other people in this chat, that any algorithm is a rule-based system. But Dr Peterson is talking about ruled-based systems in the context of AI, which has a more specific meaning, different from what you are assuming. I am not making this up, you can easily google rule-based vs data-driven and will understand the difference. What does it mean a ruled-based system in this context? If I want a build a model that predict if a patient has flu or not, a ruled-based system will require the programmer to code all the explicit rules that help determine the prediction. For example, if PatientTemp >37C and some other criteria is met, then Flu = True. In ML is not like that. You would define a regression with inputs and expected outputs, and then will tune the parameters of your model to force the output match the observed data. The rules are not hardcoded in your model, but rather inferred as an optimization problem. If you were to look into the ML model, you would only see matrices and functions. In fact, that is one of the challenges of current AI, since they are data driven, it is becoming very hard to know why they do what they do. There is a whole new field in AI called interpretable AI that tried to deal with it. Yes, all algorithms are based on the rules of the syntax of the language you are using and logic, but that is not the point. When we say ruled-based in this context, it means the rules that the model is trying to model. It is like saying that the American constitution is ruled-based cause it follows the laws of physics. Wrong level of analysis. His point is solid. While ML is able to infer automatically correlations that human cannot see in complex data, ruled-based systems would require the programmer to account for every single different input and its corresponding expected output and define and program a rule for it. For this reason, ML is being so successful in so many areas in the last 10 years. Another example is chess. If you had to program a ruled-based AI chess player, it would've never achieved the success that it did with data-driven approach. Because there are so many chess positions that the number or rules needed to code it would make it unfeasible. Now, beyond the scope of this, if you check this article:arxiv.org/abs/2407.16890 This guy explains why ethics might not be computable based on the halting problem.

[@douglasbaiense]

A bull shit artist will never be able to pin a beast like Matt.

[@seane6616]

If youtube censorship didnt get me whenever I post at length, I would explain exactly how you are wrong. I thought similar once, but I was wrong

[@muadhib001]

@@seane6616you write that everywhere JP

[@618033988749]

dude. 'bullshit' is one word.

[@aiboDad]

...when a relatively smart person debates a very smart person. Peterson should stick to debating young inexperienced students so he can boost his ego with each easy win. Dillahunty is leagues ahead of his opponent.

[@seane6616]

No, no he isnt, he's a fool

[@CHamlin86]

I would hate to be a waiter asking Jordan Petersen what he wants for dinner.

[@steveurkel-ipsn4555]

😂so accurate

[@Mizelei2012]

MD was supposed to be skeptical about the notion that "Health is generally preferable to sickness". JP had to just be difficult for its' own sake and it was pretty obvious right there.

[@Xentronium]

Didn't JP say, that he doesn't want to be difficult? Surely he wouldn't lie to us??

[@ericanderson8795]

Isn't trying to get to the core of these issues the point of a discussion like this? If no one was being "difficult", would that be interesting to listen to?

[@nw42]

⁠@@ericanderson8795Does JP’s approach actually get to the core of the issue, or is it just sophistry attempting to achieve a rhetorical goal?

[@ericanderson8795]

@@nw42 I don't have a reason to suspect he's not doing the same thing Matt is doing which is trying to get to the core of the issue

[@mrsatire9475]

@@ericanderson8795 I have a reason to suspect he's not doing the same thing Matt is doing which is trying to get to the core of the issue

[@oscarlavista7677]

I'll have the word salad with Jesus dressing please.

[@jonah9861]

Atheism is for teenagers.

[@TJRD8]

​@@jonah9861 lol

[@NiekNooijens]

​@@jonah9861 to the dumb, religion is true. To the wise, religion is false To the dictators, religion is useful.

[@oscarlavista7677]

@NiekNooijens To be fair. Religion is a viable alternative for those who know nothing about History or Science. It's much easier to cave to fairy tales than to be able to do any critical thinking for themselves. In other words, I'll have what they're having.

[@alanfrost75]

The first 4-5 minutes where Matt is talking and explaining his position is a wonderful example of how to present an argument. Eloquent, based on reason, and not unnecessarily complex or complicated.

[@gullibleskeptic3237]

Always funny to see a pseudo intellectual debate an actual one 😂

[@billscannell93]

Remember the, "Dillahunty disowns Richard Dawkins as a transphobe" incident, before you say such things. Remember.

[@gullibleskeptic3237]

@@billscannell93 I have no idea what that means🤷‍♀

[@EmporerFrederick]

Which one is pseudo intellectual? A man with no academic depth or a man that is a biologist, a psychologist, a professor and a philosopher?

[@billscannell93]

@@gullibleskeptic3237 Okay, well... That goofball Dillahunty tried to accuse Richard Dawkins of being a "transphobe" a few years back. He has gulped the Woke Kool-Aid and is no intellectual.

[@billscannell93]

@@EmporerFrederick Given that this is an atheist channel, and all the other comments are against Peterson, I assumed you were in favor of Dillahunty. Peterson has his problems, too. (Not as mortal as Dillahunty's, but still.) He'll defend religion to his last breath while avoiding being open about his belief in it, and I challenge anyone to tell me what he's talking about half the time.

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

Someone who never existed cannot be dead.

[@avkk2314]

Yes our ancestors were idiots,were are smart.

[@dariuslegacy3406]

AI runs on rules that it develops through its training phase. We may not know what the rules are, but they're there. Besides the irony that this guy wrote a whole book about rules for life saying rules don't work is funny

[@BobOort]

AI = Artificial Intelligence. Says all there is to say.

[@dariuslegacy3406]

@@BobOort ok buddy.

[@mrsatire9475]

@@BobOort Right, just like MicroSoft = tiny and squooshy

[@michaelmay5453]

AI doesn't run on rules? What the hell? AI does what it's told and is restricted to what the information accessible to it and the code the programmer wrote. The language of the code the programmer used is restrictive of what can be done, it consists of rules of what can and cannot be done. Then there are at least three other languages on the OS it runs on that it has to work though, that's not to mention that it's run on hardware that is restricted in what it can do and ruled by that.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

Rules-based system does not mean that in the context of AI.

[@michaelmay5453]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 It means exactly that.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

@@michaelmay5453 So acording to you all AI is ruled-based? You are defining what you believe is a ruled-based system. But ruled-based has a very specific meanimg in the context of AI. Just google it.

[@michaelmay5453]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 It is by definition rule based, this isn't a discussion, I'm just telling you that you are a nincompoop.

[@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963]

@@michaelmay5453 Ruled- based AI has a very specific definition in AI. Google ruled-based vs data-driven. Interpreting that simply means that it does not have any rule is simply wrong, but it also does not make sense. Why to use a category thay does not categorize anything? Why to use ruled-based algorithms ( as your definition) if all the algorithms use rules? Is like talking about non-wet water or non-hot fire.

[@mrcrazyadd2]

"I'm not trying to be difficult"...that's all you do, Jordan!

[@alinktotheblast40]

When JP starts moving his hands around I feel like he's gonna start rapping

[@Uhmm485]

JP, severely affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[@seane6616]

If youtube censorship didnt get me whenever I post at length, I would explain exactly how you are wrong. I thought similar once, but I was wrong

[@lafireteamplx3400]

​@@seane6616go on and post about it then, what could possibly be the cause of your comments getting censored? Well surely it's not God, that's the least we can say.

[@tnightwolf]

0:44 Imagine being lectured by someone wearing those boots (which are ridiculous but i do love tbh🤣)

[@RyanJones-ew8vm]

😂😂

[@jeff61177]

If Kermit was trying really hard to be the cool college professor.

[@nw42]

Nah, Kermit is waaaaaaaaay cooler than JP.

[@martian-sunset]

Jordan Peterson saying "I'm not trying to be difficult" is the greatest example of a total lack of self-awareness any human can have.

[@robertbatey9153]

Jordan Peterson likes to say, "I've been thinking about this a lot." Well, I guess that doesn't apply to his thoughts on machine learning. He stated that machine learning doesn't work off of a rule based system. Consider this; A successful chess machine learning system works by using this simple rule: Quit making moves that will cause you to lose the game.

[@618033988749]

What he and other people mean when they say that machine learning doesn't work off of a rule-based system, is that we don't say: "Always take the opponents queen if you can do it with a piece other than a queen". You _could_ do that, but the rule would only be good _most_ of the time.

[@bskeptical2481]

This debate was a gift from the gods.......

[@CalebScott1991]

Unfortunately, Jordan told his assistant he never wants to get on stage with Matt ever again after this happened.

[@dexter1150]

@@CalebScott1991 do you have proof?

[@CalebScott1991]

@@dexter1150 no, proof is a mathematical term used for certainty, but there is strong evidence of it, Matt has a video he made discussing it.

[@dexter1150]

@@CalebScott1991 Can you tell me the name of the video so I can find out where Matt got his information from

[@CalebScott1991]

@@dexter1150 He has spoken on it a few times, one is "Jordan Peterson Refuses to Debate Matt Dillahunty", he gives some evidence there, but you won't find your 'proof' until Jordan comes out and admits it, which won't happen.

[@victorcaceres9603]

So sad to see Jordan flail. What once was a brilliant professor now a stone age thinker!

[@markrichards7377]

This is a debate from the time before you say he fell. Your comment is absurd.

[@shinkansenshinkansend8316]

He's still an expert in his own field, the problem for him comes when he strays into theology. He's a presuppositionalist and ties himself up in horrible knots when trying to debate anybody of Matt's calibre.

[@MG6960]

He was never a brilliant professor. See what his mentor said about Jordan's "teaching" see also his rate my professor reviews from students

[@Misbeliefz]

​@@shinkansenshinkansend8316, Jordan Peterson began his public life opposing public accomodations laws for trans people. He lied about the laws, how the laws would impact peoplle and him, and lied about his motives for opposing bill c-16. Jordan Peterson is not a presuppositionalist. He is a pragmatist who believes we evolved to believe in religion, and as religion confers an or is useful for survival then it is true enough.

[@victorcaceres9603]

@@markrichards7377? @@markrichards7377Matt Dilahunty,@@markrichards7377am @@markrichards7377yourself@@markrichards7377

[@iainrae6159]

Matt is like a chess grandmaster drawing his opponent into the check mate scenario with skill and calmness.

[@zarbins]

If only.... came off as a patzer to me. His chess analogy was left wanting...

[@Kafei]

I think I'd kick Matt's ass in chess. 🤷

[@618033988749]

_checkmate_

[@RubberDucki_]

Every time Jordans voice become Kermit-like you know he is getting nervous. 😂

[@DocReasonable]

*The Good Ship Jesus* “The Good Ship Jesus” was America's first slave ship, and was captained by Sir John Hawkins. Hawkins was considered to be a religious gentleman who insisted that his crew “serve God daily”. Worship services were held on board twice a day. Quoting from a Christianity Today article, “The cruelest slaveholders were also often the most ardent church goers. ‘The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus.’”

[@shmeef279]

jordan out here lookin like golem 0:49

[@SparkyWaxAll]

Can’t stand his voice

[@Crimsonraziel]

JP is not trying to be difficult, it's all natural.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Exactly dude. His brain is fried from meat exclusive diet, benzos, child suicide, psychedelics, and too strictly using rules to form comprehension, ironically. That is why he tries dissecting it by asking about axioms and irrelevant shit.

[@ffederel]

I'd love to see a Jordan Peterson & Dinesh D'Souza debate. Not sure which of the two is worse. 🤣

[@MG6960]

An endless loop of stupid

[@nw42]

Literally two chatbots.

[@dominicpardo4783]

Ben Shapiro can moderate.

[@charliedekadens3348]

My head hurts but l got Matt 100% a class act.

[@musicauthority674]

"For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction".

[@meowthemmd]

Give every religious person a rule before debate and they lose: 1. Don't make Assumptions no one cares what you thinking

[@roberthorning8768]

JP thinks if he uses a big word or talks fast we’ll think he’s smart.

[@sosojni]

Jordan lost thisexchange so hard that he never ever talked to Matt again. He just can not allow himself to be beaten again and he knows he would.

[@PowerfulVillain]

This is what happens when you tie yourself to a religion to make your career grow over time.

[@brandonespenhain6013]

Its funny Peterson is arguing against rules when he has a book called 12 Rules...

[@Lordidude]

You can't defend a god that doesn't exist. 😂

[@TRUECRIMEADDICTTT]

peterson is such a baby "so what you're saying is"

[@jonah9861]

Atheism is for teenagers.

[@missk1697]

@@jonah9861 If teenagers can figure it out then what is your excuse?

[@williamjohn2910]

Jordan Peterson is just like Douglas Murray, educated in one subject, that's it.

[@briobarb8525]

Which subject would that be??? 🤔. Just rambling incoherently doesn't equate to much of anything.

[@poopymcdoody2043]

I don’t understand how JP can pretty much say that Matt’s foundation of “life is preferable to death, happiness is preferable to sadness, health is preferable to sickness”, must have some metaphysical foundation to make sense, it’s like no, all it takes is acknowledging that we ARE here, and we are not all just going to k*ll ourselves, that’s literally it, after that it’s like yeah I want to be happy and healthy, how can someone possibly think that comes from some metaphysical source?!

[@JustinTracey]

JP may have the gift of gab in some circumstances but lacks the gift of intellect in most.

[@redfoxninja3173]

Why can't God defend himself? Is a question religion will never answer because either God won't defend himself or he can't and both make God useless

[@Kafei]

@@redfoxninja3173 God's too busy sustaining the universe/multiverse. 😎

[@redfoxninja3173]

@@Kafei ok so a infinite God has limitations then? Kinda defeats the idea of all powerful if he can't multitask

[@Kafei]

@@redfoxninja3173 God has no limitations. If you want a direct experience of God, that's why mystical experiences exist. 🤷

[@redfoxninja3173]

@@Kafei uh huh and yet you just said he too busy with everything else to bother with a few crisis and catastrophes here on earth where his "favorite" things are and I will take fairy wishes and pixie dust with sum magic on the side of I'm going down your "God's mystical" route

[@Kafei]

@@redfoxninja3173 You have a very naïve interpretation of God. 🤔

[@austingregory1443]

At 3:30, Matt says "There's not a bible 3.0," before Peter tries to get him with a "well there actually is a bible 2.0." Jordan doesn't even listen. Matt still defended it, though.

[@mirabilis]

True, but I thinks he's listening.

[@Thanquol180]

Bible 3.0 is book of Mormon

[@mirabilis]

@@Thanquol180 And 4.0 is the book of Dianetics.

[@DritanGjoni-f7u]

I noticed that Matt has a pair of texan cowboy boots. He was ready to kick some asses in that debate

[@Ephesians-yn8ux]

I don’t think Matt is the intellectual he believes to be

[@daves2955]

Jordan Cathy Newman Peterson.

[@TRUECRIMEADDICTTT]

yep

[@djinnxx7050]

So what you're saying is...

[@davidloveday8473]

For God to have been dead, God needs to have been alive in the first place.

[@CBX-en9lc]

God is not dead......he never existed.

[@davidloveday8473]

@@CBX-en9lc ... my point exactly. It's a memorable soundbite, but I don't think the death of God metaphor has ever been logical, meaningful or tenable.

[@ZeeAmy]

Your video images excite me 😅😂❤

[@vijaychander4504]

I don't think even Jordan knew what he wanted. He tied himself up in knots trying to prove that he is smart.

[@bobrandom5545]

"Rule-based systems are not optimal" says the one defending religion.

[@josefschiltz2192]

Not just 'dead'. Never there in the first place.

[@Xenosaurian]

The problems here is Jordan Peterson talks too much and too vaguely, whereas Matt Dillahaunty is just too arrogant and too dishonest. Peterson carefully explores the truth while Dillahunty desperately runs away from the truth.

[@davebiddle1558]

Jordan is trying to articulate the work of Michael Polanyi and his concept of “tacit knowledge” but Matt doesn’t understand the idea that all explicit logic relies on implicit metaphor. Implicit metaphor is what Jordan is calling the hidden metaphysics buried underneath any rational presupposition. Spatial metaphor, in the sense of up down and dark or light etc., are always embodied irrationally by the cognitive agent who is attempting to articulate a rational system which they think is built upon clear axioms which, as Matt says here, are open to scrutiny. Jordan suggests that any attempt to dig down to the bottom of an axiomatic argument will always lead to a “metaphorical substrate” which cannot be made explicit for the sake of logical scrutiny. This is basically Kurt Goedel’s incompleteness theorem which demonstrates that no system of formal logic can account for the truth of its own axioms, and thus requires some extra language external to the system to makes the system “work”, which in Jordan’s case is a kind of metaphorical language. People who want to believe in a logical universe hate Jordan for this, it seems. And they think he’s obviously incorrect because he cannot explain the nature of this inexplainable metaphorical substrate, but Jordan thinks that the fact that he can’t explain it proves what he is claiming. It’s a shit show when the discourse is happening on KZbin, but check out Michael Polanyi’s work on Tacit Knowledge if you want to get a better version of Jordan’s argument. Also the brilliant physicist David Bohm wrote a lot about this same issue which scientific thought faces. There’s so much good clear academic writing on this topic but these two guys don’t seem to be able to get to it in this forum.

[@ltzmin]

Why even talk about something we don't have access to? The deepest we get it's the dark box of our psychology manifesting preferences (and at that level, we are dealing with genes and such) but never this metaphysics. Why again waste time on them? You can clearly see in this exchange the practicality of one and how impossible it makes conversation by the other

[@dantebids]

@@ltzminHello, thanks for the response. I don’t think it’s the case that we don’t have access to tacit knowledge, we just can’t translate that type of knowledge into propositional logic (that’s my interpretation of what JP is trying to get at which is better articulated by others). That’s why JP is interested in stories, myth, archetypes, etc., because he seems to believe that there are truths upon which our rational discourse is founded, which we cannot talk about in the rational way that MD wants to be able to talk about them; in terms of propositional truths such as “if x is true and y is true the it follows that z is true”. I’m certainly not defending JP or his way of dealing with this topic, as I said I think there are philosophers who deal with the relationship between tacit knowledge and rational knowledge in a much better way. This conversation is fraught for a few reasons, but I don’t think it’s an example of why metaphysics and logic cannot ever be synthesized into a more complex and comprehensive understanding of consciousness. I think John Vervaeke is a much better advocate for this kind of complex understanding of consciousness which takes scientific methods and rational thinking seriously, but does not reject all non-scientific and irrational thought. There are embodied practices, dialogical practices, poetic and artistic insights, all of which cannot be reduced to a propositional or axiomatic worldview to live by, as MD or Sam Harris seem to advocate for. I also think that MD is trying to do something that makes sense given the context of his views, since he is coming from Texas I believe, where a certain type of religion is probably quite dogmatic and restrictive and ubiquitous (at least when he was growing up) so he’s probably fighting the fight that makes sense in his circumstance, to liberate thought from bad metaphysics, and that may be your own experience too. But I think people who grew up atheist and guided by the (metaphysical) idea of a universe that is rationally ordered and scientifically quantifiable are critiquing the issue from the other side of the problem of the dogma and restriction in thought. Check out John Vervaeke’s channel if you’re interested in a much better explanation of the relationship between metaphysics, tacit knowledge, and propositional truth.

[@ltzmin]

@@dantebids I think the problem is the "metaphysics" hides in what we don't understand well, if at all, yet. That is why it proliferates. The more we understand the mind/consciousness, the divide will shrink in what today appears to be insurmountable. It's my opinion we should keep what matters to us at a level is practical and useful ("we don't know what it" is should be the only answer to the "metaphysical" and then we move on). The video here was an example of the pragmatic vs the useless metaphysical, they couldn't even agree that being alive it's better than not being alive. One can think of situations were that wouldn't be the case and that can be revised, thought and come up with a solution/agreement on a particular situation basis. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

[@colski3333]

When two separated minds compare that which is not there. Hemingway; all thinking men are atheist.

[@rayvatsy571]

JP is choked when he faces someone who can really articulate his/her viewpoint.

[@leifurfinney3658]

He must have been on benzos.

[@67cudaksa34]

Peterson does this to stop the conversation and direct it into another direction. And when he is in a corner is makes a horrible straw man. And peterson ws so mad about this conversation. he will not do another. so he has run to prager u

[@hansvos5897]

Believing becomes absurd when facing the truth.

[@JoshMitag]

Jordan - I'm not trying to be difficult Matt - (facepalm) Anyone notice the body language through the video?

[@matthiaswille8641]

Just to be clear...AI is based on rules. That it is no longer possible to "debug" how and why the AI implemented its knowledge and higher dimensional rulesets (in lack of a better term) because of the inherent complexity, doesn't mean there are no rules.

[@jasonimports]

Peterson getting his ass handed to him, again, whenever there's another human being speaking alongside him. He can't survive.