This discussion between Sam Adams and John Vervaeke is the most enlightening and significant of the conversations so far between Pageau, Vervaeke, Vanderklay, Weinstein, Peterson, Kochan and more. What has made all the conversations so worthwhile and so important is that they have been conducted with such courtesy and respect, between people who are trying to advance their understanding, rather than just score points against each other. This conversation was a breakthrough. Instead of hitting the wall between faith and science, stuck on opposite sides, Sam and John lifted themselves just high enough to see over it, to the possibility of one day standing on common ground. Those who understand the value of the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society watch anxiously as Christianity seems to be losing its grip, perhaps to experience a rebirth, perhaps to leave us in a new Dark Age. The efforts of John Vervaeke to create a path to religio, using science with the kind of rigor exhibited by Christian believers who would die before deviating from the truth, is heroic. In this conversation between Sam and John, there was a glimmer showing where these contraries might meet. In pointing out the hidden Gnosticism in Weinstein’s theory of evolution which tosses up superbly capable creatures, humans, who must somehow prune themselves of genocidal genes to keep themselves from destroying what is, after all an insignificant planet, Vervaeke reveals that Brett has stumbled into attributing malignancy to the universe. In doing so, Vervaeke clears a “scientific” objection to the words and message of Genesis and the Bible, “and he saw that it was good”. Another conversation may expand the end of the discussion in which Neoplatonism may provide an intellectual structure for understanding that as well as a bottom up process to build complexity, a person, there may be a top down process in which the entire universe is structured to express that development. I will be watching this conversation, not once more, but many times more. I also hope to hear another conversation between Sam and John, perhaps joined by more of these people who have been addressing the meaning crisis with honesty and integrity. So many of the broadcasts found on KZitem present more disasters from the crumbling of our civilization. These conversation, between Sam and John, and Pageau, Vanderklay, Weinstein, Peterson, Kochan and others, are engaged in moving forward, out of the dead end we find ourselves in.
@j.p.marceau5146
3 жыл бұрын
I listened to this on Sam's channel last week and you two really made me want to reread Eriugena's Periphyseon! Thanks to you both for the excellent discussion.
@johnvervaeke
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks JP. Hope you are well.
@JiminiCrikkit
3 жыл бұрын
Great exploration and explanation of the concepts in the title. Always enjoyable and I thank you again. Thank you both.
@samuelyeates2326
3 жыл бұрын
What a great, meaty, dense video. This is a mandatory re-watch for me.
@dru4670
3 жыл бұрын
Just stumbled on this after watching you from the modern wisdom podcast. I liked the discussion.
@leedufour
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks John and Sam.
@johnvervaeke
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks Lee.
@celesteschacht8996
2 жыл бұрын
I love this guys questions!
@socraticsceptic8047
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks great to hear these themes being discussed ... I think this whole emanation vs emergence is a vital cutting edge discussion. I think the best way to characterise Plato's view is that the Forms emanate into the the world of Being and not the other way around, but they do so at every level of being simultaneously and at every level at the same time. So for example Oneness is in everything :- from the smallest quark, to us, to stars, to the universe as a whole. but that happens at all these levels at the same time and not 'top down' or 'bottom up'. So it is not like quarks have the only real oneness and every other object is just a clumping of those 'atoms' that form from the bottom up (emergence). Or that the world as a whole is some mind and all quarks are just are emanated "thoughts" of God conceived of as the Universe as a whole - in this idealism of say Berkeley.
@socraticsceptic8047
3 жыл бұрын
...However for example Oneness-in-itself is prior to any Oneness in the world of Being (the world we can perceive). This is pure emanation and there is no bottom-up-ness to it. Oneness in itself does not emerge from the Oneness we perceive at every level of being as discussed above, but rather the oneness perceived in the world is a reflection of the form of oneness in itself. So to use another example the form of "Circle" didn't emerge from our perceptions of images of circles in the world (the Sun, Full Moon etc), and we then created the mathematical ideal of the perfect circle, and then Wheel etc. Rather we grasped the abstract idea first and then saw and created all these circular things in the world.
@82472tclt
3 жыл бұрын
Also...I’m not certain but I think 🤔 there are very similar things happening with RR and Heidegger’s “ereignis”. Maybe we should look this over together
@johnvervaeke
3 жыл бұрын
Yes. Dreyfus’ work is especially relevant here.
@82472tclt
3 жыл бұрын
This one John I think is your most clear account of RR I’ve seen so far.
@82472tclt
3 жыл бұрын
And...it arose out of the dialectic about between telos and evolution
@johnvervaeke
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks Guy!!
@newtalking3
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
The stoic and the cynic form a dichotomy: the citizen is gnostic between them. Popular culture, orthodox culture, has occluded the cynic and left stoicism lopsided. The gnostic plays the role of cynic because it's needed.
@MrCman321
3 жыл бұрын
“It’s not a perfect polar bear yet” I think that sentence is the problem with Sam’s conception of evolution. There is no such thing as a “perfect polar bear” because all organisms are simply adapting to the environment as the environment changes. Unless you’d believe there is the form of the perfect Arctic, then there is no polar bear which will never need mutation and adaptation in an environment.
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
34:53 to 37 plus: very insightful. Not "to last" but, to fit the niche. I call it "teleological tennis" and, there's no reason at the outset to distinguish it from thinking. I think John constrains too much.
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
The niche moves: usually slow enough for evolution; look at salmon, they used to lay eggs on the beach. Culture evolved cuz niches can move fast; as fast as your feet can carry you, sometimes.
@danielfoliaco3873
2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand. So, evolution is just a mathematical function without any ethics, therefore without any purpose or meaning in itself, nevertheless, it affords agents to existence? This really confuse me, because it seems like consciousness is like a third form between teleological and non teleological aspects of reality. But, if purpose and intentions instantiate relevance, then, purpose needs to be a real thing in every energy particle, because it's participation give form to an entire system trough the butterfly effect, and really nothing is a real passive thing, and then we again fall in this deep paradox 🙄.
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
56:52 ... err, I'm pretty sure that's not what's called the "No Free Lunch Theorem" and I'm not the first to find your appeal to it a little dubious -- as with the Wake/Sleep algorithim, it's temping to overgeneralize from these formal results in a "Conjectures and Refutations" manner but if you're just engaging the results on the memetic level you've also got to contend with the adage "Diversification is the only free lunch in investing", in terms of which your evolutionary framing makes perfect sense, since you also need variation for selection:
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
In this framing we can say that workforces should be diverse for the same reason as a stock portfolio, which is not fairness to the stocks.
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
(a comment youtube is blocking is just a google search for "Diversification is the only free lunch in investing")
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
Of course "Diversification is the only free lunch in investing", applies equally to emotional investments, and hence could form the basis of one 'argument for polyamory'...
@Joeonline26
3 жыл бұрын
@@adamgolding At this point you're just rambling...
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
At this point I'd normally be all "proof left as an exercise to the reader" but since the collective Freudian censor here is so strong as to prevent even the initial consideration of 'portfolio reasons' for diversifying workforces: since "diversification is the only free lunch in investing" stems from things like the principle of indifference--that is to say, it's more appropriate for less certain environments--diversification is especially important for *volatile* investments, and one thing to diversify is volatility itself. So, which emotional investments are more volatile? What's an ideal distribution in terms of varying social connections with different degrees of emotional volatility? Are there 'investment reasons' to diversify certain *types* of emotional investments more than others, due to their greater volatility? Sobering thoughts, pun intended ;-)
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
44:00 lol so the purpose of the universe is for purpose to develop so that we can question its purpose? ;-)
@benjaminlquinlan8702
3 жыл бұрын
...but it's without any telos ....hmmm
@dannybbolt
3 жыл бұрын
John doesn't want to say there is a teleology to evolution because eventually you need to explain the process in terms of something more simple/foundational that does not have teleology. However, a computer program, say a video game, clearly has a teleology, namely whatever the developer created it to do, but its function can be explained at the bottom by chemistry, material science, electromagnetism; the manner in which the computer it is running on works on a physical level.
@benjaminlquinlan8702
3 жыл бұрын
A mindless universe manifests mind ... A reality without telos manifests telos everywhere the human mind brings attention to.... Ehhhhh ok.... What now?
@colorado4815162342
3 жыл бұрын
21:12 The Stoics internalized Socrates
@benjaminlquinlan8702
3 жыл бұрын
Grammer of the universe.... The logos ? Like I am going crazy? Why is there a grammer of the universe? Something that in the way the guts of the universe work? Ahhhh how is this not bound up in a telos????
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
Christianity *is* broken. Judas had a meditative experience of the mythic Christ: coherence detection in a comfort finder. Ralph Ellis' chronology shift explains a lot. I think it's really cool that there's a mountain of colonialism and misogyny grounded on roman fascism that needs to move to the ground of truth and be the mountain of love it's supposed to be: and one miracle christians of faith are challenged to do.
@karl6525
3 жыл бұрын
Sam made a pretty bad strawman out of Bret Weinsteins' point of view. Hopefully it's out of ignorance, or just to illustrate a point but that should then have been made explicit. Bret would say that genes left to their own devices (genes here meaning something like "instinct for survival, procreation and proliferation) will engage in zero sum games and that will ultimately end in self termination. Now, this is in my sense, and from my understanding Johns' sense and actually Jordan Petersons', judging by his latest discussion with Bret, that this claim can be (mis)understood as consciousness and conscience being phenomenon of an independent nature than that of genes. But, if consciousness and conscience are adaptions performed by evolution then they are indeed kin of the genes and as naturally evolved, naturally. Peterson made, I would say, the same point as John did here; that the "dark" (if you'll allow me 😉) impulses, addictive behaviours or (mal)adaptive actions have to be forgiven, understood and integrated in their proper adaptive fashion, not suppressed, rejected or fought against. Not overindulge nor reject. Optimal grip. The middle way. I think Bret probably just wants to stress the importance, and urgency, of wisdom and the better angels of our nature and to understand the dangers of narcissism and maladaptive strategies. Benefit of the doubt. Because a battle against the genes seems like a confused and doomed enterprise. And is indeed as zero sum and not win/win. We do have the choice.
@karl6525
3 жыл бұрын
Might just be ramblings. It was a spontaneous thought / comment and it's late.. x') Thanks for helping me feel and think [deeply] John
@benjaminlquinlan8702
3 жыл бұрын
How have we superceded our nature though? How are we the only ones in nature beyond our nature... It's almost as if we are supernatural...
@karl6525
3 жыл бұрын
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 how do we know thst we are? We have superceded the nature of other animals. It seems our nature is different. We are not past our nature, we're just continuing along with it.
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
Concern for your own offspring to the exclusion of the welfare of others is egocentric, isn't it?
@mediocrates3416
3 жыл бұрын
Judas in India was jailed for warning against parenthood, if i remember correctly. Just making the point is all.
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
Frege improved Platonism...
@adamgolding
3 жыл бұрын
and from there it's a shorter distance between Platonism and AI / Collective Intelligence...
Пікірлер: 44