JORDAN PETERSON UNABLE TO DEFEND GOD AGAINST MATT DILLAHUNTY!?

[@Pangburn]

NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nXk5aNeNObrrcsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e

[@xSKALBER]

Did Dillahunty even attack God in this video? What kind of shit video title is this?

[@jeremiclement5723]

​@@xSKALBER No he didn't. The title is basically Pangburn coping hard because he knows Matt self owned in the Peterson debate. Matt is just whiny in this clip. "WoW! how dare you ask me where my argument begins while I'm on my skepticism tour!" He acts like an indignant teenage girl.

[@blurplebear8573]

Antiscience by two Pseudo-scientists? The only thing dumber then atheism is the people who adhere to it.

[@Ratog4]

The fact that we are supposed to "Trust The Science!" Well then what about these theories and supposed facts: No one has ever created any life in a lab anywhere, even when they have all the ingredients and 1)What is quantum entanglement and what does it show? 2) What is the simulation hypothesis and what does it show? 3) What is the big bang and what does it show? 4) And why are the building blocks of life and elements like atoms all built on binary code and the same three types of electrical charges? That's it all life and every element is three types of electrical charges proton, neutron and electron! Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof) ~ kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4K5nmuIpNCieKM&pp=ygUVc2NpZW50aWYgcHJvb2Ygb2YgZ29k

[@blurplebear8573]

@@Ratog4 God is what orders everything and creates everything. The big bang is nonsense without God as are all of these other assertions.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Gratefulapostate]

Jordan Pederson exemplifies the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"!

[@-WiseGuy-]

Hey! Did you just read one of my recent comments??🤔

[@Gratefulapostate]

@@-WiseGuy-No. should I have?

[@-WiseGuy-]

@@Gratefulapostate Sorry, that was a 1-person inside joke. I've been posting that saying a lot recently, including other Peterson videos.

[@KhattaRapidus]

That's most religions. People died worshipping an inanimate rock in the desert, duh dum tis.

[@FiEnD749]

Incredibly accurate.

[@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.

[@masiya3802]

😂😂😂 True. It must be a sentence

[@harshmellow4474]

Im not a peterson fan but his intellect, his work in the field he was trained in dwarfs you in every way, and somehow you feel you are better. That is funny.

[@samyakchhajed]

That's amazing😂

[@aravindsanjeev4150]

@@harshmellow4474 idk what u own mate

[@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 😅

[@stephenritchie-vd2pp]

ADHOMINEM ATTACK SOOOOOO INTELLECTUAL

[@wizzdom]

Matt is a perfect debate for Jordan because he won’t let him bully him into submission. Matt calls his BS

[@ph_stuff]

If only Christopher Hitchens were here. He’d have taught this verbose idiot some real lessons.

[@syntheticskystudios7325]

Matt is usually very good. I don't think he's ever been better than he is here.

[@czos9239]

Yeah this was apex matt. The best part was the post vid matt did in the sun where he was honestly just peaced out. Never seen a peaced out matt before.

[@T1J]

"i'm not trying to be difficult" LOL how can peterson say that with a straight face. his bizarre tangents are like his whole brand

[@PierreLucSex]

His whole brand relies on uneducated people abused by long sentences.

[@lizziedanse8335]

T1J in the wild 🥹

[@insquared1868]

He is literally trying to understand Matts confusing chain of thought, because he always adjust something if try to make an interpritation of what he said before. As if what he said before magically stopps applying to his current thought (which no one really gets except himeslf) to a certain extend, or so it appears. And some stuff he is so skeptical about he is ignoring it to the fullest, to where he doesn't realize the whole basis of his morality didn't came from general agreement between reasonable individuals but it came from the Bible. Denying that shows literal intellectual dishonesty, since the new Testament embodied the weight of sacrifice and importance of forgivness, grace and love. All that was written during a period in Human history, where humans killed one another for entertainment, the ways of "having a good life" were also there. The whole basis of considering something as "better" is if it's easier to get something very valuable and it applies even today. The teaching of the Bible are general rules each can apply infinitely to own cause, and ususally the teachings require endurance and effort, which many don't like and in the result disobey. Considering this basis, the foundation of Matts arguments are inconsitent and sometimes rather hypocritical. Peterson was tasting the grounds and allows his opponent to lead, yet if he doesn't understand something completely he is trying to ensure an explanation from the source. So yes, it may appear as if he is difficult to talk with but at the very end, if your source is difficult so becomes your opponent.

[@PierreLucSex]

@insquared1868 Peterson can't read philosophical sources, stop being pretentious

[@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

[@mrcrazyadd2]

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

[@RandyWinn42]

Technically, he is not "trying" ... he is "succeeding" in being difficult ... not that that slows Matt down a bit.

[@TheRationalPi]

"I'm not trying to be difficult" he says while objecting in bad faith to the assertion that life is better than death.

[@anotherpointofview222]

Matts arguments against Jordan's defense,.. "Easy like a Sunday Morning." Lionel Ritchie.😄

[@hollowtheory]

Literally "so you're saying..." I'm not saying anything because you interrupted me mid sentence

[@d_camara]

That's the job description of both a religious apologist and a life coach, they win by making the conversation go nowhere, because if it moves they'll be concluded to be BS, so they literally get paid to keep the conversation stagnant forever and repeat the same 5 arguments that were addressed 40 years ago

[@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.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

Jordan Peterson, like most conservative religious cranks, doesn't want to accept that Humanity can govern itself.

[@arthurclarke983]

Have you seen the news at any point in your life? Setting aside the middle east, at any point there are dozens of wars and genocides being perpetrated nonstop. We are awash in pollution, men now think they can become women, and women are dumb enough to defend a dude who pummels a female athelete, or becomes "woman of the year", and so on. No, rationality does not come easily (if at all) to most people.

[@antonkazda]

Bcs Humanity can not... its as simple as that.... If every individual would have great happy life, than sure... but you can not let people full of hate and inner chaos to govern even themselves... Thats why we have jail or mental asylums.....

[@GoodSirEvil]

​​​​​@@antonkazda "That's why we have jail or mental asylums." In other words. Humanity can govern itself. Humanity and the individual aren't the same thing and clearly he was saying humanity (as in mankind), and not an individual human. Besides that, most individuals can absolutely govern themselves. Only a small percentage of people recieve government intervention (like an arrest). I say none of this with nasty or argumentative intent. I just think you misunderstood here.

[@WellActualllyyy]

peterson couldn’t stop cranking it in his room to pics of his grandma until he read the bible and now he just thinks that applies to humanity

[@myra-yves]

@@antonkazdayour comment is so irrational and it’s disappointing to see someone with a Guts pfp say this

[@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.

[@eliascatedral4619]

​@@ChanceC5 Exactly. No big deal, but some people really want to see him fall.

[@Saol.Alainn]

​@@eliascatedral4619 Not that we want to see him do some self-reflection or anything, definitely just want him in ruins, right

[@victoriousf.i.g.3311]

Wait til he hears about the 10 commandments

[@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.

[@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.

[@ktech4246]

Jordan Peterson reminds me of when I ask ChatGPT to turn my 10 word response to a 200 word response.

[@HayGurHayyy]

Jail! :D

[@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.

[@1999wad]

the problem is anyone narcissistic enough will gladly say they are the ones 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. Otherwise isn't 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]

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

[@Berserk1Manga]

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

[@zarbins]

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

[@owlcowl]

Hes a faux intellectual, so he does qualify halfway.

[@zarbins]

@@owlcowl sick burn, bro.

[@stephenritchie-vd2pp]

MUCH IS BEYOND YOU IM AFRAID

[@AshikurRahmanRifat]

​​@@owlcowlI think he is quite intelligent but at some point he changed of course he gives good advice but recently he has become so aggressiveHe likes the money trying to stay relevant.

[@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.

[@SeroSerereSeviSatus]

jordan dont know that machine learning training has rules, otherwise ai wont work. he simply said the opposite of ai training is.

[@frohnatur9806]

I'd say, beside labeled training data and the goal to maximize prediction accuracy for test data - which may be considered rules - there are lots of hidden rules that are never made explicit in any humanly understandable way, that the AI comes up with by itself. Like changing the weights of connections in a neural network can probably be described as changing a rule, and the weights itself may be considered rules. A simplified rule understandable by humans might be: The lower neuron A's value and the higher neuron B's value both in layer 1 are, the higher neuron C's value in layer 2 will be. That's a vague form of a rule, and while getting more precise would be possible, I think it would necessitate a bit of math, making it that much more obscure Edit: So I think JBP is right in the sense that enforcing unchangeable rules that aren't certain to be optimal doesn't necessarily work to improve the outcome, which I think is actually the opposite of what he was trying to say and closer to what Matt said; rules need to be continually question based on evidence, in order to ensure that we use rules that get us closer to our goals.

[@meduzzard]

@@frohnatur9806 literally all current AI models are algorithmic, they don’t change rules on their own free will like what? you have no idea what ur talking about also what was that about hidden rules? so what if they are “hidden” according to you, they are still rules god the audacity of people to speak about anything as if they are professionals at it is arrogant and annoying, at least get a cs degree first (like me) to put some credibility on you words

[@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

[@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

[@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]

😂

[@DingDong-ly5cj]

@@petrkinkal1509 What do you mean by "what"? 😀

[@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?"

[@ioannescontramundum]

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

[@OCD-GIRL]

Stop hurting my brain

[@svensvenkill]

I'm waiting for someone to debate him and then pull out a dictionary when he starts that nonsense.

[@drillyourarguments]

So you hate it when people ask for a definition of a word if they don't know what you mean when you say a word? Or what? What's the point of this post? Sounds like a strawman of his asking of definitions, too.

[@Remiel_Plainview]

The clarity with which Matt speaks. 👏

[@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.

[@rokaq5163]

I thought exactly the same. He has a very concise way of explaining his points clearly. Definitely an example of eloquence.

[@vespasian266]

Spot on.

[@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.

[@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

[@s2bling]

He’s pretty much a dick all the time

[@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.

[@curtbressler3127]

JP is the worst at what he does. The only thing working for him is the people that he caters to are also really really really quite stupid.

[@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

[@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.

[@Atheist-Marc]

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 !!

[@Sitting8ull]

God doesn't need anyone to defend him.

[@AdalbertPtak]

Also doesn't need anyone to do his work. Contrary to what the pushers of religion may say. Of course that just makes sense, since "god" doesn't exist.

[@seveglider8406]

Which mythological god are You referring to?

[@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.

[@stephenritchie-vd2pp]

AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOURE TYPING?

[@James-ye7rp]

@@stephenritchie-vd2pp yes

[@SeroSerereSeviSatus]

@@stephenritchie-vd2pp i dont know what you are typing. but ai only works because of rules.

[@jazzy3075]

“tHeRe iS a biBLe tWo pOinT Oh!”

[@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..😅😅😅

[@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

[@Ismael-c8v]

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

[@sipjedekat8525]

​@@seane6616if you're trying to defend JP here, you got an uphill battle coming.

[@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

[@TheHottuna66]

You nailed 100%.

[@kosasable]

I think its great having two people with completely different worldviews talk and debate. Philosophical topics are difficult and they dont have clear answers, but that does not mean we shouldn't keep pushing the limits of these topics.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Very well said. Perhaps the point of these debates (hopefully) is to help people who haven't given much concern, yet who make decisions without the grounding that pondering such ideas would help them with. That is, people "on the fence" about, say, going to a church or making a political decision, who think about these ideas may make good choices rather than bad or (equally bad) no decision.

[@RandyWinn42]

Anyone who appears physically unable to say, "You make a good point", is either restricting their conversation to people who cannot reply, or is not arguing in good faith.

[@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

[@GeoffreyBRIDGLAND]

Peterson is a hot mess

[@mr.robertsmain]

Delusional

[@sleeeeep]

We will all eventually bow the knee to God. Either alive on earth or when it's time to be judged.

[@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?"

[@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.)

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

Dillahunty is 0 x 0 = 0 declaring it self calculus

[@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.

[@zarbins]

AI can operate outside of rules-based-systems like Chess his analogy is very limited in scope and that is what is frustrating Peterson. Dillahunty simply proves he is not aware of modern AI theory, how things like LLMs are working, or what machine learning is.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@Trumpulator atheists always mock - they never actual form an argument or refute anything. Always the same declarations, appeals to emotion or meme-jokes. pathetic

[@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.

[@davidd7834]

@@miguelangelhombradosherrer7963 But there are still rules (constraines) and a clear goal. And thats whats important.

[@Jdjsucbebakzicufbr]

Yeah there are rules. Explicit rules. They’re matrices. Peterson was really really wrong here. The rules are: multiply set combinations of matrices -> update matrices -> repeat

[@mattb1100]

As if God needs a human being to defend it, as if Nietzsche declaring God is dead could ever make it true

[@headhunter1945]

You're bloody well right, all God needed was one human to invent him.

[@alfreeman728]

God can't be dead since he never existed.

[@lennartfrank02]

Depends, youre right if the definition of death is living and then dying. If the definition is not being alive /not existing, youre wrong

[@alfreeman728]

@@lennartfrank02 Yeah, that would be incorrect. You cannot be alive or not alive if you never existed. You need to have been alive in order to be dead or die. Having said that, what was the point you were unsuccessfully trying to make?

[@cardndmch]

​​@@alfreeman728 he is just playing sneaky psyop as his ✡️ masters taught him

[@Silvaking_0]

@@alfreeman728I think their point is God was alive in people’s imagination. Just like characters in stories they could die even if they aren’t alive in our world they lived in the imaginary world. Gods being personified powers, given power through people believing in them then gives the opportunity to die by becoming a myth.

[@Kilimanjaro21]

if God never existed, then why are we here?

[@croonermusicfan]

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

[@davecrawley4634]

Oh he could get it, but he chooses not to be taught by anyone as in his own mind, he is the paramount mind in the world. How can you teach the smartest person. The sad part is he’s not, he’s a bright individual who talks waffle.

[@cheryllee81]

But i thought Peterson has a 150 iq?

[@d_camara]

His job relies on him "not getting it", as well as muddying every debate around him as much as possible to make sure as little people in the audience get it either

[@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.

[@saintmaquina671]

The evidence of God is all around us, from the breath in your lungs to the sunrise in the morning his creation is evident!

[@jeremiclement5723]

Amen. God is staring at us right in the face at every moment of our lives.

[@pintohoareau579]

Which god?

[@jeremiclement5723]

​@@pintohoareau579 There is only one God.

[@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.

[@stephenritchie-vd2pp]

CAST NOT YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE... MOSTLY BECAUSE ITS A WASTE OF TIME MAYBE HE PRAYED ABOUT IT AND GOD SAID NO

[@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

[@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.

[@robertgray323]

It depends on what you mean by a chair

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

Someone who never existed cannot be dead.

[@avkk2314]

Yes our ancestors were idiots,were are smart.

[@ThePsyko420]

"I'm not trying to be difficult" And the lie detector has determined this is a lie

[@Flynbourne]

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

[@alamix1986]

I always liked Matt but I never thought he was so good to the point of destroying JP.

[@alexmaverick6647]

A goldfish could probably destroy JP

[@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.

[@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.”

[@DlCKWALLACE]

​@@seane6616😅 lame excuse. Just don't use any foul language It's easy to avoid KZbin's ban system....

[@DlCKWALLACE]

​@@seane6616How is wrong? Look around you in nature... Every species ultimate goal is to thrive. To survive and reproduce.

[@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

[@joshkeatley7523]

I didn't understand what they were talking about in the beginning mainly because we were thrown into a middle of a discussion. But after I watched it all, and then went back to the start it all made so much sense. Great video!

[@Lordidude]

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

[@danhtran6401]

I can....

[@Kilimanjaro21]

If God doesn't exist, then why are we here?

[@Lordidude]

@@Kilimanjaro21 If Zeus isn't real, then why is there lightning?

[@Kilimanjaro21]

@@Lordidude, indeed, if God isn't real, then why is there lightning?

[@Lordidude]

@@Kilimanjaro21 So Zeus is real, right?

[@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.

[@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_

[@ToddTuck-gs6ly]

No the guy is an idiot

[@danhtran6401]

A grandmaster who can't escape death.... 😂

[@MrEmpireBuilder0000]

Been following Matt since the beginning. Really glad he's now up top at the highest pinnacle just dismantling these fools.

[@rssphllps]

This is where he needs to be. He doesn't have the patience to deal with the idiots who phone in to the Atheist Experience

[@jeremiclement5723]

Matt Dismantled himself in that debate. "I have value because I come from ancestors who thought they had value" -Matt Don't get me wrong, JBP sucks at debate (he's not reaply a debater), but he didn't have to try hard, because Matt owned himself with this ridiculous non-sequitur, begging the question appeal to monkey value. Big L on Matt.

[@steved5960]

Matt is the pinnacle of internet "intellectual"

[@onedaya_martian1238]

@@jeremiclement5723 Guess not having value is a thing then ? Hence the valueless comment ??

[@jeremiclement5723]

​@@onedaya_martian1238 That's right. If atheism is true, then nothing has any value including my comment. Including yours.

[@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

[@jensensolace4948]

'I've been thinking about this lately. It depends on what you mean by "dinner"?'

[@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.

[@mikehall7189]

Why on earth did anyone ever regard Peterson as an intellectual?

[@kayakMike1000]

Pretty sure his professorship at Harvard had something to do with it.

[@mikehall7189]

@ Ah, so that automatically makes him an intellectual then?

[@CatherineGolden-f5c]

It actually makes him a " professional" intellectual as he had a paid position at Harvard. If you want to persist and go against THAT, then fine.

[@kabzebrowski]

the alt-right is always looking for someone to guide and justify their positions. JP was pushed hard by 'chans' as their next messiah

[@michaeld2519]

His IQ of over 150 and his PhD. How do you compare?

[@alinktotheblast40]

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

[@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.

[@AndrewWalden-s9n]

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

[@RubberDucki_]

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

[@paradigmbuster]

If Matt was an artificial intelligence program, he would say that operating systems dont exist.

[@johnshite4656]

what?

[@privateprofile3517]

If would want to die, if I was Jordan after this interview, he made himself look like a clueless clown

[@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

[@Steve-lp1tn]

This is exactly the problem point of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. God's idea is not your idea nor your idea His to be subject to God we must forgo our idea trusting his sovereignty holiness goodness etc. The tower of babble case in point not God's ideal.. This is what sin does when confronted with God's truth it's defences goes up. Paul said it best if a law could have been given The problem is the law doesn't save our sin nature corrupt as it is sees the law and arouses every evil inclination desire. something perfect showing sin to be utterly sinful. God himself seen the law as imperfect but not as a man it's flaw was the inability to break sin. It could only condemn law breakers or require blood. It couldn't take it away by itself. This is where the new covenant comes in which was God's plan all along. That man could come back into fellowship apart from the law of written ordences and observances to the law of faith to hear God in fellowship and operate in the union of fellowship with God. Being obedient to God understanding His honor glory power beauty. It's simple to believe God and trust not in my understanding but His full and complete understanding. Most will not hear him because they still desire to keep their own way rather then abandon themselves to God. God is light if your outside of God it's darkness. There is no middle ground...

[@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.

[@maxmalder8733]

@Pangburn 1)What is quantum entanglement a.k.a. Spooky Action At A distance (Eienstein) and what does it show? 2) What is the simulation hypothesis and what does it show? 3) What is the big bang and what does it show? 4) And why are the building blocks of life and elements like atoms all built on binary code and the same three types of electrical charges? That's it all life and every element is three types of electrical charges proton, neutron and electron!

[@Tirreg88]

0:45 Jordan doing the "So, what you are saying" line that broke cathy newman

[@jdn42y11]

He knows religion is there to control the masses. He’s a paid tool to keep us in their delusions forever

[@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

[@Nuance_No]

Peterson is just out of his league

[@scottriiska2062]

Do the people who want the Ten Commandments posted in classrooms know that rule-based systems don’t work?

[@mypimpeador]

6:20 this is not aging well. ML can be decomposed into smaller rules on a neural network. Peterson is romanticizing ML to appeal to the audience to think he is an authority on the matter but he hardly understands engineering.

[@PierreLucSex]

Peterson is romanticizing himself in someone who can read.

[@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.

[@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.

[@hekilled16czechslovakians]

@@jonah9861 religion is for delusionists.

[@alexmaverick6647]

Surprised Peterson didn’t burst into tears like he usually does.

[@David-mx2cv]

Those that are not for Him, are against Him.

[@ionut15091]

so why did he make me "against" him, even though i probably am more qualified for heaven than a lot of people that pray to him daily? i had no power in it.. it would be really easy to convince us all, open the skies and talk to us all at the same time in all the languages, make a miracle so great that no one should ever doubt you again, easy for an allpowerful being, now unlike 2 millennia ago when he last appeared we could even record him on camera and no one will ever doubt him again, we could all be the perfect little monkeys in his big zoo, that's what he wanted after all didn't he

[@Wizard_Sleeve_Warrior]

Hey Jordan, why don't you pontificate why you're a fool?

[@DeepGnomeDruid]

Oh, now I get it! Jordan Peterson is nuts!

[@frohnatur9806]

Love how I only ever get religious ads when I watch videos arguing against religious positions 😂

[@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.

[@roberthorning8768]

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

[@ZeeAmy]

Your video images excite me 😅😂❤

[@Jage81]

I would like to see Mr. Dillahunty debate either Mr. Frank Turek or Mr. Wes Huff

[@bobmcfierson2163]

7:02 Peterson just make himself look stupid and has absolutely zero clue how computers work or programming and code works.

[@stevejepson9963]

An Albertan with a thesaurus

[@milkywayCOD]

I think they only kept the comments against JP and deleted the rest 😂😂

[@PierreLucSex]

Educated people tend to not value Peterson for excellent reasons. The dude can't use proper textual corpus, can't be accurate, poor reading skills and method.

[@pintohoareau579]

Cope harder.

[@rssphllps]

Matt, this is when your brilliance shines. I wish you could keep this level of civility when talking to call ins on the Atheist Experience.

[@leyrua]

If he could, I would keep watching it. But I got tired of him yelling angrily at people.

[@JustinTracey]

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

[@AliothAncalagon]

Imagine being such a powerless god that you need Jordan Peterson to come to your defense.

[@jeremiclement5723]

Imagine thinking that God needs anyone to come to his defense. (Pssst, we don't believe in a god like that 😉)

[@AliothAncalagon]

@@jeremiclement5723 Why do Christians keep defending him if thats completely unnecessary? Seems like most of them aren't that confident about him not needing help.

[@jeremiclement5723]

​​@@AliothAncalagon Because that's not really HIM that we are defending. It's our faith that needs to be defended. 1 Peter 3;15 I know, it's a bit of a nuance. But that might clear up your questioning. Christians are not defending God, they are defending themselves, using what God has revealed. So in a sense, it's God who is defending us.

[@AliothAncalagon]

@@jeremiclement5723 So god doesn't defend himself, you defend him, which is actually defending yourself, but which is actually done by god. That might be the most circular word salad I have ever encountered in my entire life xD

[@jeremiclement5723]

​@@AliothAncalagon That's not what I said. Respectfully, that's a strawman. Read again.

[@brandonespenhain6013]

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