Podcasts about Rationality

Civilization & The Role of Religion; Song Reviews | Yaron Brook Show

After a long hiatus where we both saw grief counsellors over our fight about Popper's theory of content in the last C&R episode, we are back. And we're ready to play nice ... for about 30 seconds until Vaden admits that two sentences from Popper changed his mind about something Ben had arguing for literally years. But eventually putting those disagreements aside, we return to the subject at hand: The Conjectures and Refutations Series: Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Part II). Here all goes smoothly. Just kidding, we start fighting about content again almost immediately. Where are the guests to break us up when you need them. We discuss Why Vaden changed his mind about "all thought is problem solving" Something that rhymes with wero horship Is Popper sloppy when it comes to writing about probability and content Is all modern data science based on the wrong idea? (Hint: No) Popper's problem-focused view of scientific progress How much formalization is too much? The difference between high verisimilitude and high probability Why do we value simplicity in science? Historical examples of science progressing via theories with increasing content Quotes Consciousness, world 2, was presumably an evaluating and discerning consciousness, a problem-solving consciousness, right from the start. I have said of the animate part of the physical world 1 that all organisms are problem solvers. My basic assumption regarding world 2 is that this problem-solving activity of the animate part of world 1 resulted in the emergence of world 2, of the world of consciousness. But I do not mean by this that consciousness solves problems all the time, as I asserted of the organisms. On the contrary. The organisms are preoccupied with problem-solving day in, day out, but consciousness is not only concerned with the solving of problems, although that is its most important biological function. My hypothesis is that the original task of consciousness was to anticipate success and failure in problem-solving and to signal to the organism in the form of pleasure and pain whether it was on the right or wrong path to the solution of the problem. In Search of a Better World, p.17 (emphasis added) The criterion of potential satisfactoriness is thus testability, or improbability: only a highly testable or improbable theory is worth testing, and is actually (and not merely potentially) satisfactory if it withstands severe tests—especially those tests to which we could point as crucial for the theory before they were ever undertaken. - C&R, Chapter 10 Consequently there is little merit in formalizing and elaborating a deductive system (intended for use as an empirical science) beyond the requirements of the task of criticizing and testing it, and of comparing it critically with competitors. - C&R, Chapter 10 Admittedly, our expectations, and thus our theories, may precede, historically, even our problems. Yet science starts only with problems. Problems crop up especially when we are disappointed in our expectations, or when our theories involve us in difficulties, in contradictions; and these may arise either within a theory, or between two different theories, or as the result of a clash between our theories and our observations. - C&R, Chapter 10 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) Is "Ben and Vaden will fight about content" high or low probability? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

Matt Freeman has been cohosting several media analysis podcasts for over a decade. He and his cohost Scott have been doing weekly episodes of the Doofcast every Friday and they cover movies, books, and TV shows. Matt and Scott's analysis podcasts have made me love stories even more and have equipped me with tools to […]

You think you're rational? Think again. We love feeling like thoughtful decision-makers, but the truth is we're riddled with cognitive shortcuts. Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize-winning work breaks down the systems of our mind. We constantly substitute hard questions with easy ones; e.g. Buying a stock because you like the company, not because you've done the data. This episode cuts through the 300,000-word book to show you exactly how these shortcuts lead to everything from bad investments to pointless stress about the weather. It's time to stop letting your brain's simple tricks run your whole life. Stop overestimating the importance of your current stress. Identify and reduce low-level daily pains (like a bad commute) for massive life returns. Implement a "sleep-on-it" rule to override System 1's instant commitments. Why let a lazy brain ruin your best decisions? Start thinking slower today. Further Reading: ⁠Thinking Fast and Slow⁠ - Daniel Kahneman ⁠Predictably Irrational⁠ - Dan Ariely SPONSORS

Booker is a long-time attendee and one of the coordinators of the Denver area Less Wrong community. Community engagement isn't just a background task for him – he's taken real steps to get involved with and improve his community and you can too! He's here to tell us about the things he's done and give […]

 About a month ago, Andy heard writer, Historian Aaron Leonard mention a story about how his Uncle Aaron was part of a COINTELPRO operation to discredit and break up the Communist Party.  This was news to us, so we decided to talk about what it's implications are. Check us out!Criminal Anarchy w/ Aaron LeonardMenace of our Time (by Aaron Leonard) https://youtu.be/nItmqkrpWHU To see all our episodes go to:What's Left? Website: https://whatsleftpodcast.com/iTunes: Spotify: Bitchute: YouTube:  LBRY: Telegram :Odysee:  Googleplaymusic: Rumble 

Yaron Interviewed by Adam Friended of the Sitch & Adam Show

Most people make their hardest decisions using distorted data, unchecked assumptions, and emotions that feel real but rarely reflect reality. In this episode, Kevin and Alan break down why truth is the single most important variable in long-term success, and why avoiding it quietly destroys goals, relationships, and identity. You'll learn how inaccurate self-perception forms blind spots, how conditioning shapes your judgment without permission, and why honest feedback is a skill, not a feeling. If you've ever wondered why you keep repeating the same patterns, this conversation will give you the clarity you've been avoiding.Learn more about:Join our Next Level University Monthly Masterclass, "The Top 5 Fundamentals of Business You Must Understand to Be Successful Long-Term." One hour. Real principles. Lasting breakthroughshttps://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tFWBZRzLQa6h0C6g1ysvZA#/registrationJoin our private Facebook community, “Next Level Nation,” to grow alongside people who are committed to improvement. - https://www.facebook.com/groups/459320958216700_______________________NLU is not just a podcast; it's a gateway to a wealth of resources designed to help you achieve your goals and dreams. From our Next Level Dreamliner to our Group Coaching, we offer a variety of tools and communities to support your personal development journey.For more information, check out our website and socials using the links below.

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers in America and around the world:What really gets AI optimists excited isn't the prospect of automating customer service departments or human resources. Imagine, rather, what might happen to the pace of scientific progress if AI becomes a super research assistant. Tom Davidson's new paper, How Quick and Big Would a Software Intelligence Explosion Be?, explores that very scenario.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Davidson about what it would mean for automated AI researchers to rapidly improve their own algorithms, thus creating a self-reinforcing loop of innovation. We talk about the economic effects of self-improving AI research and how close we are to that reality.Davidson is a senior research fellow at Forethought, where he explores AI and explosive growth. He was previously a senior research fellow at Open Philanthropy and a research scientist at the UK government's AI Security Institute.In This Episode* Making human minds (1:43)* Theory to reality (6:45)* The world with automated research (10:59)* Considering constraints (16:30)* Worries and what-ifs (19:07)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Making human minds (1:43). . . you don't have to build any more computer chips, you don't have to build any more fabs . . . In fact, you don't have to do anything at all in the physical world.Pethokoukis: A few years ago, you wrote a paper called “Could Advanced AI Drive Explosive Economic Growth?,” which argued that growth could accelerate dramatically if AI would start generating ideas the way human researchers once did. In your view, population growth historically powered kind of an ideas feedback loop. More people meant more researchers meant more ideas, rising incomes, but that loop broke after the demographic transition in the late-19th century but you suggest that AI could restart it: more ideas, more output, more AI, more ideas. Does this new paper in a way build upon that paper? “How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be?”The first paper you referred to is about the biggest-picture dynamic of economic growth. As you said, throughout the long run history, when we produced more food, the population increased. That additional output transferred itself into more people, more workers. These days that doesn't happen. When GDP goes up, that doesn't mean people have more kids. In fact, the demographic transition, the richer people get, the fewer kids they have. So now we've got more output, we're getting even fewer people as a result, so that's been blocked.This first paper is basically saying, look, if we can manufacture human minds or human-equivalent minds in any way, be it by building more computer chips, or making better computer chips, or any way at all, then that feedback loop gets going again. Because if we can manufacture more human minds, then we can spend output again to create more workers. That's the first paper.The second paper double clicks on one specific way that we can use output to create more human minds. It's actually, in a way, the scariest way because it's the way of creating human minds which can happen the quickest. So this is the way where you don't have to build any more computer chips, you don't have to build any more fabs, as they're called, these big factories that make computer chips. In fact, you don't have to do anything at all in the physical world.It seems like most of the conversation has been about how much investment is going to go into building how many new data centers, and that seems like that is almost the entire conversation, in a way, at the moment. But you're not looking at compute, you're looking at software.Exactly, software. So the idea is you don't have to build anything. You've already got loads of computer chips and you just make the algorithms that run the AIs on those computer chips more efficient. This is already happening, but it isn't yet a big deal because AI isn't that capable. But already, one year out, Epoch, this AI forecasting organization, estimates that just in one year, it becomes 10 times to 1000 times cheaper to run the same AI system. Just wait 12 months, and suddenly, for the same budget, you are able to run 10 times as many AI systems, or maybe even 1000 times as many for their most aggressive estimate. As I said, not a big deal today, but if we then develop an AI system which is better than any human at doing research, then now, in 10 months, you haven't built anything, but you've got 10 times as many researchers that you can set to work or even more than that. So then we get this feedback loop where you make some research progress, you improve your algorithms, now you've got loads more researchers, you set them all to work again, finding even more algorithmic improvements. So today we've got maybe a few hundred people that are advancing state-of-the-art AI algorithms.I think they're all getting paid a billion dollars a person, too.Exactly. But maybe we can 10x that initially by having them replaced by AI researchers that do the same thing. But then those AI researchers improve their own algorithms. Now you have 10x as many again, you have them building more computer chips, you're just running them more efficiently, and then the cycle continues. You're throwing more and more of these AI researchers at AI progress itself, and the algorithms are improving in what might be a very powerful feedback loop.In this case, it seems me that you're not necessarily talking about artificial general intelligence. This is certainly a powerful intelligence, but it's narrow. It doesn't have to do everything, it doesn't have to play chess, it just has to be able to do research.It's certainly not fully general. You don't need it to be able to control a robot body. You don't need it to be able to solve the Riemann hypothesis. You don't need it to be able to even be very persuasive or charismatic to a human. It's not narrow, I wouldn't say, it has to be able to do literally anything that AI researchers do, and that's a wide range of tasks: They're coding, they're communicating with each other, they're managing people, they are planning out what to work on, they are thinking about reviewing the literature. There's a fairly wide range of stuff. It's extremely challenging. It's some of the hardest work in the world to do, so I wouldn't say it's now, but it's not everything. It's some kind of intermediate level of generality in between a mere chess algorithm that just does chess and the kind of AGI that can literally do anything.Theory to reality (6:45)I think it's a much smaller gap for AI research than it is for many other parts of the economy.I think people who are cautiously optimistic about AI will say something like, “Yeah, I could see the kind of intelligence you're referring to coming about within a decade, but it's going to take a couple of big breakthroughs to get there.” Is that true, or are we actually getting pretty close?Famously, predicting the future of technology is very, very difficult. Just a few years before people invented the nuclear bomb, famous, very well-respected physicists were saying, “It's impossible, this will never happen.” So my best guess is that we do need a couple of fairly non-trivial breakthroughs. So we had the start of RL training a couple of years ago, became a big deal within the language model paradigm. I think we'll probably need another couple of breakthroughs of that kind of size.We're not talking a completely new approach, throw everything out, but we're talking like, okay, we need to extend the current approach in a meaningfully different way. It's going to take some inventiveness, it's going to take some creativity, we're going to have to try out a few things. I think, probably, we'll need that to get to the researcher that can fully automate OpenAI, is a nice way of putting it — OpenAI doesn't employ any humans anymore, they've just got AIs there.There's a difference between what a model can do on some benchmark versus becoming actually productive in the real world. That's why, while all the benchmark stuff is interesting, the thing I pay attention to is: How are businesses beginning to use this technology? Because that's the leap. What is that gap like, in your scenario, versus an AI model that can do a theoretical version of the lab to actually be incorporated in a real laboratory?It's definitely a gap. I think it's a pretty big gap. I think it's a much smaller gap for AI research than it is for many other parts of the economy. Let's say we are talking about car manufacturing and you're trying to get an AI to do everything that happens there. Man, it's such a messy process. There's a million different parts of the supply chain. There's all this tacit knowledge and all the human workers' minds. It's going to be really tough. There's going to be a very big gap going from those benchmarks to actually fully automating the supply chain for cars.For automating what OpenAI does, there's still a gap, but it's much smaller, because firstly, all of the work is virtual. Everyone at OpenAI could, in principle, work remotely. Their top research scientists, they're just on a computer all day. They're not picking up bricks and doing stuff like that. So also that already means it's a lot less messy. You get a lot less of that kind of messy world reality stuff slowing down adoption. And also, a lot of it is coding, and coding is almost uniquely clean in that, for many coding tasks, you can define clearly defined metrics for success, and so that makes AI much better. You can just have a go. Did AI succeed in the test? If not, try something else or do a gradient set update.That said, there's still a lot of messiness here, as any coder will know, when you're writing good code, it's not just about whether it does the function that you've asked it to do, it needs to be well-designed, it needs to be modular, it needs to be maintainable. These things are much harder to evaluate, and so AIs often pass our benchmarks because they can do the function that you asked it to do, the code runs, but they kind of write really spaghetti code — code that no one wants to look at, that no one can understand, and so no company would want to use that.So there's still going to be a pretty big benchmark-to-reality gap, even for OpenAI, and I think that's one of the big uncertainties in terms of, will this happen in three years versus will this happen in 10 years, or even 15 years?Since you brought up the timeline, what's your guess? I didn't know whether to open with that question or conclude with that question — we'll stick it right in the middle of our chat.Great. Honestly, my best guess about this does change more often than I would like it to, which I think tells us, look, there's still a state of flux. This is just really something that's very hard to know about. Predicting the future is hard. My current best guess is it's about even odds that we're able to fully automate OpenAI within the next 10 years. So maybe that's a 50-50.The world with AI research automation (10:59). . . I'm talking about 30 percent growth every year. I think it gets faster than that. If you want to know how fast it eventually gets, you can think about the question of how fast can a kind of self-replicating system double itself?So then what really would be the impact of that kind of AI research automation? How would you go about quantifying that kind of acceleration? What does the world look like?Yeah, so many possibilities, but I think what strikes me is that there is a plausible world where it is just way, way faster than almost everyone is expecting it to be. So that's the world where you fully automate OpenAI, and then we get that feedback loop that I was talking about earlier where AIs make their algorithms way more efficient, now you've got way more of them, then they make their algorithms way more efficient again, now they're way smarter. Now they're thinking a hundred times faster. The feedback loop continues and maybe within six months you now have a billion superintelligent AIs running on this OpenAI data center. The combined cognitive abilities of all these AIs outstrips the whole of the United States, outstrips anything we've seen from any kind of company or entity before, and they can all potentially be put towards any goal that OpenAI wants to. And then there's, of course, the risk that OpenAI's lost control of these systems, often discussed, in which case these systems could all be working together to pursue a particular goal. And so what we're talking about here is really a huge amount of power. It's a threat to national security for any government in which this happens, potentially. It is a threat to everyone if we lose control of these systems, or if the company that develops them uses them for some kind of malicious end. And, in terms of economic impacts, I personally think that that again could happen much more quickly than people think, and we can get into that.In the first paper we mentioned, it was kind of a thought experiment, but you were really talking about moving the decimal point in GDP growth, instead of talking about two and three percent, 20 and 30 percent. Is that the kind of world we're talking about?I speak to economists a lot, and —They hate those kinds of predictions, by the way.Obviously, they think I'm crazy. Not all of them. There are economists that take it very seriously. I think it's taken more seriously than everyone else realizes. It's like it's a bit embarrassing, at the moment, to admit that you take it seriously, but there are a few really senior economists who absolutely know their stuff. They're like, “Yep, this checks out. I think that's what's going to happen.” And I've had conversation with them where they're like, “Yeah, I think this is going to happen.” But the really loud, dominant view where I think people are a little bit scared to speak out against is they're like, “Obviously this is sci-fi.”One analogy I like to give to people who are very, very confident that this is all sci-fi and it's rubbish is to imagine that we were sitting there in the year 1400, imagine we had an economics professor who'd been studying the rate of economic growth, and they've been like, “Yeah, we've always had 0.1 percent growth every single year throughout history. We've never seen anything higher.” And then there was some kind of futurist economist rogue that said, “Actually, I think that if I extrapolate the curves in this way and we get this kind of technology, maybe we could have one percent growth.” And then all the other economists laugh at them, tell them they're insane – that's what happened. In 1400, we'd never had growth that was at all fast, and then a few hundred years later, we developed industrial technology, we started that feedback loop, we were investing more and more resources in scientific progress and in physical capital, and we did see much faster growth.So I think it can be useful to try and challenge economists and say, “Okay, I know it sounds crazy, but history was crazy. This crazy thing happened where growth just got way, way faster. No one would've predicted it. You would not have predicted it.” And I think being in that mindset can encourage people to be like, “Yeah, okay. You know what? Maybe if we do get AI that's really that powerful, it can really do everything, and maybe it is possible.”But to answer your question, yeah, I'm talking about 30 percent growth every year. I think it gets faster than that. If you want to know how fast it eventually gets, you can think about the question of how fast can a kind of self-replicating system double itself? So ultimately, what the economy is going to be like is it's going to have robots and factories that are able to fully create new versions of themselves. Everything you need: the roads, the electricity, the robots, the buildings, all of that will be replicated. And so you can look at actually biology and say, do we have any examples of systems which fully replicate themselves? How long does it take? And if you look at rats, for example, they're able to double the number of rats by grabbing resources from the environment, and giving birth, and whatnot. The doubling time is about six weeks for some types of rats. So that's an example of here's a physical system — ultimately, everything's made of physics — a physical system that has some intelligence that's able to go out into the world, gather resources, replicate itself. The doubling time is six weeks.Now, who knows how long it'll take us to get to AI that's that good? But when we do, you could see the whole physical economy, maybe a part that humans aren't involved with, a whole automated city without any humans just doubling itself every few weeks. If that happens, and the amount of stuff we're able to reduce as a civilization is doubling again on the order of weeks. And, in fact, there are some animals that double faster still, in days, but that's the kind of level of craziness. Now we're talking about 1000 percent growth, at that point. We don't know how crazy it could get, but I think we should take even the really crazy possibilities, we shouldn't fully rule them out.Considering constraints (16:30)I really hope people work less. If we get this good future, and the benefits are shared between all . . . no one should work. But that doesn't stop growth . . .There's this great AI forecast chart put out by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and I think its main forecast — the one most economists would probably agree with — has a line showing AI improving GDP by maybe two tenths of a percent. And then there are two other lines: one is more or less straight up, and the other one is straight down, because in the first, AI created a utopia, and in the second, AI gets out of control and starts killing us, and whatever. So those are your three possibilities.If we stick with the optimistic case for a moment, what constraints do you see as most plausible — reduced labor supply from rising incomes, social pushback against disruption, energy limits, or something else?Briefly, the ones you've mentioned, people not working, 100 percent. I really hope people work less. If we get this good future, and the benefits are shared between all — which isn't guaranteed — if we get that, then yeah, no one should work. But that doesn't stop growth, because when AI and robots can do everything that humans do, you don't need humans in the loop anymore. That whole thing is just going and kind of self-replicating itself and making as many goods as services as we want. Sure, if you want your clothes to be knitted by a human, you're in trouble, then your consumption is stuck. Bad luck. If you're happy to consume goods and services produced by AI systems or robots, fine if no one wants to work.Pushback: I think, for me, this is the biggest one. Obviously, the economy doubling every year is very scary as a thought. Tech progress will be going much faster. Imagine if you woke up and, over the course of the year, you go from not having any telephones at all in the world, to everyone's on their smartphones and social media and all the apps. That's a transition that took decades. If that happened in a year, that would be very disconcerting.Another example is the development of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were developed over a number of years. If that happened in a month, or two months, that could be very dangerous. There'd be much less time for different countries, different actors to figure out how they're going to handle it. So I think pushback is the strongest one that we might as a society choose, “Actually, this is insane. We're going to go slower than we could.” That requires, potentially, coordination, but I think there would be broad support for some degree of coordination there.Worries and what-ifs (19:07)If suddenly no one has any jobs, what will we want to do with ourselves? That's a very, very consequential transition for the nature of human society.I imagine you certainly talk with people who are extremely gung-ho about this prospect. What is the common response you get from people who are less enthusiastic? Do they worry about a future with no jobs? Maybe they do worry about the existential kinds of issues. What's your response to those people? And how much do you worry about those things?I think there are loads of very worrying things that we're going to be facing. One class of pushback, which I think is very common, is worries about employment. It's a source of income for all of us, employment, but also, it's a source of pride, it's a source of meaning. If suddenly no one has any jobs, what will we want to do with ourselves? That's a very, very consequential transition for the nature of human society. I think people aren't just going to be down to just do it. I think people are scared about three AI companies literally now taking all the revenues that all of humanity used to be earning. It is naturally a very scary prospect. So that's one kind of pushback, and I'm sympathetic with it.I think that there are solutions, if we find a way to tax AI systems, which isn't necessarily easy, because it's very easy to move physical assets between countries. It's a lot easier to tax labor than capital already when rich people can move their assets around. We're going to have the same problem with AI, but if we can find a way to tax it, and we maintain a good democratic country, and we can just redistribute the wealth broadly, it can be solved. So I think it's a big problem, but it is doable.Then there's the problem of some people want to stop this now because they're worried about AI killing everyone. Their literally worry is that everyone will be dead because superintelligent AI will want that to happen. I think there's a real risk there. It's definitely above one percent, in my opinion. I wouldn't go above 10 percent, myself, but I think it's very scary, and that's a great reason to slow things down. I personally don't want to stop quite yet. I think you want to stop when the AI is a bit more powerful and a bit more useful than it is today so it can kind of help us figure out what to do about all of this crazy stuff that's coming.On what side of that line is AI as an AI researcher?That's a really great question. Should we stop? I think it's very hard to stop just after you've got the AI researcher AI, because that's when it's suddenly really easy to go very, very fast. So my out-of-the-box proposal here, which is probably very flawed, would be: When we're within a few spits distance — not spitting distance, but if you did that three times, and we can see we're almost at that AI automating OpenAI — then you pause, because you're not going to accidentally then go all the way. It is actually still a little bit a fair distance away, but it's actually still, at that point, probably a very powerful AI that can really help.Then you pause and do what?Great question. So then you pause, and you use your AI systems to help you firstly solve the problem of AI alignment, make extra, double sure that every time we increase the notch of AI capabilities, the AI is still loyal to humanity, not to its own kind of secret goals.Secondly, you solve the problem of, how are we going to make sure that no one person in government or no one CEO of an AI company ensures that this whole AI army is loyal to them, personally? How are we going to ensure that everyone, the whole world gets influenced over what this AI is ultimately programmed to do? That's the second problem.And then there's just a whole host of other things: unemployment that we've talked about, competition between different countries, US and China, there's a whole host of other things that I think you want to research on, figure out, get consensus on, and then slowly ratchet up the capabilities in what is now a very safe and controlled way.What else should we be working on? What are you working on next?One problem I'm excited about is people have historically worried about AI having its own goals. We need to make it loyal to humanity. But as we've got closer, it's become increasingly obvious, “loyalty to humanity” is very vague. What specifically do you want the AI to be programmed to do? I mean, it's not programmed, it's grown, but if it were programmed, if you're writing a rule book for AI, some organizations have employee handbooks: Here's the philosophy of the organization, here's how you should behave. Imagine you're doing that for the AI, but you're going super detailed, exactly how you want your AI assistant to behave in all kinds of situations. What should that be? Essentially, what should we align the AI to? Not any individual person, probably following the law, probably loads of other things. I think basically designing what is the character of this AI system is a really exciting question, and if we get that right, maybe the AI can then help us solve all these other problems.Maybe you have no interest in science fiction, but is there any film, TV, book that you think is useful for someone in your position to be aware of, or that you find useful in any way? Just wondering.I think there's this great post called “AI 2027,” which lays out a concrete scenario for how AI could go wrong or how maybe it could go right. I would recommend that. I think that's the only thing that's coming top of mind. I often read a lot of the stuff I read is I read a lot of LessWrong, to be honest. There's a lot of stuff from there that I don't love, but a lot of new ideas, interesting content there.Any fiction?I mean, I read fiction, but honestly, I don't really love the AI fiction that I've read because often it's quite unrealistic, and so I kind of get a bit overly nitpicky about it. But I mean, yeah, there's this book called Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, which I read maybe 10 years ago, which I thought was pretty fun.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux examines the philosophical implications of postmodernism, particularly its rejection of objective truth and the resulting moral relativism. He discusses the concept of "hallucination" in artificial intelligence as a metaphor for balancing creativity and utility. By critiquing the decline of rational thought, Stefan highlights its impact on contemporary societal debates, especially regarding race and gender. He warns that without universal moral principles and rational discourse, society risks falling into chaos, emphasizing the need for a return to objective standards.SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Does Scripture communicate primarily through rational argument, or does it speak more to human intuition and emotion? The Bible Bard looks at Matthew Chapter 3 the Story of John the Baptist for imagery, symbolic, metaphoric, and factual content to see how the Bible presents an argument. Get a PDF of the text: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AvnBWghjBlGeCwsnngHIKKJX9c50aMwM/view

While Eneasz is busy at InkHaven, Steven sits down with Matt Freeman to talk about not-AI stuff! We had (in my opinion) a great conversation about stoic philosophy, the traps of getting too entrenched in any philosophical framework, and some of the ingredients of a happy life. LINKS It's Okay to Feel Bad for a […]

(Reprise Episode) This episode is the second in a series of excerpts from my upcoming book, "The Friend at the End," which tells the story of the major stroke that I suffered in 2011. As the first episode began, I was 62 years old, at a wonderful stage in my life, with everything safe and secure. It was the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend and I was looking forward to the summer, which was just over the horizon.       But when I had gone down to the pool at our condo, after a short while, I started feeling a little nauseous. Soon after, an unusual and disturbing white light appeared in my upper left peripheral vision. At first, I thought the light was coming from somewhere on the outside, but I soon realized that it was coming from within me, which was extremely alarming.  So, that marked the end of the first episode, now the story continues…     In reality, vision impairment is a classic symptom of a stroke, but I just didn't know that at the time. If I had, I would have dropped everything and gone straight to the emergency room. But I didn't have that information.  That's the real   Catch-22 when it comes to knowledge. You never know what you don't know. You just can't. By definition, the unknown remains unknown until you finally find it out. And hopefully, by then, it's not too late.      Anyway, I felt a little tired and laid back down on my lounge chair and tried to relax. I'm not sure what happened next, but I must have drifted off to sleep. I don't know how long I was out, but when I woke up and opened my eyes, I was met with a complete shock.  My entire field of vision had radically changed.     I could still see, but it was like looking at the world through a splintered kaleidoscope, a bizarre Picasso painting of bright colors and random fractal patterns. I had never experienced anything like it before and obviously, things had taken a major turn for the worse. It was seriously disconcerting. Oddly though, the feeling of nausea was gone completely. Other than this bizarre vision issue, I felt fine.  I opened and closed my eyes a few times, but nothing changed. I still saw the world in the same splintered, fractal way. I closed my eyes for a moment to try to stabilize myself and the vision suddenly appeared within.    I opened my eyes again, and to my shock and dismay, I couldn't tell whether my eyes were opened or closed. It didn't matter. Opened or closed, my field of vision remained exactly the same. I still saw the same set of broken, fractal lights. What had been bad had suddenly gotten much worse. This was, by far, the most alarming thing that had ever happened to me physically in my life, and immediately, a chilling fear came over me. "Oh my God! I'm going blind!" I thought.  It was earth-shattering. I felt like a bug splattered on a speeding windshield, and my mind went wild with a flood of terrifying images of me, living my life as a blind man. The horrible scene went on for quite a while, before I could finally pull myself together.   "Whatever's going on, this is much worse than I thought," I said to myself, as I recognized how seriously things had deteriorated. "This is bad. This is really bad."  I was stunned and had no idea what to do.  "Yeah, this is definitely much worse than you thought," I thought. "And you know what, it might actually be much worse than you think it is now. Forget about going blind. You might actually be dying. This could be the beginning of the end."  The unwelcomed idea hadn't occurred to me before and it stopped me dead in my tracks. "Now wait a second," I responded, "Let's not go to extremes here."   I quickly tried to pull myself together. Even though I was definitely in bad shape, I certainly didn't want to entertain any thoughts of dying. Why let that in? It couldn't possibly help. So, I quickly decided to put it out of my mind. But a few moments later, it came back again.  "Look, of course, the idea is upsetting to you, to say the least. And obviously dying is the last thing in the world you want to think about. But still…" "But still, what?" I countered, sharply. "Still, you don't really have a choice. The way things are going, at this point you have to consider everything. You really do." Okay, so this was the rational, non-emotional side of my mind talking to me in its rational, non-emotional way. And it was probably right to consider the worst-case scenario. But I instantly dismissed the idea again. Sure, it was normal for me to have had a passing thought that I might be dying, but that's all I wanted it to be - just a passing thought.  As far as the actual reality of it was concerned, I would have none of it.  "No. It can't be. Not like this. Not now. No way." "Well, why not?" Mr. Rationality responded rationally. "You know it's going to happen someday; it has to. There's no way around it. It's written in stone. So why not now? And why not like this? Just because it's sudden and you weren't expecting it, that doesn't mean anything. Look what happened to Daddy."   There was no refuting the logic of it. And bringing up my father was a major factor for me. He had died instantaneously of a massive heart attack at the age of 52, and I'm sure he never knew what hit him. Here one minute, gone the next. I was sixteen years old and along with the terrible shock and grief, it really drove the point home that any one of us can go at any time. Nobody operates with any guarantees here. That's not the way it works.  "You have to understand something," this part of me went on. "There are no rules now and anything can happen." It paused for a moment. "Face it. This really could be the end of the line for you. You very well might be dying." The weight of the reality of death began to sink into me like a ton of wet concrete sliding out of a cement mixer, and it rattled me to the core. Just a few minutes ago, I was facing the fear that I was might be going blind, and that was absolutely devastating. Still, you can learn how to live with it. Millions of people have. But while you can learn how to live with being blind, you can't learn how to live with being dead. No. This wasn't about coming to a major crossroads in my life. This was about coming to the actual end of it, and it was staggering. I was in a whole new world and I knew it.  I started to feel disoriented. "Oh my God!" was the last thing that came into my mind before it went blank. I think I went thoughtless, and it might have been for fifteen seconds, fifteen minutes, or even more.  In that state, who knows? Anyway, at some point, I could think again.  "Could it really be true?" I asked myself, soberly "I mean, could this really be it?" "Well, you can't rule it out," I answered myself. "Look, you've never experienced anything like this before. Things are obviously getting worse, and there's no telling where this might lead. Anything can happen. You just have to face facts."  "Yeah. Okay," I thought, still stunned.  "Listen, Dying isn't a question of 'if,' it's only a matter of 'when.' And as far as what it's going to be like when it actually does happen, well, nobody really knows that until they get there," the rational side said.  "Then you find out for sure."  It was obviously true. We have no idea of what our actual death is going to be like. We have no frame of reference for it. It's not like you're going to a new beach where you've never been before. But you know what to expect from a day at the beach, so you throw a bathing suit and a towel into a bag, grab a beach chair, and you're good to go. No, it's nothing like that. This is 100% uncharted territory. And although we may all have our ideas about it, that's all they are – just ideas.  At that point, I realized that I had no idea what to do. So, I just sat there, with this bizarre field of colored. fractal vision filling my head, whether my eyes were opened or closed. I was stuck. Checkmate.  Then something hard to describe happened. Call it a stroke of insight or a flash of intuition, but suddenly two critical points became unmistakably clear to me. And they were both seriously disconcerting.   The first one was that I knew for sure that I was in serious trouble and that my life was on the line. I knew that I very well might be dying and it was beyond any doubt to me. I had no further questions about it at all.  The second one was more subtle and much harder to grasp. I knew intuitively that some of the thoughts I had been thinking weren't actually coming from me. This little conversation that had been going on inside my mind wasn't just between me, myself, and I. I felt like there was something or someone else, a presence of some kind, speaking to me through the instrument of my own mind.  Now, the very idea that I was receiving some form of mental telepathy was deeply unnerving, to say the least, and I hoped I wasn't just losing my mind. I mean, after all, dying is bad enough, but I didn't want to go nuts on top of it.   It was quite an intense moment and a strong wave of anxiety washed over me. But still, almost within that wave, there was another feeling that was equally as strong. I felt that this presence, or whatever it was that was talking to me, was somehow familiar. It was like an old friend that I had forgotten so long ago that I didn't even have a distant memory of it. Just a vague feeling that I had forgotten something, but I couldn't remember what it was. The only thing I could remember was that I had forgotten. But whatever this thing was, I knew that I knew it.  I just didn't know how. It was too out of reach.   As this wave of familiarity kept radiating to me from just beyond my awareness, somehow, I could sense a rightness to it and something within me seemed to surrender to the situation. Any remaining doubts I had got set aside and I felt myself go all in. It felt uncomfortably strange, yet strangely comfortable at the same time.  "Ok, good," it finally said, seeming to respond to my new state of mind. "You're getting clear now. Stay as clear as you can. There may be a lot different things coming up for you soon, and clarity will help you stay focused on what's important. Clarity will keep you strong." Another long pause seemed to happen, then it continued, "So, you have to understand where things are now. You are coming to a major turning point." Somehow the level of communication had crystalized considerably. Like a cell phone that suddenly becomes static-free, my reception was much more clear.   "This truly is the possible end of your life on earth," it continued.  "And it's time to start wrapping things up. And at this point, one question becomes critically important for you."  We sat in silence for an endless moment of eternity. Then a very firm, but very kind voice, it asked me, "Are you ready?"   So that's the end of this episode. As always, keep your eyes, mind and heart opened, and let's get together in the next one.

Stephen Grootes chats with Mpumi Tyikwe on leadership in insurance, Warren Ingram on boosting your credit score, Tshepo Matlou on the rise of executive coaching, and Ian Mann on Steven Pinker’s Rationality and the value of clear thinking today. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stephen Grootes chats with Mpumi Tyikwe on leadership in insurance, Warren Ingram on boosting your credit score, Tshepo Matlou on the rise of executive coaching, and Ian Mann on Steven Pinker’s Rationality and the value of clear thinking today. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Ian Mann, Managing Director of Gateways Business Consultants, about Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters by Steven Pinker. In this conversation, Mann unpacks Pinker’s central argument that human progress depends on our ability to think clearly and base decisions on evidence rather than emotion or ideology. They explore why rational thinking appears to be in short supply in an age of misinformation, how cognitive biases cloud judgment, and why nurturing rationality is key to better leadership, policymaking, and everyday decision-making. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this captivating Halloween on Friday Night Live, 31 October 2025, philosopher Stefan Molyneux engages callers on critical topics, including the dangers of rejecting rational thought and the complexities of morality surrounding abortion. He emphasizes the importance of honesty in relationships and explores the dynamics of "nice guys." With a mix of humor and philosophical insight, the episode encourages listeners to reflect on their values and societal norms.SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Grandpa Bill & monthly Guest Byron Athene talk-Logic-Establishing the Core Conflict1.    "Defining the Gap": We've talked about the ideal of Formal Logic versus the reality of Human Logic. Can you explain that difference in terms of a clinical symptom? What does it look like when a patient's 'psychological logic' completely overrides objective reality, and how much emotional pain does that conflict cause?Logic in Modern Therapy (CBT)2.    "Cognitive Restructuring": Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is largely about identifying and challenging illogical thinking patterns. Could you give us a concrete example of a common cognitive distortion—like 'all-or-nothing thinking'—and walk us through how a therapist logically 'disproves' that internal rule for the client?Logic in Historical Therapy (Psychoanalysis)3.    "The Logic of Dreams": You mentioned Freud's Primary Process Logic which governs the unconscious. How is the 'logic' we see in a client's dreams or neurotic symptoms actually a form of illogical problem-solving for the unconscious mind, and how does tracing that 'logic' help the analyst?Logic and Development4.    "Regressing Under Stress": Piaget showed us that Formal Operational Logic (the ability to reason hypothetically) is a late developmental achievement. When an adult is under extreme stress or trauma, do they often emotionally or cognitively regress to a simpler, more concrete logic? And if so, how does that regression make their problems seem inescapable?Logic and Emotion5.    "The Logic of Feeling": Many people use the phrase, "It felt true, so it must be true." How do you help a client separate the validity of a feeling (the feeling itself is real) from the validity of the conclusion that feeling suggests?Cultural and Contextual Logic6.    "External Logic": Logic is often treated as purely internal, but how much is a person's 'logical' framework actually shaped by their family history, cultural background, or societal environment? Can a perfectly logical person in one culture be considered wildly illogical in another?7.    "Teaching the Logic Habit": For our listeners who want to start thinking more clearly and suffering less from their own internal illogic, what is one simple daily mental exercise or habit they can adopt to begin strengthening their Formal Logic muscles and challenge their ingrained cognitive biases?#ByronAthene, #Logic, #Philosophy, #CriticalThinking ,#LogicalFallacies, #Rationality, #Mindset, #SelfImprovement, #CognitiveBias, #YouTuberInterview, #Podcast, #GrowthMindset, #PersonalGrowth, #AppliedLogic,

Dr Karen Bauer examines how the Qurʾān unites intellect, emotion, and moral behaviour in a single vision of human virtue. Rejecting the modern separation between thought and feeling, she shows that Qurʾānic rationality is profoundly moral: to think rightly is to feel rightly and act justly. This podcast invites reflection on how the heart, mind, and ethics intertwine in Qurʾānic spirituality.

Professor Ali Fanaei compares the logic of juristic reasoning with everyday rationality, arguing that misunderstanding this relationship leads to flawed religious verdicts. He proposes a reconstruction of fiqh grounded in a more accurate model of how humans reason and justify beliefs. This talk bridges analytic philosophy and Islamic jurisprudence to advocate for rational legal reform.

In this talk, Professor Oliver Leaman cautions against overstating rationalism's place in Islamic law. Drawing on Qurʾānic narratives like Moses and Khidr, he argues that divine wisdom often transcends human reasoning. Leaman challenges the assumption that Islam fully aligns with modern liberal rationality, urging listeners to rethink how theological humility can coexist with intellectual inquiry in today's discourse on religion and law.

Standard economic theory informs how we think about business strategy and the economy and presumes that people are selfish, have well-defined preferences, and consistently make welfare-maximizing choices. In other words, we are rational. But what if that is not the case?Nobel Prize-winning economist Richard Thaler is out with an updated edition of his bestselling 1991 book, "The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life." In the new edition, he and his co-author Alex Imas (both professors at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business) reflect on the last thirty years of behavioral economics and how it makes sense of tensions between our psychological biases and impulses that make us less than fully rational in practice. Using a wealth of empirical evidence, the authors explore the behavioral anomalies that contradict the expectations of standard economic theory and explain a wide range of real-world examples from banking crises to social media addiction.Earlier this month, Thaler joined Bethany and Luigi for a sold-out Capitalisn't recording in front of a live audience in Chicago to walk through the anomalies of human behavior that have endured from biblical times to the age of Big Tech. Thaler reflects on how views and the adoption of behavioral economics have changed over the last thirty years, both within academia and beyond (wonder why you can't put down your phone? Silicon Valley has read Thaler). He also shares how behavioral economics can influence public policy from canceling “junk fees” and dubious subscriptions to deciding which parts of the Affordable Care Act to keep and which are unlikely to produce their desired outcomes. Over conversation, light banter, and audience Q&A, Thaler shares his views on the state of capitalism and reveals how there is no grand unified theory of human behavior that incorporates all its irrationalities—only departures from the standard model. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We talk with Max Harms on the air for the first time since 2017! He's got a new book coming out (pre-order your copy here or at Amazon) and we spend about the first half talking about If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. LINKS Max's first book, Crystal Society Eneasz's audiobook of about the first […]

Kelly welcomes Richard Thaler, the 2017 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, to the podcast along with his co-author, Professor Alex Imas, to talk about their updated version of Thaler’s seminal book “The Winner’s Curse.” “Rationality is an assumption in economics, not a demonstrated fact.”  “People are not thinking enough about what […]

Peter Schiff analyzes gold's surge, critiques Jamie Dimon's admission on gold's rationality, and discusses the impending dollar crisis.This episode is sponsored by Policygenius. Head to https://policygenius.com/gold to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.In this episode of The Peter Schiff Show, host Peter Schiff delves into the pressing realities of today's economic landscape, highlighting Jamie Dimon's recent admission regarding gold's significance in investment portfolios. Schiff discusses the meteoric rise of gold and silver, drawing parallels to historical economic shifts reminiscent of the 1970s. He provides critical insights into the dollar's declining status, the implications of global economic changes, and the stark contrast between gold and Bitcoin. As the market dynamics evolve, Schiff emphasizes the urgent need for investors to reconsider their positions, particularly as the risks associated with Bitcoin become increasingly apparent. Tune in for a comprehensive analysis that challenges mainstream narratives and reinforces Schiff's steadfast belief in the enduring value of gold.Chapters:00:00 Introduction and Opening Remarks00:55 Gold's Meteoric Rise and Media Attention01:56 Silver's Performance and Investment Advice03:55 Historical Context: 1970s vs. 2020s05:37 The Dollar Standard and Global Economic Shifts07:21 Jamie Dimon's Admission and Rationality of Gold09:56 Gold's Future and Wall Street's Realization20:31 Current Market Update and Urgent Investment Advice22:33 Comparing Gold and Bitcoin23:46 Fed Policies and Historical Perspectives25:05 China's Trade and Economic Position30:53 Bitcoin's Decline and Market Manipulation37:01 Closing Remarks and Upcoming Events34:27 Alan Greenspan's Perspective on Gold35:27 The Case for Investing in Gold Stocks38:53 China's Trade Dynamics and the US Relationship43:52 Bitcoin's Decline and the Rise of Gold01:00:01 Conclusion and Upcoming EventsFollow @peterschiffX: https://twitter.com/peterschiffInstagram: https://instagram.com/peterschiffTikTok: https://tiktok.com/@peterschiffofficialFacebook: https://facebook.com/peterschiffSign up for Peter's most valuable insights at https://schiffsovereign.comSchiff Gold News: https://www.schiffgold.com/newsFree Reports & Market Updates: https://www.europac.comBook Store: https://schiffradio.com/books#goldinvestment #bitcoincrash #marketupdateOur Sponsors:* Check out Aeropress and use my code GOLD for a great deal: https://aeropress.com* Check out Boll & Branch: https://boilandbranch.com/SCHIFF* Check out Boll & Branch: https://boilandbranch.com/SCHIFF* Check out Justin Wine and use my code SCHIFF20 for a great deal: https://www.justinwine.comPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dr. Angus Menuge of Concordia University-Wisconsin Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science The post The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche – Dr. Angus Menuge, 10/15/25 (2883) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Jay talks with us about finding Alpha – returns above the base rate – in every day life (and what this means). LINKS Optimize Everything, Jay's substack Jay on Twitter Arbor Trading Bootcamp Kelsey's argument that We Need To Be Able To Sue AI Companies 00:00:05 – Alpha with Jay 01:28:53 – Guild of the […]

For many decision scientists, their starting point—drawn from economics—is a quantitative formula called Rational Choice Theory, allowing people to calculate and choose the best options. The problem is that this framework assumes an overly simplistic picture of the world, in which different types of values can be quantified and compared, leading to the “most rational” choice. Behavioral economics acknowledges that irrationality is common but still accepts the underlying belief from economics of what a rational decision should look like.   Drawing from economics, psychology, and philosophy—and both inspired by and challenging Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow—Barry Schwartz shows how the focus on rationality, narrowly understood, fails to fully describe how we think about our decisions, much less help us make better ones. Barry Schwartz is professor emeritus of psychology at Swarthmore College and visiting professor at Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. His research and writing focus on the intersection of psychology and economics, particularly with regard to decision-making, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the nature of human values. His books include The Paradox of Choice, Why We Work, and (as coauthor) Practical Wisdom. His new book, co-authored with the philosopher Richard Schuldenfrei, is Choose Wisely: Rationality, Ethics, and the Art of Decision-Making.

In this episode James P. Dowling talks us through the unlikely friendship between physicist Wolfgang Pauli and psychologist Carl Jung. Their dialogue on quantum mechanics and archetypes pulled science and myth into the same room, forcing each to reckon with the other's language. Out of their exchanges came visions of atoms haunted by the unconscious, and shadows that reached into equations. We follow their conversation to ask what happens when reason and dream try to share the same desk.PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-showHOMEBREW MUSIC - Check out our new album!Hard Copies (Vinyl): FREE SHIPPING https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/products/vinyl-lp-secretary-of-nature-everything-is-so-good-hereStreaming:https://secretaryofnature.bandcamp.com/album/everything-is-so-good-hereJames' website: https://jungtoliveby.com/00:00 Go! 00:08:00 The Trickster Archetype and Personal Development00:12:00 Intuition and Rationality in Model Making00:16:00 Consequences of the Enlightenment and Modernity00:20:00 Historical Lessons from the French Revolution00:22:23 Discussion of Instinct vs. Rationality in Human Behavior00:24:12 The Role of Dopamine in Human Decision Making00:26:18 The Impact of Abandoning Symbolism in Modernity00:29:00 Motivation in Physics and the Pursuit of Glory00:33:26 The Dichotomy between Science and the Human Experience00:39:11 Integrating Jungian Concepts with Biology00:44:58 Discussing Jung's Word Association Test and Complexes00:50:12 Understanding Affect, Emotion, and Archetypes00:57:32 Jung's Methodology and Interpretation of Complexes01:05:12 Approaching Jungian Concepts in Personal Development01:07:33 The Quest for Identity and Self-Reflection01:09:37 Generational Differences in Self-Concept01:16:52 Life Stages and the Search for Meaning01:19:10 The Duality of Growth and Identity01:25:09 The Healing Power of Creativity01:28:31 Creative Participation as a Human Experience01:32:06 Internet's Dual Role in Creativity01:36:23 Understanding Creativity and Instinct01:39:51 Renaissance vs. Revolution in Institutions01:41:53 Engaging with the Unconscious Mind01:46:47 Shifting Perspectives on Artistic Process01:48:52 Discussion on Competing Teams in Science01:52:34 The Tradition and Lineage in Science01:56:12 Creativity and Glory in Scientific Pursuits02:04:36 The Nature of Truth and Scientific Frameworks02:09:43 Cultural Narratives in Science and AI Development02:10:29 Exploration of Myth and Reality02:12:06 Darwin's Legacy and Evolutionary Theory02:16:52 Archetypes and Scientific Paradigms02:19:14 The Role of Mathematics in Physics02:23:39 Understanding the Limits of Rational Inquiry02:27:24 Simulation Theory and Metaphysical Speculation02:32:05 The Interplay of Mathematics and Experience02:33:00 Exploration of Human Psyche and Evolutionary Perspectives02:36:12 Jung's Insights on Individual Calling and Collective Responsibility02:39:01 Invitation to Further Exploration and Collaborative Learning#jungianpsychology, #quantummechanics, #carljung, #archetypes, #depthpsychology, #unconsciousmind, #psychoanalysis, #philosophypodcast , #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcastMERCH: Rock some DemystifySci gear : https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/AMAZON: Do your shopping through this link: https://amzn.to/3YyoT98DONATE: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaDSUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@UCqV4_7i9h1_V7hY48eZZSLw@demystifysci RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rssMAILING LIST: https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with and who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence.   Episode reading list Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, . Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg's Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304. Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, . Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond ‘the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765. Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, .   

We continue discussing Nostalgebraist's “The Void” in the context of how to relate to LLMs. If God imagines Claude hard enough, does Claude become real? LINKS The Void Audio reading of The Void, from AskWho The referenced episode where the three of us spoke of Janus's post “Simulators” Claude-Clark post – Simulacra Welfare: Meet Clark, by […]

Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker shares five key insights from his brand new book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows. He reveals how “common knowledge” — the hidden force of knowing what others know — shapes everything from financial bubbles and political revolutions to why we say “Netflix and chill.” Then we revisit our 2021 conversation with Steve about rationality, where he explains why smart people believe dumb things, why we're terrible at assessing risk, and how our species can be both brilliantly rational and spectacularly irrational at the same time. ——— Want to connect?

Michael Vassar is a futurist philosopher who believes that our civilization has lost the ability to think clearly, as the result of a silent project to destroy education that has been running in the background for generations. At the core of his argument is that the modern world has been shaped by elites interested in taking over the world. Interestingly, he seems to think that this multi-generational plan has backfired, and produced a society where there is a vanishingly small number of people even capable of formulating such grand ambitions, let alone possess the cognitive abilities to execute on their plans. We talk through his argument, and start to unpack some lore about the Rationalists, an online community that openly pursues the ideals of the enlightenment but can't stop spawning cults for some reason. PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-showHOMEBREW MUSIC - Check out our new album!Hard Copies (Vinyl) FREE SHIPPING: https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/products/vinyl-lp-secretary-of-nature-everything-is-so-good-hereStreaming:https://secretaryofnature.bandcamp.com/album/everything-is-so-good-here00:00 Go!00:07:30 Intentionality in Modern Social Structures00:10:00 Media and Perception of Disasters00:12:00 The Roller Coaster Metaphor for Society00:15:00 Erosion of Critical Thinking Abilities00:21:00 Historical Perspectives on Independent Thought00:24:43 Understanding Literature and Its Interpretation00:27:02 Institutional Influence on Thought00:28:35 Market Influence on Power Dynamics00:30:40 Rise of Constitutional Monarchy00:32:17 Comparison of French and English Systems00:37:34 Education and Governance in Germany00:40:11 Historical Context of Education Systems00:42:12 Power Dynamics in Thought and Organization00:46:04 Democracy and Its Challenges00:50:55 Displacement of Romanticism and Specialness00:55:36 Modernism and Institutional Hierarchies01:00:06 The Erosion of Common Law Principles01:05:50 Discretion in the American Legal System01:10:03 Pragmatism's Influence on Legal Thought01:13:10 Bureaucracy versus Common Law01:16:01 The Mythos of American Governance01:17:12 Discussion on Interpretation and Unintended Consequences01:21:25 Cultural Narratives and Their Influence01:29:51 Education and Its Role in Society01:37:03 Historical Context of Educational Systems01:40:54 The Role of Institutional Thinking01:42:30 Economic Control and Marketing Narratives01:44:06 The Rationalist Movement01:52:17 Mistake Theory vs. Conflict Theory01:59:04 Conspiracy Theories and Truth02:07:54 Whistleblowing vs. Conspiracy Theory02:12:03 The Nature of Evidence and Conspiracy Theories02:18:34 Cultural Dynamics of Belief and Inquiry02:23:43 Justice, Honor, and Social Dynamics02:30:58 Rationalism and the Quest for Truth02:33:37 Rationality and Accountability in the Community02:36:40 Justice and Honor in Rational Discourse02:46:10 Power Dynamics and Rationality02:54:00 The Nature of Power and the Human Condition02:59:45 Insights on Ideology and Courage in Pursuit03:02:03 Pursuit of Radical Life Extension#philosophy , #futuristic , #rational , #idw , #criticalthinking , #society , #aistory , #historyfacts , #cultures , #economics , #historyoflaw #legal #powerful , #innovations #philosophypodcast , #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcastMERCH: Rock some DemystifySci gear : https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/AMAZON: Do your shopping through this link: https://amzn.to/3YyoT98DONATE: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaDSUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@UCqV4_7i9h1_V7hY48eZZSLw@demystifysci RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rssMAILING LIST: https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

Getting along in society requires that we mostly adhere to certainly shared norms and customs. Often it's not enough that we all know what the rules are, but also that everyone else knows the rules, and that they know that we know the rules, and so on. Philosophers and game theorists refer to this as common knowledge. In Steven Pinker's new book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows..., he explores how common knowledge (or its absence) explains money, power, and a wide variety of subtextual human interactions.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2025/09/22/329-steven-pinker-on-rationality-and-common-knowledge/Support Mindscape on Patreon.Steven Pinker received his Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University. He is currently the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. He is the author of several best-selling books and recipient of several honorary doctoral degrees. Among his awards are Humanist of the Year (two different organizations) and the William James Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for Psychological Science.Web siteHarvard web pageGoogle Scholar publicationsAmazon author pageWikipediaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We discuss Nostalgebraist's “The Void” in the context of how to relate to LLMs. “When you talk to ChatGPT, who or what are you talking to?” LINKS The Void Audio reading of The Void, from AskWho The referenced episode where the three of us spoke of Janus's post “Simulators” The Measure of a Man episode […]

Audio reading of The Void, from AskWho

Fine Tuning, Consciousness, & Morality Finishing up on the 5 things science can't explain: Fine Tuning, Consciousness, & Morality. In a "physical only" science setting these ideas are best left alone. It winds up either with no reason to hold anyone accountable for anything or the need to discard scientism and possibly let theism into the picture. GASP! TIMELINE: 00:00 - Introduction 01:05 - Can't Explain 3 - Fine Tuning 04:40 - Naturalists Attempt To Explain Away Fine Tuning 06:57 - The Destruction Of The Multiverse Theory 09:45 - Can't Explain 4 - Origin Of Consciousness 12:13 - Science Fails To Provide An Explanation Of Mental States 13:54 - Science Fails To Provide An Explanation Mind-Body Relationship 17:12 - Why Science Fails At Mind-Body Relationship Explanation 20:31 - Can't Explain 5 - Morality, Rationality, & Esthetic Laws 23:54 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Scientism and Secularism - Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology by J.P. Moreland Kindle Paperback Audible (FREE With Membership) Logos J.P. Moreland Website       All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Thank you for joining us for this in-depth solo lecture from Dr. John Vervaeke, where he continues his exploration of cognition, meaning, and spirit from the perspective of relevance realization and predictive processing. In this talk, John takes us on a journey through the architecture of the mind, explaining how voluntary necessity, scientific idealization, and porous participation form the basis of how we understand ourselves and the world. He unpacks the imaginal dimension of cognition, the deep entanglement of anticipation and rationality, and how the fellowship of the spirit provides an existential framework for collective meaning-making. Drawing from philosophers like Spinoza, Merleau-Ponty, Charles Taylor, and William Desmond, and cognitive scientists like Carl Friston and Andy Clark, John interweaves modern theory with ancient insight to offer a profound vision of how reason, imagination, and love can coexist. Shownotes: 00:00 – Introduction and Opening Remarks 01:17 – Welcoming Remarks 02:59 – The Role of Idealization in Science 04:23 – Predictive Processing and Meta Problems 05:59 – Anticipation and Relevance Realization 16:15 – Opponent Processing and Optimal Grip 20:13 – The Imaginal and Rationality 23:03 – Relevance Realization and Enlightenment Rationality 23:31 – The Dichotomies of Modernity 25:31 – Voluntary Necessity Explained 28:39 – The Role of Faith and Spirit 31:41 – The Levels of Human Existence 41:19 – The Power of Community and Shared Meaning 50:44 – Fellowship of the Spirit 1:12:00 – Closing Reflections on Community as Icon of Reality Referenced Works and Concepts: Books and Authors: "True Enough" – Catherine Elgin "Sources of the Self" and "A Secular Age" – Charles Taylor "Phenomenology of Perception" – Maurice Merleau-Ponty "Ethics" – Spinoza (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3800) "The Reasons of Love" – Harry Frankfurt "The Construction of Social Reality" – John Searle "Being and the Between" – William Desmond Thinkers and Researchers: Carl Friston – Free Energy Principle Andy Clark – Predictive Mind Eric Hoel – Consciousness and Science Michael Levin – Bioelectric Cognition Dan Chiappe – Reasoning and Dialogue Mark Miller – Relevance Realization Anderson Deasy & John Geiger – Sensed Presence Core Concepts: Predictive Processing Relevance Realization 4E Cognition (Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Extended) Voluntary Necessity Imaginal Participation Opponent Processing Internal Family Systems (IFS) Narrative Selfhood Fellowship of the Spirit Related Series and Resources: Awakening from the Meaning Crisis: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLND1JCRq8VujfYQ-00pT-6pTOm4q-rz1c Philosophical Silk Road: https://www.youtube.com/@johnvervaeke Explore Further: The Vervaeke Foundation is committed to advancing the scientific pursuit of wisdom and creating a significant impact on the world. Learn more: https://vervaekefoundation.org/ To engage in regular practices informed and endorsed by John, visit Awaken to Meaning: https://awakentomeaning.com/join-practice/ Follow John Vervaeke: Website: https://johnvervaeke.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/vervaeke_john YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@johnvervaeke Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke

Michael Hughes is a biochemist, water researcher and friend of the podcast with a passion for philosophy, mythology, and esoteric traditions. In this conversation, we explore the historical tension between priesthood and prophecy, the way science has replaced religion as a cultural authority, and ask why no society has ever thrived without a shared mythos. The discussion touches on mythology as a guiding force, Rudolf Steiner's spiritual dualism, the balance between materialism and mysticism, the promises and failures of technology, transhumanism, and AI. We also dive into the rise of UFOs and alien narratives as new messianic myths, the enduring metaphor of Atlantis, and the possibility of building a functional metaphysical framework for chaotic times.PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-showOUR HOMEBREWED MUSICCheck out our band's new album:https://secretaryofnature.bandcamp.com/album/everything-is-so-good-hereVinyl pre-orders available now: https://buy.stripe.com/14A5kC3Od5d21Ms7zPdEs0900:00 Go! The Search for Balance Between Science and Mysticism00:06:30 The Relationship of Priesthood and Prophecy00:10:03 Transformation from Paganism to Christianity00:12:21 Sci as a New Symbol for Faith00:16:14 Sci and Mysticism: Historical Intersections00:20:20 Prophecy and Control: Historical Perspectives00:22:50 The Hidden Influences on Decision-Making00:25:10 The Role of Priests and Prophecy in Society00:28:12 Mythology as a Guiding Force00:30:43 The Evolution of Responsibility and Power Dynamics00:34:12 Science and the Inherent Mysticism of Existence00:39:06 Bridging Sci and Cultural Mythos00:42:46 The Limitations of Sci in Guiding Societal Values00:45:22 Concern Over Shared Spiritual Mythos00:49:40 The Role of Sci and Historical Patterns00:53:05 The Promises of Technology vs. Reality00:57:00 The Spiritual Purpose of Work01:03:39 Balancing Spiritual and Material Forces01:06:22 Spiritual Dualism and Human Experience01:11:58 Evolving Beyond Human Limitations01:17:29 Human Evolution and Hierarchies01:20:29 Contrasting Human Futures01:27:32 Exploring Individuality and Collective Evolution01:31:40 The Relationship Between Humanity and Technology01:37:00 The Eighth Sphere and Human Creation01:48:09 Discussion on the Limitations of AI and Technology01:52:05 The Concept of God and the Future of Human Guidance01:56:44 The Alien Narrative as a New Messianic Perspective02:06:10 Evolution of the Alien Narrative and Historical Context02:09:00 Alien Identities and Historical Parallels02:12:00 Sci Narratives and New Myths02:15:00 Alien Myths vs. Human Agency02:20:00 Atlantis as Metaphor for Human Evolution02:25:00 Emergence of New Mythologies02:29:00 Ecosystems and Spiritual Understanding02:29:35 Exploring the Concept of God and Personal Responsibility02:32:38 The Role of the Messiah in Human Narratives02:37:03 Intersecting Personal Stories and Sci Endeavors02:40:02 Community Engagement and Future Initiatives #philosophy , #mythology, #spiritualguidance , #atheism , #historyuncovered , #civilization ,#futuretech , #society , #psychologytricks , #mysticism , #mythology , #uap , #aliens, #philosophypodcast , #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast

I asked my AI app to speak as the ultimate philosopher/psychologist. I want you to blend ancient wisdom with modern science, stoicism, Jung, neuroscience, all of it. Now give me five brutal truths about the human mind. The kind of truths people need to hear if they want to stop wasting their life.

Professor of electrical engineer and computer science Ben Recht joins us to defend Bayesianism, AI doom, and assure us that the statisticians have everything under control. Just kidding. Recht might be even more suspicious of these things than we are. What has statistics ever done for us, really? When was the last time YOU ran a clinical trial after all, huh? HUH? After Ben Chugg defends his life decision to do a PhD in statistics, we talk AI, cults, philosophy, Paul Meehl, and discuss Ben Recht's forthcoming book, The Irrational Decision (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691272443/the-irrational-decision). Check out Ben's blog (https://www.argmin.net/), website (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~brecht/), and his story about machine learning (https://mlstory.org/). We discuss Ben Recht's theory of blogging Why is Berkeley the epicenter of AI doom? Where the word "robot" came from Is Bayesian reasoning responsible for AI doom? Paul Meehl and his contributions to science Ben Recht's bureaucratic theory of statistics What on earth is null hypothesis testing? What is the point of statistics? "Sweet spots" and "small worlds" Does science proceed by Popperian means? Can Popper get around the Duhem-Quine problem? Errata The z-score for the Pfizer trial was 20, not 12! References Argmin (https://www.argmin.net/), Ben Recht's blog David Freedman, UC Berkeley (https://statistics.berkeley.edu/about/biographies/david-freedman) Paul Meehl's online course (https://www.youtube.com/@michaelmcgovern8633/featured) Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology (https://errorstatistics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/meehl-1978.pdf), Paul Meehl's 1978 paper. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-21565-000), by Meehl On the near impossibility of estimating the returns to advertising (https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/ICT2013/Papers/ICT2013_Rao.pdf) A Bureaucratic Theory of Statistics (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.03457) by Recht The new riddle of induction (https://fitelson.org/confirmation/goodman_1955.pdf) by Goodman Announcing the Irrational Decision (https://www.argmin.net/p/announcing-the-irrational-decision) Patterns, Predictions, and Actions (https://mlstory.org/), textbook by Ben Recht and Moritz Hardt Socials Follow us on Twitter at @BeenWrekt, @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) What's Berkeley's next cult? Send your guess over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com Special Guest: Ben Recht.

Do we need to be concerned for the welfare of AIs today? What about the near future? Eleos AI Research is asking exactly that. LINKS Eleos AI Research People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners Bees Can't Suffer? Lena, by qntm When AI Seems Conscious Experience Machines, Rob's substack The War on General Computation […]

Dr. Angus Menuge of Concordia University-Wisconsin Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science The post The Philosophy of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – Dr. Angus Menuge, 8/26/25 (2383) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

A Critique of Practicing the Way, Part 18 - Spirituality Divorced from Rationality, presented by Bob DeWaay and Barb Gretch. John Mark Comer claims that the most important goal of apprenticeship is being with Jesus - being aware of His presence and hearing His voice. We also refute Comer's claim that we can "live in the moment-by-moment flow of love within the Trinity." (duration 00:24:19) Click here to play

Andrew Willsen tells us how incorporating as a church allows you to navigate modernity, and gives us the basic steps to doing so. LINKS Andrew's church substack – The Church of the Infinite Game To incorporate in CA file ARTS-PB-501(c)(3) … Continue reading →

The conversation delves into the themes of animation and live-action adaptations, focusing on 'How to Train Your Dragon' and its impact on cinema. The hosts discuss character dynamics, particularly the relationship between Hiccup and Stoic, and the importance of staying true to the source material. They explore the emotional depth provided by soundtracks and the significance of mentorship through Gobber. The Trial of Flame marks a pivotal moment in Hiccup's growth and self-discovery, underscoring the broader themes of identity and belonging. In this conversation, the hosts delve into the themes of the live-action adaptation of 'How to Train Your Dragon,' exploring character motivations, societal expectations, and the bond between Hiccup and Toothless. They discuss the portrayal of Astrid, the trials faced by Hiccup, and the complexities of Stoic's parenting style. The conversation highlights the emotional depth of the story and the challenges of adapting beloved characters to a new medium. "In case you forgot, our parents' war is about to become ours. Figure out what side you're on." - Astrid Join hosts Chase and Kyle as they dive into the magical world of "How to Train Your Dragon" in this exciting first part of their series. Explore the rich character development, breathtaking visuals, and the heartwarming bond between Hiccup and Toothless. Discover why this franchise is a generational staple and how it continues to captivate audiences with its enchanting storytelling and iconic soundtrack. Don't miss this deep dive into the Isle of Berk and the adventures that await! #HTTYD #Podcast #Fantasy #FactOrFantasy Takeaways The conversation explores the evolution of animation to live-action adaptations. Hiccup's character represents the struggle between personal identity and societal expectations. The importance of staying true to the source material in adaptations is emphasized. Soundtracks play a crucial role in enhancing the emotional depth of films. The dynamic between Hiccup and Stoic highlights the complexities of father-son relationships. The Trial of Flame serves as a pivotal moment for character development. Hiccup's journey reflects a broader theme of self-discovery and acceptance. The role of Gobber as a mentor showcases the importance of guidance in growth. The film's portrayal of dragons challenges traditional narratives about them. The conversation concludes with reflections on the themes of identity and belonging. The society of dragon killers values strength over kindness. Hiccup's design for Toothless' tail fin showcases his ingenuity. Astrid's aggressive demeanor reflects her struggles and ambitions. Hiccup's intellectual approach sets him apart from his peers. The trials of flame serve as a backdrop for character development. The bond between Hiccup and Toothless is central to the story. Hiccup's innovations lead to his success in the trials. Teamwork is essential in overcoming challenges. Stoic's parenting style reflects his fears and pressures. The discovery of the dragon's nest raises the stakes for Hiccup and Astrid. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Themes 05:07 Box Office Success and Audience Expectations 10:44 The Role of Soundtracks in Film 16:26 The Dynamics of the Viking Community 22:26 Character Development and Performance 28:09 The Night Fury and Its Symbolism 34:56 Hiccup's Struggles and the Village's Expectations 40:41 Father-Son Dynamics: Stoic and Hiccup 53:12 The Trial of Flame: Hiccup's Reluctance 58:41 The Emotional Bond: Hiccup and the Night Fury 01:10:04 The Dragon Killers' Society 01:15:16 Hiccup's Rationality vs. Astrid's Emotion 01:27:56 Hiccup's Innovations for Toothless 01:34:34 Trials of Flame and Teamwork 01:42:26 Hiccup's Rise as a Dragon Rider 01:47:47 The Trial of Flame Results 01:52:56 The Discovery of the Dragon's Nest 01:57:57 Favorite Scenes and Character Dynamics 02:10:27 Stoick's Parenting Style: Justified or Not? 02:18:46 Overall Impressions of the Film

Struggling with financial decisions that don't make sense? Feeling lost in a world of economic uncertainty, skyrocketing debt, and distrust in institutions?

In this episode, I tackle audience questions, starting with George St. Peterson's role in the Russia-Ukraine war and the importance of diverse opinions. I discuss the potential resurgence of Christianity in the West, emphasizing the need to apply rationality to moral discussions. I explore the influence of childhood experiences on ethics and offer insights on co-parenting with an irresponsible partner, stressing the social context of relationship choices. Additionally, I analyze how welfare programs impact family dynamics and accountability and confront the complexities of free speech in incendiary contexts. Finally, I reflect on originality in thought-sharing and encourage critical engagement with ideas amid widespread misinformation, expressing gratitude for the audience's support in navigating these discussions together.FOLLOW ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxGET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025