Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
DiscoStu

Who's your messiah now?

Recommended Posts

 

this guy's a fucking idiot and if you don't know it after watching this then so are you

 

- if dmt gives you brain damage then stefan molyneux is brain damaged and therefor none of his arguments should be taken seriously

- he defines reality as something that more than one person can verify. if that's the case then god is real

Edited by DiscoStu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue here is that incompatible belief systems about the nature of reality cannot be reconciled when the interviewer lacks focus and articulates himself poorly, and the interviewee is dismissive and arrogant.

 

One fails to open a discussion coherently and the other fails to be open to discussion.

 

its painful to watch because I know what the interviewer is trying to say but he comes off sounding like the drug addled stoner that the interviewee seems to think he is.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conv3rgence said:

One fails to open a discussion coherently and the other fails to be open to discussion.

Very clear summation! 

 

The caller was ill prepared to state, much less, defend his position and expected Molyneux to be sympathetic and help him along.  

 

Molyneux it seemed was all to ready to take advantage of the situation and turned it into the equivalent of the proverbial wrestling match between a 500lb gorilla and a 50lb weakling.  Unfortunately, in doing so, he had to recast the caller's incoherence into a drug induced brain damage caused confusion which I found to be unkind and reprehensible.

 

In my opinion, the interview should not have been published as it is disrespectful to both the caller and the informed listener.  The only value I see is that it serves as a warning to those who might consider a discussion with Molyneux:  Be well prepared to defend your thoughts as you may be attacked for presenting them.

Edited by plantlight
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting.... 2 min in and the dude is laughing at the caller.. he is disrespectful from the begining..  but they dont hang up or something... because they "respect" him... 

 

I think the psychedelic theists are the idiots here - he just seems not so polite, but then again its a debate! And he is an atheist no?? 

LOL

 

I think I am gonna love it, debating psychedelic theists opinions is easy, I used to do it all the time at a previous period. 

 

Stu>> I will tell you if I am an idiot when it ends

Edited by sagiXsagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man the dude cant define a mystical experience! 

 

sure aint that easy, but come on?? 

 

he is asked what is a mystical experience and he starts talking about his mushroom-induced spirituality and so on.... 

he concludes mystical experience is embracing the mystery of the universe 

 

the dude cant talk 

 

then he is asked what gnosis, knowledge he has gained from such experiences 

 

gosh, the psych guy is ridiculous! 

 

6 minutes on and he is mubling about how the nature of reality is everything, and hallucination are in fact another side of reality. 

 

no wonder you say he was fucked in the ass in this video.. he is asking for it!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(he obviously couldnt see his face during the call) 

 

what a fool.. 

 

Plato and the people participating in the The Eleusinian Mysteries were "tripping balls"  ???  And thats why they had so great philosophy?? and this dude wants to be taken seriously? 

some arguements like he knows what he is talking about because he's done LOTS of psychedelics

and wow, the suggestion that smoking dmt is something that only takes 10 minutes of your life, if only you find the "courage"

 

this dude has no arguements .. if he does he fails in presenting them miserably 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was interesting... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Molyneux to be arrogant, dismissive, pompous and one of the most ego-bound voices on the net.

 

Just because you have intelligence doesn't make you a better person than anyone else, nor does it make your beliefs on any subject 'true'.

 

He epitomises for me a lot of things that are wrong with us and our present day culture; namely that if I develop my cognitive faculty enough I can dominate others and 'know' everything. There are other types of knowing not based on the intellect, and in his case I feel he would do well to tone the mind down a bit, just for his own mental health...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe yr right  - this is the only this I saw of him 

he was a bit harsh when asking about the dudes history 

 

but the psych dude, boy 

in the first half he just seemed he needed to be heard or something

not really make some case 

 

he cant tell which arguements are his best ...  or he realised too late!   if there ever was an arguement, the dude does not  focus on the rational, scientific data we got on psych use , among other things, in medical use.  

 

 

 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I didn't even watch it. I've seen some of his stuff before, which is why I didn't. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.00.54 thank goodness for heroes like him taking on the burden

51.26 I think that settles it

It was nice to let him have the last word like he said he would, what a lovely bloke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responsible Choice, you can bash molineux as long as you want man! You did NOT watch it, huh?? nice!

 

lets face it, the psych dude was a USA idiot  (mentioning the USA because their brand is more idiot than other brands), probably too idiot to see his idol is ridiculing him and not intelligent or tunt-on enough. 

 

the type of idiot that is refering to Eleysineian mystics as guys that were tripping balls and consequently made up great philosophy... 

 

Had the psych dude some nice arguements and a train of thought, then we would see how molineux would react.  Here he is facing what he sees as a common druggie, and this is the psych dudes fault. 

 

In fact I could make a list of hundreds of fails on the psychs dude part. Quite obviously, having taken much psychedelics doesn't make you a rhetor or debater. 

 

Quote

There are other types of knowing not based on the intellect 

 

yeah?? mind sharing some of these other types of knowing?? I mean apart from emotional and intellectual... 

 

 

PS: I think you are acting like kids or football fans.. Well decent footbal fans would admit they psych dude cant play ball and got what he was asking for !! 

 

the psych -dude, Jordan, is an idiot ..  

 

PS2:  you might be right if molineux wasn't a dick as you say.. but if he is a dick, then the dude that went there to be ridiculed is even more idiot..   Please suggest me any other vids of him.. I love debates. That was not one.. 

 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 3, 2016 at 10:19 AM, sagiXsagi said:

that was interesting... 

But mostly painful :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:
Quote

There are other types of knowing not based on the intellect 

 

yeah?? mind sharing some of these other types of knowing?? I mean apart from emotional and intellectual... 

 ^ this. And instinctual/intuitive.

 

Mate, please don't take my comments as being some sort of defense for whatever poor soul was in this clip. As I said I didn't watch it, and wouldn't be suprised if Molyneux had some sort of screening in place so he could cut said soul down easily.

 

Imo Molyneux is an arrogant, over-intellectualised dick. My opinion. No debate necessary from my end. I certainly won't be engaging in any more comments around said internet 'wise-man'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude (RC) fuck molinaux, you said there are many ways of knowing.. 

 

please say more about intuitive/instictual knowing. are instincts a form of wisdom??? I dont think so... 

 

In any case, knowing is based on intellect, and not even emotions. 

If wanna argue how emotions and instincts are form of knowing, lets hear it. 

Any arguement must have a rational base.. 

 

fearing is not knowing... intellectualising fear renders it into knowledge.

falling in love is not a form of knowledge its an instinct.. people who fall in love dont know shit, unless they have intellectualised a lot their past and present love and partner life and experience 

anger is not knowing.. its an instinct... knowing oneself and how one reacts to frustratiing situations, now thats knowledge.. 

 

I am suggesting through these examples that every form of knowledge is intellect based. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

 

In any case, knowing is based on intellect, and not even emotions. 

If wanna argue how emotions and instincts are form of knowing, lets hear it. 

Any arguement must have a rational base.. 

 

 

 

I'll have a quick go-

Knowing is not based on intellect in my opinion, intellect is the ability to process information, problem solve etc I can be hungry, and know that I am hungry without needing to understand why I am hungry, The only aspect of that (or any of the other examples of love, anger etc) I need intellect for is to process the language/communication part of that, hunger however exists even without that language label.An infant will cry until it is fed, it lives and experiences that hunger, it knows hunger.

Edited by doublebenno
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice.  

 

I am in the sagi boat although I go one further, we can make rational guesses towards knowing, particularly with empirical tools as concerns the material world, but the word knowledge indicates a certainty which I see no solid justifiaction for.

 

I was going to say there is personal knowing although didnt think to frame it in those terms.  Anyway regardless of what it is, I have found that some people take knowing for granted, lets say they interpret a dream, to them it is fact, and to me it is not.  To them a fact might also be that thunder/sagi/molyneaux is unlikeable Heheh, what can you do?  Freedom to decide your own narrative I guess.  Quote a great lyric "there is no knowing but I know it"

 

While on the topic I also believe there are lofty realms of speculative philosophy only attainable if the intellect can cannibilise itself and turn inside out... Unless thats just how it seems to me, since surfacing in those realms is such a stretch that i lose touch with existing mental frameworks.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the language part of humans is trivial point in yr opinion? 

 

the infant knows hunger and probably many shit we dont even imagine, BUT, in our sense, the infant dont know SHIT. 

 

the 'moon / water sign etc' dominated people operate more on the emotional level , but they still need intellect to even BEGIN to process what emotions are like... 

 

PS: i you see a gal you fancy and feel horny and feel you wanna fuck her, you mean that you know you wanna fuck her.. 

that kind of knowledge we're talking about? 

 

knowing when and instinct calls

 

like knowing when to piss, so as not to piss on yrself... 

 

thats a knowledge too... 

 

so something less sophist? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well language is somewhat trivial to me, in the sense that it is limiting our ability to evolve intellectually, however that is another discussion. My point was more to try and illustrate that knowing and intellect are independent- and although you think that the infant doesn't know shit (from your perspective through comparison??), it is still knowing none the less. Another example would be changing behaviour in mice with electric shock experiments, the mice knows how NOT to get the shock through repetition rather than an intellectually formed decision.

If I want to fuck a girl I experience that desire, I know I want to because the urge exists and seems real to me- and so a horse wants to mate, he knows he wants to, so he does it, he doesnt intellectually analyse why tho, it just happens- for me on the other hand, I have the cognitive ability question that desire, refine my behaviours to increase my chances etc- that would be in my opinion the intellectual aspect.... so yes, less sophist ;-)

 

Edited by doublebenno
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to watch the video, but that guy gives me such an instant vibe of total douche-lord, I just don't think I can make it all the way through. I should give him a chance. But stuff takes so long to say verbally – I get impatient listening to people talk – would rather read something any day. I promise I’ll give it another go over the weekend.

 

In the interim, here's my completely un-asked for 2 c worth.

 

While it's seen as uncool in some quarters, I've got to concur that knowledge is more than solely a feeling or belief. Or if it is, there's a framework involved. The idea of knowledge as 'justified true belief' has had some serious technical difficulties since Gettier smashed it in the 1960's, but it gives a rough guideline for thinking about stuff nonetheless.

 

Do you believe something?

Do you have good reason for believing it?

Is it actually true? 

 

Only if you can tick all 3 boxes, is it knowledge.

 

Trying to get even everyday beliefs into that framework can end up as a mess, let alone anything more esoteric. Consider:

 

  • I believe that I ate my lunch just now. I take my recent memory of it, plus my observation of an empty lunchbox and introspective lack of hunger, as good justification for me thinking this. Unless I'm radically wrong about lots of features of the universe, it's probably an actual fact in that it's a physical state of the world that this happened. 

 

  • I believe that chem X allows me to access dimension Y. I take my trippy experience, which I interpreted a certain way, plus my other beliefs about the universe as being justification for this belief. Is it true though? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know.

 

Tricky.

 

Justification is a pain in the hole - but we can at least pick out the dodgy candidates - circular reasoning and the like (e.g: 'How do you know the Bible is true? Because an angel told me. But how do you know it was an angel? Because I read about angels in the Bible.' and so on). Maybe chem X does allow me to see into dimension Y, but justification means tying it into a whole web of related knowledge - including (ideally) some actual scientific knowledge about the world. This maybe it’s true, but we don’t yet have what passes for a good justification for believing it as our physics isn’t advanced enough etc.

 

You might feel I'm being unfair, especially because I made similar assumptions about lunch-related knowledge. I assume my memory is an accurate reflection of past events. I assume the past exists. I assume my senses tell me something about the way the world actually is. Should we trust these assumptions just because we generally share them? Some people think so. Others, not so much.

 

This leads to the real kicker, that I would have to go through the same steps for each of my justifications – I believe that my memories tell me about the past, which is justified by some other bit of knowledge, which then has to be further justified and so on.

 

It’s no wonder philosophers gave up on this justified true belief. Theory of knowledge - epistemology - is a mess at the best of times. 

 

I've been wondering about this a bit lately, and perhaps a better way to think about it is something like this:

 

The amount of proof, justification, evidence, hard maths, or whatever, that is required to prop up something as knowledge is proportional to how deeply and broadly this belief can cause suffering and disruption in people’s lives, and the lives of other people around them. The more it potentially it screws up your life, the higher the bar. The more people are negatively affected, the higher the bar. Is it really ‘knowledge’ or not? Beside the point.

 

  • A belief that I should stand on one leg and whistle Greensleeves backwards for 30 seconds in private, every 18th Tuesday has a relatively low bar. I mean really, who gives a shit?

 

  • A belief that you should give all your money to some guru – that should require a bit more to back it up.

 

  • A belief that any females who don’t dress a certain way are morally bankrupt and are implicitly granting sexual consent – saying that you ‘know’ that to be true should require a very high level of justification.

 

  • A belief that everyone who doesn’t live in a society that has exactly the same economic system as yours should be vaporised by nuclear weapons – probably needs quite a bit to back it up.

 

  • A belief that this world, and all life everywhere, are so inherently flawed that the best thing that could happen is for everyone and everything to just die; to call that knowledge requires an almost unimaginably high standard and amount of evidence and reasoning – and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

 

Or something like that.

Edited by Yeti101
words and stuff
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well language is somewhat trivial to me, in the sense that it is limiting our ability to evolve intellectually, however that is another discussion.

 

I rest my case. Truth is the exact opposite of what you're implying. We think in words, we intellectualise in words. We would be nothing without language

 

what you're talking about is not knowledge... that's why you need animals and babies as an example.. 

 

what you're saying is still sophist and wishful thinking.. 

 

Human evolve through language and I am so sorry you cannot see that. 

 

Well, it really helps to use more than 500 words though... Knowledge is not about feeling or believing , knowledge is a system where theory is according to actions. Knowledge is not necessarily about knowing why simply because sometimes we dont know why.. But we can predict an outcome. Through logic. 

 

If your ideas were really something , you would be able to argue with some better/ real point on human beings, not dogs, nor newborns... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like yr points Yeti :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, sagiXsagi said:

 

I rest my case. Truth is the exact opposite of what you're implying. We think in words, we intellectualise in words. We would be nothing without language

 

what you're talking about is not knowledge... that's why you need animals and babies as an example.. 

 

what you're saying is still sophist and wishful thinking.. 

 

Human evolve through language and I am so sorry you cannot see that. 

 

Well, it really helps to use more than 500 words though... Knowledge is not about feeling or believing , knowledge is a system where theory is according to actions. Knowledge is not necessarily about knowing why simply because sometimes we dont know why.. But we can predict an outcome. Through logic. 

 

If your ideas were really something , you would be able to argue with some better/ real point on human beings, not dogs, nor newborns... 

 

Hey sagi, of course we think in words, I agree and this is why I think humans are stuck, as our language doesnt evolve.... And I can see that humans have evolved through language, so please dont be sorry for me. 

I dont agree though that we would be nothing without language, certainly not as we are now, but surely not nothing.... 

Dont get too hung up on what I've said here, I am not attached in anyway to the topic and have not put in the time to formulate any real ideas I was simply illustrating how knowing may not be intellectual, I used the examples of babies and animals because it exists and made sense in my mind- I had no means of making other examples, but i will try and come up with something at some stage...

If you take the literal meaning from a dictionary I suppose you are right, knowing is an adjective and has a clearly defined meaning, agreed upon by many clever people, but there are so many words used to define that word it gets so confusing because it is all so subjective!

 

SAGIX, do you think plants and animals have consciousness or awareness? I know it is not measurable scientifically, but i think they do :-) I think that awareness and consciousness would give any life form (known or otherwise) the ability to 'know'. I'm not sure why I come to this conclusion, but if knowledge cannot exist outside of our language framework I am certainly on the wrong track......

 

@Yeti101 great post, thanks.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well doubleben, 

 

Without language I believe we would be another animal, not that we are not animals in part, but just an animal, a true animal, no real differences from other primates. Humans have fantasy, and without fantasy we would not be able to match words to concepts, especially non-material concepts. We wouldn't make up stories or be able to narrate real stories, the species history etc.

 

most new data found by the non-human animal would be lost thus reduced to a sponteneous level of instincts (= whats useful for food, sex, survival) in lack of words and the ability to think, doubt , process etc ...

 

Language and written shit establishes knowledge and civilization in a non-animal way, outside the collective consciousness or whatever Yung was about which is more instinctual. 

 

language is the result of the species evolution, dont you tell me we haven't had new words for new concepts exactly because he have made up new stuff and new concepts! Our complex language is a proof of the species differentiation from other animals. 

 

Now, do I believe animals and plants have awareness or consciousness? No I dont think we should call them that. I am not at all convinced that animals and plants know they exist in a self-conscious way, like humans can.  The moment of self-awareness allow humans to know that they exist, allows humans to match the experience they are experiencing (that is their life) with their very own body, with the animal-physical matter, so self-awareness might seem something like an apocalypse or epiphany when someone first gets there, but I am very doubtful whether animals can feel anything even remotely close to this. And even if they "know" they exist, this knowledge doesn't not allow them to process, consciously differentiate, choose. They just know when they are hungry, when they're stresed, when some enemy attacks them. 

 

and the fact humans have awareness doesnt at all prevent them from acting like animals. Not at all! 

 

But is it a real self in the way it recognised itself as a selfl?? what would the plants think and know with?? they got no brain.. 

 

So lets move to some different animals, which seem to be superior to the rest of the animal world in that they are more intellegent and more self-aware. 

 

Chimps, dolphins, the crow family, octupuses  (or ist it octopusi?) . 

 

they say the crow family or many of its memebers like a magpie can tell they're looking at themselves in a mirror.. I think dolpins too.  Magpies are pretty playful and intelligent.. 

 

We know dolphins and chimps have large vocabulary they're social animals, they seem to experiment and be playful... 

 

but so we have some evidence or hint that this is knowledge in the way humans perceive it?? Hmmmmm 

 

Many animals know how to self-medicate.. Fe plat-eaters often eat minerals -rich soil after meal if they have ingested poisonous leaves  etc etc.. How did the species learnt to do this?? We suppose parents teach their kids so its a learnt behaviour.. That means that at some point some individual discovered the recipee by experimentation and trial and error.. It probably took more than one generation and more individual. It might be that exactly the group that showed this behaviour that survived eventually. 


We still dont know much about this... 

 

So this is a kind of collectively archieved knowledge, and I admit it its not a bad point from which to argue that animal forms seem to have some knowledge, at least at the surface. 

 

But is it really an analogue to the way people know things? 

 

the animal doesnt know why, but also doesn't wonder why. The animal doesn't doubt. Just goes with the flow of its instincts.

 

With people its critical thinking and doubting and processing and wondering why, and with that another knowledge rises. 

 

Instead of the random and instinctual of the animals, we have countless choices, we can use the self-awareness to construct stuff  material or non-material. 

 

I guess that if we are talking about animal traits he humans have, 

like pissing, shitting, fucking, which food is good for you and which not, 

the similarities are lots, I admit.. 

 

but is knowing which mushroom is edible by random testings really knowledge? not really.. and its clearly not the best way to archieve that kind of  knowledge nowadays either... 

 

knowledge is being a part of humanities collective efforts of rationally understanding the world. 

 

knowledge is not  knowing you were poisoned, so it must have been that random mushrooms you ate, so ... EUREKA! 

no. 

 

knowledge is  having theoretically and practically studied and learnt a gnostic field, so that 

you KNOW which mushrooms are edible and which are poisonous

and you know whats the various mushrooms poisoning are like and which ones are the most dangerous. 

 

heck you even know which mushrooms are considered the tastiest without even tasting them! 

 

knowing cannot be some instict, it has to feature processing, organising memories and so much more.. 

 

peace

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×