 Okay. You have something. Yeah, sure. So, maybe you can change the subject a bit and stay in the realms of philosophy. Can you tell us a little bit about the objectivist position on free will? Sure. I mean, the objectivist position is that free will is a foundational idea. It's an action matter concept. You kind of, you directly observe it. There's no proof of it. You can't prove existence. You can't prove free will. Free will is there. It is also, you know, one of the features of an axiom is that in order to try to disprove it, you have to use its existence. Same with free will. It is the foundation of what reason is and what thinking is and what reasoning means. It means engaging a certain faculty. We have this faculty of reason. Every one of us knows we can turn it off. When you wake up in the morning, you're kind of fuzzy. You know, it's tempting not to think, not to focus. And that's a certain state that some people stay in. They never turn it on. But that turning on is an act of will. That's the foundational idea or that's the essence of what free will means. It means turning on the observational faculty, the integrating faculty, the faculty that actually thinks, that does cognition, that integrates, that acts. And that is something we all can observe in ourselves. We can always observe turning it off sometimes. You know, I don't want to think now. And literally shutting it down or engaging with it. Or engaging it, right? And that's the essence. Free will is not about, did I lift my finger now and did I will the finger? Yeah, I mean in the sense I'm willing the finger to rise. But that's not the essential feature of free will. The essential feature of free will is that turning on and off, what's uniquely a human consciousness. That is, animals can't do that. Animals are in focus because their survival depends on it. And they don't have the ability to turn it on and off. Human beings, we're the only real animal that can commit suicide on a, you know, we can turn it off. We can decide we're not interested. We decide we don't want to think. We can take our tools of survival. Our one tool of survival is our reason and we can shut it down. A cheetah doesn't shut down speed. It doesn't say, oh, today I'm going to run slowly to catch the prey. It can't do that. It's an automatic play. We're not an automatic. There's something that makes us uniquely human, which is that ability to switch it on or off. So what is it about the Marxists? They don't seem to grasp that or do they just, is it some sort of cognitive distance where they go, there's no such thing as free will. You are basically your environment. Well, it's not just a Marxist. It's everybody today, right? I mean, there's almost nobody in psychology or philosophy who believes in free will anymore. Not in a real free will. So they come up with, you know, we all have an illusion of free will or pretend to have free will. But psychology, the study of free will in a sense and how it applies to human consciousness and human cognition and then emotions and behavior and all of that. If you reject free will, you've rejected the whole field. There's no field of psychology if you reject free will in my view. What are you trying to change? If people can't change, will themselves to change, then what are you changing? So, you know, anybody from Sam Harris, who I'm sure everybody knows, is against free will to many modern-day philosophers, to people who present themselves as scientists because all they can think of is atoms banging against each other, you know, kind of Hume's billiard balls. That's all they can think of. Causality is just billiard balls bouncing around. I mean, there's a massive number of people who reject free will. And of course these arguments about free will go back to the Greeks. They go back to the beginnings of philosophy. And, you know, Marx is just one among many. And he took much of this from Hegel. You know, history is in a sense determined. It's this clash of forces. It's mostly nonsense. And it's interesting that people write long treaties about how you should behave in this way, not even though they don't believe that you're going to choose to behave that way. I guess they believe that their words will automatically move you in that direction. But then that's a very cynical view and why did they write them? Because why did they care if you don't have free will? I just don't get it. Why would I care? Why would anything matter? Why would I be doing an interview right now? Instead of talking to the curtains, you know? You reminded me of an anecdote mentioning Sam Harris. I was not long ago away with my brother for my dad's 80th birthday. And I was listening to a podcast from Sam Harris and I could have almost threw down the headphones and I turned to my brother and said, it's so annoying because Sam Harris is an advocate of meditation, right? And one of the things he says is if you pay attention significantly, then you'll be able to observe that everything just arises spontaneously in your head and you don't have any free will. And I was like, who are you asking to observe? Who are you asking to dissolve and observe at? If you observe carefully, then you discover there's now you all just one. Who can you observe, you not being you? The whole thing is gobble-goo, right? And he's a guy who advocates for reason and logic and yet these arguments are illogical in a simple way. This is not even complicated. I actually used the Randian term to describe it, which is the stolen concept. Because how can you say to someone, relax and just observe your mind and you'll see things arise? Who are you telling? It requires free will for someone to be able to take upon themselves that action. Exactly. And we can all observe free will again by introspecting. And just like the only proof that there's a chair there, and I have to describe what a chair is, but there's a chair that is pointing at the chair. That's all the proof I need. Look, it has these characteristics and everybody can see the chair. The only proof regarding free will that is necessary is point at your own consciousness. I can't point at yours. I can only point at mine. The observational evidence is all you need to be able to say, yeah, I do it. I can control my own behavior. I can control my own mind. I can turn my mind on and off. Which is why we punish criminals because they say you have a choice. There's no meaning to morality. There's no meaning to anything else. I mean, you could argue that there's a meaning to law in the sense that we punish them in order to save us. It's a kind of utilitarian argument. But there's no meaning to morality if you don't have free will. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women's or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broods. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity to go to www.uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to www.subscribestar.com www.uranbrookshow.com and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next...