Patterson in Pursuit

Wonderful conversation with my old friend Isaac Deitz who shares his personal religious journey. After decades of being a Christian, he no longer identifies with that label. In my opinion, that's only because "Christian" is a terrible term nowadays. By some metrics, Isaac is a raging Christian. By others, he is a heretic. In that respect, I am coming to many of the same ideas about religion and truth--spiritual truth is often at odds with religious dogma. Better to give up a label than give up the pursuit of truth. Isaac's website: http://www.isaacdeitz.com/

The best explanation for the current madness of the world is that we're in a dark age and have been for at least a century. The epistemic standards of the 20th century were not high enough to overcome social, psychological, and political entropy.

A couple of months ago, my friend Isaac Morehouse asked me to talk about the philosophy of mathematics and why I consider it so important. Appeals to mathematics are everywhere, from COVID lockdowns to NFL play calling, and if our concepts about math are flawed, we make the world a significantly worse place.  

What does scientific progress look like? Is it steady progress, getting ever closer to the truth? Or does it go through waves?   What about cases where we seem to have lost knowledge or the foundations of a theory we’ve been building on turned out to be wrong? Can that still be useful? Is that still progress?   These are some of the questions I explore with Dr. Geoff Anders.

A critical thinker must have the ability to zoom in and zoom out - to hyper-focus on cause and effect and to see how things interconnect in the big picture. It's a common and critical error to be too-zoomed-in or too-zoomed-out. The over-focused mind is like the mathematician who doesn't realize the assumptions of his model are non-mathematical and likely wrong. The under-focused mind is like the mushroom-enthusiast that's content concluding "All is one", with no finer-resolution of analysis. The careful thinker must be constantly zooming in and zooming out, gathering ideas from all levels of resolution.

Libertarians like myself tend to focus on the abuse of power hierarchies. The existence of a "ruling class" makes most of us uneasy. However, might these sociological structures serve a valuable purpose? Are they inevitable parts of human society? Samo Burja joins me to discuss.

For years, I've been making anti-Platonist arguments. Now, I think I was wrong. The universe seems to be composed of both concrete and abstract stuff.

Episode 100 of Patterson in Pursuit! Wow, what a milestone. Thanks to everybody who has listened to and supported the show. I hope it's created value for you. In this episode, I share my personal thoughts about the show, some of my motivations, the conversations that were impactful to my own philosophy, and some funny experiences along the way. And of course, more heretical thoughts about the philosophy of mathematics.

Do logic and rationality have limits? Are there ways to "get outside" of rational thinking? Do altered states caused by psychedelics provide true insight about the world, or are they illusory? These are the questions I discuss with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, who shares some of his personal experiments and insights gained psychedelic drugs.

Is everything ultimately mental? Do we need a theory of a physical world at all? Dr. Bernardo Kastrup joins me again to talk about idealism. This time, we go into great detail, both put our ideas to the test, and the result was one of my favorite interviews ever. I end up asking Bernardo some of the most difficult questions in philosophy.     

Finally, after investigating for more than 20 years, I have a concept of God I can rationally grasp. The idea is one of the oldest in existence, and it turns baroque theological claims into true and important insights.

Dualism is an attractive philosophy with an Achilles' heel. Dualists since Descartes have never given a good answer to the problem of interaction. Finally, I think I've got one. I have a working resolution to the problem of interaction that I call a theory of indirect interaction, which allows effective interaction between objects in different ontological categories. Original article here: http://steve-patterson.com/mind-body-dualism-solving-problem-interaction/

Lots of confusion is caused by the nature of language. This is a narration of the article "There Are No Objective Definitions", which you can read here: http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/

Dr. Doron Zeilberger is the Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Rutgers University. He's also a math heretic who thoroughly rejects the orthodox conceptions of infinity in modern mathematics. So we got along quite well. We had a fantastic conversation covering a wide range of topics, including set theory, calculus and limits, pi, irrational numbers like the square root of two, real analysis, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. If you're interested in the philosophy of mathematics, this is a must-listen.

The most requested interview breakdown ever - my conversation with Thaddeus Russell about the postmodern theory of truth. Fun episode! Can we know that experience is happening? If somebody denies that they know, is it possible to convince them?

Christopher Langan is an independent intellectual known for having the highest IQ in America - somewhere around 200, which is six standard deviations above the norm. His story is fascinating. Chris is not working within the academy. Instead, he's splitting his time between ranching and philosophizing. We spoke about a wide range of topics, including the problems of modern academia, the concept of IQ, and his attempt at a Theory of Everything entitled "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" - or the "CTMU". You can find more information about the CTMU at: http://hology.org/ You can also find Chris's work and support him on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/CTMU

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? If you've been in the Bitcoin world for a while, you know that's the last question you should try to answer. However, I've recently come across a story that I find quite plausible, written by Phil Wilson (aka Scronty). Phil documents the thinking-process behind the Bitcoin invention, in addition to providing many historical details around the creation of Bitcoin. His story also explains the perplexing existence of Craig Wright. It's the only narrative that implies Craig is both a) Part of the Satoshi team, and b) largely fraudulent, at the same time. It explains how Craig was able to convince notable people like Gavin Andreson of being Satoshi, while also explaining his extremely poor writing and communication skills. It also fits the facts of Satoshi's extremely careful Op Sec - though not in the way you might think. The story isn't perfect - and Phil admits as much - but taken together, his story is the best I've heard, and worthy of 7 hours of interviewing.

My conversation with Dr. Walter Block about abortion and natural rights, which is one of the trickiest issues in any political philosophy, libertarianism included. He's the creator of a theory called "evictionism," which tries to take a middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice positions. In my analysis, it's a reasonable compromise. I cannot think of any principled objections from the pro-choice side, and though a pro-lifer might have objections, the core of Block's argument is pro-life at heart and in the long run could result in the universal protection of pre-birth humans.

Julia and I have been dealing with a mystery illness for more than six years. It's progressively gotten worse, but finally, after seeing more than 50 doctors in multiple states and countries, we're finding answers. Our story is not unique. There are millions of people suffering with unknown illness who get misdiagnosed or dismissed by their doctors. Too often, when a conventional doctor does not understand your sickness, they conclude one of two things: it's either in your head, or you're making up the symptoms outright. This is an arrogant and irrational method of thinking. The medical world could use more philosophy and critical reasoning. If you're struggling with medical problems, hopefully you'll find our story helpful. We waited too long to step outside the conventional medical system, due to my own dogmatic thinking surrounding "alternative medicine." I had strong opinions about things I didn't understand, and now that my mind has opened, I see lots of high-quality work being done, and alternative treatments are finally helping us. Just like every other area of thought, "the experts" really are clueless.

Tom Woods joins me for a great discussion about Catholicism, papal authority, and his story of becoming an independent intellectual entrepreneur.    Was the Catholic Church really an anti-intellectual, anti-science organization throughout history, or is that simply a myth?   Does the truth stand apart from what the Pope declares? Can the Pope be wrong?   These questions and lots more.

The purpose of this article is to point out where my fellow rationalists are being dogmatic, in particular, with regard to Austrian Economics. Philosophers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe tend to drop the "ceteris paribus" condition, turning true-but-neutered claims into false-and-dogmatic ones.

This week's interview is with Jeff Tucker. We're talking about how capitalism fits into the bigger picture. Libertarians tend to assume that everybody values the creation of wealth, and therefore free markets are important. But why make this assumption? Perhaps free markets create wealth at the cost of personal or spiritual impoverishment. What to think about this objection? We also address the staggering beauty and complexity of free markets, illustrated in proper Jeff Tucker style: by telling the romantic story of tuna fish in a vending machine.  

Few things are as intuitively obvious, yet philosophically challenging, as the existence of free will. There’s a fashionable critique of free will that says, “The very concept of free will is incoherent; therefore, it obviously doesn’t exist.” This article does not make the case for or against the existence of free will. Instead, it defends its conceptual coherence. Free will is not a nonsensical idea, and it might exist.

This article was inspired by a life-size replica of the crucifixion within a church in Bergen, Norway. The church service was pointless, but the replica sparked some valuable thoughts about love and hate.

This narrated article is about using the Rubik's Cube as an analogy for philosophic paradoxes and problem-solving. There are no unsolvable scrambles...

Is a “whole” really something greater than the sum of its parts? Or, is a “whole” identical to the sum of its parts?   Dr. Andrew Brenner joins me for a fun conversation about mereology - the study of parts and wholes. While it might seem like an esoteric topic, it’s actually central to metaphysics, and the conclusions have implications on things as varied as the philosophy of mind, personal identity, and even the philosophy of mathematics and geometry.   Both Dr. Brenner and I agreed in this episode: the only things that exist are simple substances. There aren’t actually any composite objects, though we act like there are for easy navigation in the world.

Zeno's paradoxes are some of the most famous. Most modern philosophers simply dismiss them as "resolved" because of calculus. However, that's a logical mistake. Calculus actually does not resolve Zeno's paradoxes. What resolves them is a base-unit of physical reality.

I am joined again by Ryan Charles to discuss the current state of the Bitcoin Cash network. After the failure of the Segwit2x proposal to scale Bitcoin, a significant percentage of early adopters have moved onto the Bitcoin Cash network, and progress is happening fast. In fact, as of this interview, I've decided to only support Bitcoin Cash addresses for my work, and I've decided to write my next book on Bitcoin, called "The First Fork: From Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash."

This is a narrated article from the 2016 campaign season. I was inspired by the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders to create some satire...

Imagine it's the late evening in Atlanta, and a small white woman is walking to her car in a parking lot. A black man she didn't see before walks up behind her. She gets nervous and feels like she might be in danger. She holds onto her purse a little more tightly. Is this a clear case of racism? Is it simply rational behavior? If it's racism, is it a moral problem? TK Coleman joins me to discuss these types of situations in Part Two of our conversation on race and colorblindness. Is it really possible to be colorblind, or is that naive to think? Are race relations improving or getting worse in America? We cover these questions, and many more, in this episode.

This is a narration of an article I wrote when the US Supreme Court made their famous ruling on gay marriage. When you step back and view the big picture, the whole situation is bizarre. Humans, themselves, are bizarre, as are their political structures.

TK Coleman joins me for another excellent conversation about race. This week, we focus on the concept of "colorblindness." Is it possible to be colorblind, or is that naive? Can we recognize differences among groups, while still judging every individual according to their own character? Is white supremacism a fundamental feature of white people's minds - so much, that they cannot spot it within themselves? Is the reason that so many people deny being racist is because of a lack of self-awareness? We cover these questions - and many more - in the next two episodes.  

Poker can teach us something profound about philosophy. Specifically, it can teach us about the relationship between theory and data, knowledge and experience, and the ancient debate between rationalists and empiricists.   

This week I’m joined by Dr. Bryan Caplan to discuss his new book, “The Case Against Education.” We cover the signaling model of education, whether college is always a good idea, and we got into an interesting conversation about doing interdisciplinary work - something very relevant to my own project.  

This is Part 2 of my conversation with Dr. Graham Priest. We talk about the history of logic and the great revisions that took place around the turn of the 20th century. When logic met math, both disciplines changed, for better or worse.

My conversation with Dr. Graham Priest, who is best known for his defense of dialetheism - the idea that some contradictions are true. We talk about logic, metaphysics, the relationship between the two, and focus on the liar's paradox in particular.

This is my breakdown of David Chalmers' interview on the Closer to Truth Series - about metaphysics and ontology. Are there entities in the world, or is there just stuff? Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0QPWQR5f9Q

If animals can suffer, does that make it immoral to eat meat? I'm joined again by Dr. Mike Huemer to help me answer this question. He has recently released a series of four dialogues on the topic, which address many of the issues we talk about in this episode. Also covered: free will, empathy, and whether the nutritional value of meat changes our ethical judgments. 

Does objective truth exist? Thaddeus Russell joins me for part two of our discussion about postmodernism. In this episode, we focus on the philosophy of truth. Can we know anything about the world? Can we know anything about our minds? Are the laws of logic objective or just a convention of language?

I am joined by Dr. Thaddeus Russell to talk about postmodernism. With the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, who vocally criticize postmodernism, Thaddeus thinks most of the criticism is misplaced. We also have a great conversation about love, religion, and people's motivation for their actions.

Season 2 is here! The show starts up again with a fantastic interview with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup about idealism.  I've spent a lot of time arguing against physicalism and for a kind of "reluctant dualist" worldview, but I've not explained my position on idealism. So, I brought Dr. Kastrup on the show to give his case that only mental stuff exists.

I need to take a break from Patterson in Pursuit to focus on health and writing. I can't wait to return.

Consciousness is a hard phenomenon to explain in any worldview. We seem to be able to intentionally change the content of our experience. How is that possible? 

Who determines whether an individual or group has the right to govern themselves?  At what point does secession become legitimate? How many people need to get together in order to secede? I try to tackle some of these questions while giving my perspective on the imminent Catalonia independence referendum. I am unabashedly in favor of secession - all the way down to the individual.

Language is ambiguous. If you want to communicate effectively, you must understand that different people have different meanings for the same words.  Far too many rationalists waste their time arguing for objective definitions, instead of stating their intended meaning for words.

Can the whole be greater than the sum of its parts? Does consciousness require that we split the world between mind and body? Can free will exist in a naturalistic worldview? Dr. David Kelley joins me on this episode to give his Objectivist perspective on these questions. As Dr. Kelley explains, many ideas in Objectivism are heavily influenced by Aristotelian thinking.

Many thinkers are more concern with how their ideas look, rather than how accurate they are. They want to appear intelligent, rather than have true beliefs. I call them the "fashionable thinkers," and this is my rant against them. I've noticed many common traits among fashionable thinkers. Have you?

Do we see reality as it is? Or, are we stuck inside our own mental representations of the world? My guest this week is Dr. Donald Hoffman, who believes that there's a 0% chance that we accurately perceive the world. He believes that mental phenomena - consciousness, experience, qualia - is the real stuff that makes up the world, not physical objects.

It's tempting to dismiss anybody who claims they've been abducted by aliens or seen Bigfoot in the forest. However, simple dismissal might not be the most rational response. Extreme cases can actually help us understand the relationship between the mind and the world? What exactly do these people see/experience, and how can we know?

Part four of my conversation about race with TK Coleman. In this episode, we talk about the intersection of race, politics, and economics in America. It's impossible to understand how the world works without understanding economics, and once you grasp the fundamentals, economics will change your worldview - especially your political theory. TK understands economics and has a political solution that everybody should be able to agree on. We don't have to argue about the extent of racism anymore; we can agree on a solution, regardless of the severity of the problem.

Is the world composed of one thing or many things? Some thinkers believe that the universe is one object that our minds chop up into many pieces. I believe that the universe is many objects that our minds unify into one whole. It might seem abstract, but regardless of your conclusion, it's got big implications.